LDS Church reacts to the passing of Proposition 8
Three states passed amendments banning gay marriage yesterday: California, Arizona and Florida. California's Proposition 8 had attention here because leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints urged their members to become involved. November 5th, 2008 @ 5:03pm
Sorry, we are not accepting new comments on this story.
Keep government out of the bedroom-better watch out they may ban what ever it is that you do in the privicy of your own bedroom.
what does it matter if a gay couple wants to show their love for their partner with a ceremony-its only a ceremony-get off your high horse
what would Jesus do?
'Tail.
God does NOT like handicapped people. Handicapped people could not approach God. Their presence would profane his sanctuary. (Lev 21:16-23) This scripture single-handedly offends almost every category of handicapped persons you can name. The blind, lame, injured, hunchbacks and dwarfs are specifically named. If anyone is left out, the catchall phrase "anyone with a blemish" is thrown in to cover them. I guess in Israel, the handicapped parking stalls were at the far end of the parking lot.
So then come one now. Let's rally together and get rid of the handicapped people's right's too, bnecause God does not like them blemished people!
I am so sick of people using the Bible to justify their position while leaving out all of the other horrible things the Bible says is "right and wrong".
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/5/33,62#33
God voted against gay marriage. Deal with it.
'Tail.
Um...so what you are implying is God makes Junk when it comes to the gays? Oh, I guess "the" church is God?
How many Mormons, are pediphilles, adulters, and child molesters, yet if you are one to wear "magic underware," you are better than the rest? Right...this has not been my dealings after 3 marriages to Mormons, including a Stake President. B
While some may use their membership and activity to self qualify themselves to a higher level, that is not what they are taught.
You are making the common mistake that Mormons think that they are better than anyone else. Some do, many do not. Those who truly follow the teachings of Christ realize with humility their mortal failings and mourn them and also mourn for the failings of others and the turmoil it causes in their lives.
are you saying that homosexuality is a handicap?
Usually when somebody states that something is not what it looks like....it really is what it looks like.
Hmmmm. What a lousy argument.
"I don't think that anyone should have any right to decide who you can and cannot marry."
just as soon as you put as much effeort defending the right for gay and lesbians to marry as you put into giving polygamists the right to marry who they want.
One problem I have is that there seems to be many people who support gay marriage but will not support polygamy. How hypocritical is that? The only way the gay marriage supporters will truely be fighting for human marriage rights will be if they include polygamy on the table of issues.
Lev.18
[22] Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Lev.20
[13] If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
God already judged the "lifestyle choice", He condemned it.
However, please listen to my point of view:
You are right about what happens in the bedroom being your own business..it definitely is. People have their agency and that is a beautiful thing.
But, asking to have marriage be between man and man, or woman and woman or...anything else, is taking it out of the bedroom.
When something becomes a law, it can be taught at public schools. What happens when "sex education" takes on a whole new meaning?
This is where democracy is so wonderful. People are able to vote on what should and should not become "law".
I, for one, am NOT apposed to people having the right to a legal binding contract that gives the couple legal rights.
But, I do think that marriage (the word marriage and all that it entails) is sacred and has been ordained of God. And I think that Jesus believes that, too.
Respectfully,
Please read up on Sodom and Gomorrah and you will know exactly what Christ would do.
Come on, man.
You have voted Obama into the Presidency under the false notion that he will bring balance to the force or something. I think you'll be sorry to find it's all force and no balance.
I think Obama will choke on his "change" promises and will hopefully be gone after 4 years without appointing too many activist judges. Of course, the American people may be too dumb to notice when he does choke--they voted him into office so that's not saying a whole lot about the intelligence level in this country. It could be a long 8 years. :P
Thank you.
juan@juansoriginalart.com
Marriage is available to all. A homosexual can marry any person of the opposite sex, just like any heterosexual can not marry a person of the same sex.
Again, your poor arguments are decimated by facts.
The queer people hijacked the word "Gay". Many groups have done the same thing to perfectly good words over the years to soften their cause.
Queer people are far from gay. The one's I have been around are always whining about something.
I think the term "Queer" is a perfect word for this group of people. Look it up in the dictionary. It's a perfect fit.
Sk8boy
Heterosexual couples still engage in some creepy sex practices, and I wopuld never morally accept them either.
We're judged for our own sins. God (if he/she even exsists)is the main Judge so why can't humans make their own mistakes without other people mandating what they want you to do or not do?!
Banning gay marriage because some ancient book said some invisible man in the sky said he abhorred it is bordering insanity. Christian's only make up less than 1% of religious followings. Those who don't believe are ebing force to follow these "Christian's" biblical laws, they are being forced to follow a religious moral code that not everyone believes in.
Mormon's still practice spiritual polygamay and have been told by their past prophet's that polygamy will return and they will be asked to follow it. Of course if they don't they can kiss that Celestial Dream good-bye.
I'm sure if Romney had been voted in (ha ha ha) then the Prophet would have tried pushing for the legalization of Polygamy so this doctrine would be restored to the one true church.
Yes, God is the ultimate judge, but I don't want homos pushing their sexuality onto me, and I'm sure as it obviously is agreed upon, that others don't want that either.
So try and get a clue and until you can say something intelligent, and that has some truth behind it, then don't say anything.
but regardless, the LDS Church is not trying to mainstream the doctrines to be taught in schools, courts, etc. They worship how they will and give other people the same right.
So gay people, please go about being gay. BUT STOP TRYING TO CRAM IT DOWN everyone's throat and make it apart of mainstream society.
We can all live being able to believe what we want, in peace.
San Fransisco.
Remember...Hetero's give birth to Homosexuals.
If you disagree that this should not have been voted on, you are welcomed to say so.
It will be strikingly similar to other "revelations" that eliminated polygamy, gave blacks the priesthood, and altered sacred temple ceremonies. Three things that "prophets" once said were part of gospel doctrine and were perfect practices.
Sorry LDS bashers, some of your arguments have been taken away today.
I wonder what percentage of yes for 8 votes were actually LDS voters. If anyone knows I would like to know.
By banning gay marriage we are hurting normal people who simply have different sexual preferences. They are not campaigning to push for others to be gay or trying to "indoctrinate" others with their beliefs, they just want to live their lives and enjoy the same rights as everyone else.
The only thing they don't have (as far as I'm aware; I'd appreciate feedback if I'm wrong) is teachers teaching this in schools, and this union being defined as "marriage". That's about it.
In the state where this distinction has not been made, gay and lesbian unions have NOT been idly sitting by, and HAVE made pushes to "indoctrinate" others in their beliefs -- pushing, through "court legislation", religions to marry them or lose tax-exempt status, schools to teach their union as normal or lose their government funding, and many other mandates.
Thus, I can't see anything else their fighting for other than legitimacy recognized by the state and the education system, which leads to "indoctrination".
This fight is not going away any time soon. I think yesterdays vote in California will be challenged(lawsuits are in the works) and it will go all the way to the U.S. supreme court. And after they rule it's unconstitutional to discriminate against a group of people, the fight will continue.
If we add their structure to this list, what will happen? Most on both sides feel (myself included) that it would lead to a legitimization of homosexuality; which many gays/lesbians want, and many conservatives don't. It's pretty simple to define what most informed people know about -- this isn't a "rights" issue, it's an education/ideological issue.
If you really feel it is okay, then you will pay for it in the next life. Life should not be based on your sexual prefference. It should be based on morals. No matter what you homos say, it is immorral for you to be homos. The rest of the PEOPLE recognize that, it's time you do too!
By the way... Are any of these recommendations bad things? As I recall, Daniel in the Bible lived a health code his religion subscribed to as well. Perhaps you should condemn him also...
Quite the opposite is true. It is often discouraged.
The fact that some members drink caffeinated beverages, myself included, only demonstrates that some of us, are perhaps, weaker than the ideal saint. I know many that do not touch the stuff. I wish I could say the same.
Through the Prophet, the Lord gives us directions. But as members of the church, we are allowed to exercise our freedom. This is why I believe some of the LDS members will have mixed feelings about issues in the world. From moral issues, war, education, etc.
I question sometimes why it's so easy for most people in christianity to believe in the prophets of the Bible, but not believe in prophets of modern times. But then again, there were those in the Bible that also rejected and didn't believe them. And even then was Christ also rejected.
I'm not perfect in any way, but I try. And I respect other peoples opinions and beliefs.
BTW-I love cherry Pepsi!
If gay is wrong, so is polygamy right. So if polygamy was wrong, Joseph Smith was wrong, So he got everything right but that, huh. Why is every aspect of his life so important, except he couldn't be faithful. Yeah, I guess Joseph Smith knew all about love.
THE LDS CHURCH DOES NOT CONDONE POLYGAMY. POLYGAMY IS NOT A PART OF THE LDS RELIGION. ANY POLYGAMISTS OUT THERE ARE NOT A PART OF THE LDS CHURCH - IF THIS WAS DISCOVERED, THEY WOULD BE EXCOMMUNICATED.
Pretty sure everyone should stop holding that over the Church. Try to let go of the past. Times have changed. If you're going to condemn the Church for something you don't agree with, condemn them for something that is in practice today.
If times have changed, why hasn't the Bible?
The problem is that the gay supporters are not standing up for and with the polygamy community. Why not support them in their alternative lifestyle. And if you are worried about underage marriage then just make all marriages, hetero, homo and plural 18+ only.
Why is noone fighting for human rights? I feel that the gay supporters have their own agenda and don't really care about the rights of everyone else. If I am wrong then I should obviously hear about all the people going to court in california to support polygamy. But I will bet I am not wrong.
We know where the word "sodomy" comes from so expect it to be more prevalent in the last days. I have no doubt that tolerance and acceptance will only increase. I wish it weren't so, but I believe Isaiah.
I have known plenty of gay people in my lifetime and they weren't bad, or had bad morals!
Now it doesn't mean I feel they should be able to get married, but it doesn't mean they are bad people!
If a man sleeps with different women whenever he wants, would you say he has good morals? Not likely.
Every civilization has been plagued by homos trying to get acceptance. Homos may have right to try to get acceptance but most people who believe in natural sexuality have a right to call it what it is; Sick!
But being Christ-like doesn't mean that you need to tolerate wickedness and immorality being pushed on you. In fact, I think it means the opposite - in your own life you need to stand up for God's values, principles, and morals against those who would try to tear them down, or try to make you do or think the wrong things.
Love others as your brothers and sisters, and hope that they will repent and try do what is right, but you are not obligated to let them force their immoral views and opinions on you.
Ironic, isn't it? A coalition means MANY banded together for a common cause, yet it was only the LDS who were accused of brain washing their membership, crossing the line separating church and state and otherwise butting in where they had no business. What of the other participants in this "coalition"? Where is the intolerance for them?
you can sort on amount ranking or search for a specific donor. Source was SFGATE dot COM
LDS Church definitely took the major hit and probably unfairly.......
As for the calls we made a lot of them but we were calling as reps for the Yes on 8 campaign not members of the church. I never got a call either but according to the campaign I know there were millions of calls made, some by LDS people some by other church members.
I don't know anyone here in the church that would think, or say, for a minute that this success belonged to the LDS church, we were a small part of a huge effort and I know in our area there were dozens if not a couple hundred churches working on this together.
Your point or the point your trying to make is pretty lame if you ask me!
just my 2cents
No, let's pretend being gay means something else. Let's pretend the gay agenda of recruiting more gays through teaching homosexuality as "normal" and "acceptable" in our public schools.
Or alternatively, stay away from teaching my children gay perversions, keep your sexual behaviors private as I do mine, and then there won't be a problem.
Are you married?
Now the pro-gays will call you hateful names, accuse you of discrimination, and claim your lack of condoning their behavior is much worse than their own behavior.
Don't you know you're the immoral one--they have a right to express their views, teach their views in public schools, have gay parades all the while expecting those that disagree with them to be silent.
In other words, they would deny you your right to express your views while expecting you to allow them to fully express theirs.
And I know most of you will tell me not to let the door hit me on the way out, so I'll be sure to watch it as it closes. Good riddance.
Make sure you get severance from the church for submitting your resignation. What a dough head!!!
Hello Kettle, Meet pot!
I am glad Duh has decided to leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He/She will probably be much happier, as will the others around him/her.
BTW, please dont judge me for judging Roger for judging Service for judging Ben for judging Uhh... for judging the LDS church for judging Gays for judging their unions as important as other's.
But if you do, please assign me a item that blackens on the stove and add your name to the disclaimer.
~~~Sarcasm~~~
As far as how you were raised, you were obviously raised to make judgemental statements without knowing all the facts. Jeez, ain't it amazing when you point a finger at someone else, three other fingers are pointing right back at you. So get your finger out of your knows and stop making ignorant declarations.
I'm glad your method worked nicely for you and provided the closure you need. But I need to be mocked and ridiculed by faceless screen names on here to get my sense of closure. Keep up the good work guys!
But that also doesn't mean I won't strongly disagree with the church whenever they exert their influence to modify public policy. Let the individual members do that on their own.
As for the church using its influence to modify public policy, I get what you are saying, but remember, that all groups, religious or secular, have a responsibility to inform their members where they stand on the issues. Some see this as the organization speaking up where they should not, but that is not the case. The good thing I have noticed about the church is that they make an announcement or statement from the pulpit and then they leave it up to the individual member to make up their own mind if they want to follow it or not. I know you'll probably disagree with that assertion, but we can agree to disagree.
As for this issue, there were several organizations that joined in the fight to ban same-sex marriages, so it really is out of line to single out the LDS Church in this. But hey, for a lot of people in the world, the LDS Church is the easiest target.
Peace
Remaining politically neutral is already becoming impossible for the church. As desirable as that may be, remaining neutral will only become more impossible. The political role of the church will only increase.
In the final days before the return of the Savior, the church will not only be a religious organization, it will be a governing organization.
Staying in the church will become more difficult as the world turns against us and things much worse than criticism evolve. Even the very elect will be deceived. Those that do not have a testimony based on witnesses from the Holy Spirit will leave the church. These things have been prophesied.
And you should understand something. Human behavior vs what people have learned are two very different things. Like when I teach my kids how to behave, they know when I walk into a room they were doing something wrong, but they were doing it anyway because they are kids.
Adults are very much the same way in their actions. They might know better but emotions make people do weird things.
Regards.
However, I am mindful of Moroni's admonition, when he thought he was done writing:
Moroni 7:
47)But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him.
48)Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure. Amen.
Perhaps we should all try a little harder.
But when the church works on molding public policy to that extent, that's the point where I no longer want to be involved. I've sat begrudgingly by while they voiced their opinions on alcohol and other issues locally, but still stayed steadfast.
Discrimination like this is beyond what I'm willing to put up with. I'm sure they'll miss the 0.0000013% of the budget my tithing contributed.
D&C 93:
39) And that wicked one cometh and taketh away light and truth....
I feel it is a tragedy anytime someone leaves that once had a testimony.
However, it is best for the individual and the church when someone leaves that is unwilling to follow the principles that are sure to result in manifestations of the HG.
Gays are citizens just like anyone else and treating them as 2nd class is wrong. Restricting rights should only be done when the behaviour is criminal. You can view homosexuality as a sin, but it is not a crime and should not be punished. Let people handle crime, but let God handle sin, and we'll see how it plays out in the end.
---
Im going to guess that the rebuttles will go something like these:
"But Bro Rimmer, homosexuality is evil"
--That is your opinion. I bet you believe skipping Church on Sunday is evil too. Do you want the state to fine and punish the non-attending? (~~judging by the current liquor laws, a lot may ~~~)
"They have the same right as everyone else to marry someone of the opposite sex"
-- Well how convienent for you. Its kind of like 5 wolves and 1 sheep voting on whats for dinner. Great day to be a wolf. While you're at it lets revoke all marriages of Non-LDS. It works for the majority of the state.
Are you sure?
I can’t believe folks are not marveling in the irony: the largest donor to define marriage as between one man and one woman is a church. Whose founder was murdered because he believed, and founded this same church on the belief, that the only way to the celestial kingdom (heaven) is through having multiple wives.
A hundred years changes the definition of persecution.
It's not even close to "a woman and a woman" or "a man and a man."
What does that matter you ask? – I’m merely pointing out, the members of today’s LDS church are feeling the same feelings as those who murdered your founding prophet. They are acting in much the same manner as the mobs from Missouri who started with outlawing folks who didn’t believe in the non-traditional family. When these mobs were unable to neither change the laws nor change the hearts of the wicked Mormons they resorted to killing the head of the church.
How much farther are you willing to go, and how does it feel knowing you are in the same shoes as those who murdered your prophet?
There are a very few churches (most that have split off from the mainstream of their sect) that have recognized and/or performed same-sex marriages. However, they are in the minority. Almost every mainstream religion you can identify refuses to recognize a marriage between adults of the same gender. I just want to know why everyone is so quiet when it comes to that. Ask most any Baptist, Pentecost, Nazarene, Catholic, Methodist, Four-Square, or any other full gospel church how they define marriage.
One other thought...if you think that the church teaches that the only way to the celestial kingdom is through having multiple wives...you missed part of the lessons.
Name one other church that was founded on the basis of the non-traditional family and now supports defining what marriage means.
Plural marriage only ever applied in very limited circumstances, and is not nor ever has been taught by the church as something we have to do in this life to go to heaven. Don't try to make it look like it's all the church is or was about or something.
If the dog likes it, what's the harm? Dare we discriminate against bestiality?
Though I'm being sarcastic, there are people that think this is okay, and now they are united through the internet and are able to encourage each other and assure one another that the way "they" think is acceptable, even natural for a man that really loves his dog.
As absurd as this sounds, widespread acceptance of homosexuality was once considered nearly as absurd. And that day was not so long ago.
You are sounding more and more like them – that hatred you feel is the same hatred that murdered your prophet.
He has written a lot on this board, and I have not read anything he has written yet that was hateful in any way.
Calling people hateful just because you disagree with them and they stand up for their ideas and defend them is just juvenile. It also shows an inability to argue effectively against what he has said.
Do you really think Tommy Gun is so full of hate he is going to organize a drunken mob and try to kill someone? You're being ridiculous and offensive trying to make that kind of comparison.
Tommy’s attempt to dehumanize his opponents is hatful, even if your blinders don’t allow you to see it. The folks who murdered the LDS churches founding prophet were nothing more than Christians who believed the LDS church was attacking the traditional family (sounds familiar doesn’t it). And getting to the point of murdering the prophet started with dehumanizing the Mormons.
My point is the LDS church and its members are on the same path taken by good Christians who wound up killing their founding prophet – don’t you see the irony of the fact that the church and its members are supporting a law that its founding prophet would have been in violation of?
Why not have members in Washington organize against the assisted suicide proposition?
Why not have members in Colorado organize to support the definition of life beginning at conception proposition which could have prevented many types of abortion?
But I'm quite confident that I will not be going to hell, Mormon or not. And if I'm wrong, when both of us pass on, you are more than welcome to find me in the afterlife and tell me "Told you so!" to my face.
So why aren't homosexuals satisfied that society has granted them civil union, shared benefits, and every other benefit of marriage other than the title "marriage?"
BECAUSE that's NOT what it's about, Service. Because marriage is a LEGAL term, through which they wish to impose their deviancy on the rest of society, and FORCE us to accept it and condone it, by force of law. It's about changing the very fabric of society, and people do NOT want to see marriage turned into a mockery.
You go ahead and use whatever reasons you need to hate religion, but in your heart you also know what is right and what isn't.
Homosexuality is not right. It never will be.
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
Hebrews 13:4
"Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."
If you take the scriptures as the word of God, it's pretty clear his words haven't been twisted about homosexuality or the sanctity of marriage.
I'm pretty sure it won't be me telling you "I told you so", as it won't be me you'll have to face.
The best two paragraphs are:
"Allegations of bigotry or persecution made against the Church were and are simply wrong. The Church's opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians. Even more, the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches."
"Some, however, have mistakenly asserted that churches should not ever be involved in politics when moral issues are involved. In fact, churches and religious organizations are well within their constitutional rights to speak out and be engaged in the many moral and ethical problems facing society. While the Church does not endorse candidates or platforms, it does reserve the right to speak out on important issues."
No doubt, this issue will not go away and it will be on future ballots.
Nice job people....what a great win in the fight against Satan and his followers! At least something good happened yesterday. Yay us!
(sarcasm)
All of which have been directly related to what happened yesterday, unlike your post.
I am a trader, and agree that the stock market volatility has been at an extreme. But you are also extremely naive to think that todays 500 point plunge had nothing to do with Obama's win.
The recent volatility has been tied directly to the "news of the day." Todays drop has everything to do with Obama.
He has promised to increase corporate taxes.
I would suggest that it is a continuation of a trend, although Obama's election may have been responsible for a percentage of the change.
Of course, there's not really any way to know for sure.
Or is your special blend of vile venom reserved for only members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
Moongirl, I guess you missed my point. The real question is can any group of people agree with each other and not be accused of being blind sheep? According to many on the KSL message boards, that term can only be applied to republicans and LDS faithful.
That was an easy one. Give me another question! :-)
Just wondering how "personally" you knew your friend.
Most LDS people realize their worlds are not perfect, but to sterotype your "friends" clientele as Bishops and high ranking officials in the church is spurious.
Not saying some have not chosen this life style, but the #'s would not be as you represent.
listen from someone who had a daddy just like you. he tried to shove this religion down my throat and i bit into it, until i learned for myself that i have a brain that functions and makes my own decisions.
prepare yourself for that day, it will come. especially to those mormons raised in utah. maybe 2 out of the 25 youth my age stayed true to your "teachings" pray that your kids will follow blindly with those kind of statistics.
your naive if you think they are going to agree with you for the rest of their lives
In the most liberal State in the western United States the people upheld the definition of marriage.
We can celebrate the fact that the meaning has not been muddied; the separation of church and state will remain intact, and thus the constitution, for the time being at least; and that the moral majority stood on voting day in spite of the barrage of misinformation that was propagated upon them.
Those of us with true love in our hearts don’t forget the disappointment of the other side. But we do realize that those feelings are a consequence of their actions and choices. Someday we may feel the pain of defeat on this issue… I suspect someday it will happen. . . but not today.
TODAY IS A GOOD DAY!
Altough I personally do not like Huckabee but as a Republican who supported Obama this time around that would be an interesting ticket to consider.
I also think it could possibly bring some much needed unity between two different faiths who share much of the same goals.
If on the other hand, this country is completely bankrupt and there are police knocking on your door to get your guns and if you are afraid to leave your house because, without a strong military there could very well be terrorists in our streets...uh, maybe then not so much.
We'll see how he does. My best hopes for him...and I mean that seriously.
Now onto the jews and blacks...
Give it a year and-
"All white people must report to the fields tomorrow at 9:00 AM for orientation..."
Are you really foolish enough to believe that his skin color had nothing to do with it. The fires of racism are being carefully stoked by those who decry it.
This has nothing to do with discrimination. It has everything to do with redefining marriage.
Your "arguments" hold little to no water when held up to the facts.
What I infer from your statement is you would prefer to allow a few liberal, activist judges make decisions, rather than allowing such issues be affirmed or defeated through the democratic process.
It has to do with redefining marriage so that it discriminates and takes rights away from gays. That is like saying taking away free speech wouldn't be discriminating against the people it would just be redefining freedom.
What "rights" have been taken away?
If I had said something anti mexican than i would have 50 "ditto" votes next to my name.
I have been commenting on this site for a long time and my perception has been that Utahn's are severely racist against Mexicans very biased against gays and don't have any understanding what so ever of religion outside of LDS.
And yes, apples to oranges. Freedom of speech is guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States. Freedom to marry....uh, what amendment would that be?
Your right to marriage has not been "taken" from you. It just limits who you can marry. Even freedom of speech has its limits. You could pay a price for your "freedom" to sexually harrass others.
You are right marriage has not been taken away from me or my wife would be pissed.
Just because one group of people think their behavior does not effect others doesn't make it so. This country needs more people that will take a stand on morality and the behaviors associated with it.
Congratulations to California for doing so.
Get off it - not all of us are disgusted by gays. Yet we still believe that marriage between a man and a woman is a sacred institution established by God that is crucial to the well-being of our society. Just because we defend this position doesn't mean we are hateful. I wish you and others would get over that. The sanctity of marriage is much more important than the whims and desires of those who want to redefine it to find affirmation for an immoral and destructive lifestyle.
Many defend it saying what they do in their bedroom or behind closed doors is their business....but most gay couples I have seen in public show more affection to each other IN PUBLIC than any other group.
This line from the article is telling : "Those of us who favor same-sex marriage must keep our eye on the ball: the rapid expansion of same-sex marriage to all states and the repeal of the federal ban."
It is easier to put out a wildfire before it gets started - when the stated goal of gay marriage proponents is the rapid expansion of same-sex marriage to all states don't tell me it doesn't affect me.
Here is the article : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/29/AR2008102903209.html
There has also been cases in Massachusetts of Institutions losing their tax-exempt status as "punishment" for an unwillingness to perform same sex marriages within their own walls.
These are two legitimate and real ways it would "affect the rest of us".
That's a fact. Or would you like me to read it out of a hat and tell you it's on gold plates in a make believe language.
Be proud all ya want.
Were you afraid the gay might spread to utah if it was passed?
Or maybe guys who like girls will just go on marrying girls as if it didn't matter. Because it doesn't.
If someone wants to marry a horse I will be the best man because that is hilarious.
5. Report guideline violations and Trolls. Do not reply to them.
Read the headlines. :)
Sometimes, it's just so hard to know where to start.
The facts hurt huh? Troll away.
Say what you have to say because that's what you believe in your gut...Don't say it because you want to get virtual pats on the back.
Also, in LDS doctrine wasn't it Satan's plan to force morality onto others? How ironic.
All prop 8 is designed to do is preserve the definition of marriage, the same definition that has existed for decades. And it took a lot more votes than just Mormon votes for this to pass, there are a lot more people that feel the same way as the Mormons.
Sorry, that's just how it is.
If we cannot learn from past history of how nations were destroyed and fell from lack of ethics, morality and yes, truth, how can we expect to succeed and prosper in the future?
A blogger at Newsweek-Washington Post felt it was ironic that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints once supported polygamy and now supported traditional marriage between one man and one woman.
For us Mormons, the blogger could have just as well asserted that he found it ironic that Catholics support peace because Catholics once supported the Crusades.
Polygamy is now at least three or four generations removed for many Latter-day Saints. For us it is history that we are reminded of occasionally by the activities of polygamist groups that have no connection to our church and by sensational reporting of the news media.
Those of us who have grown up in the contemporary LDS faith don't find much connection to polygamy and are glad we aren't asked to practice it. So for rank-and-file Mormons the irony isn't lost on us, it simply doesn't exist. By definition, to have irony you need to have incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs. To insiders and outsiders who understand the LDS Church and its members, more than 100 years of LDS history would lead them to expect the church to support traditional marriage. Misinformed journalists would rather base their "ironic" arguments on outdated stereotypes.
Furthermore, what bothers me most is some pundits comparisons between the "persecution" that Mormons suffered in early church history and the abuse Mormons are supposedly now piling on gays and lesbians. Salt Lake Tribune columnist Rebecca Walsh wrote:
"The irony is thick here. But it seems lost on church leaders and many members. More than 150 years ago, Mormon settlers were driven from their homes and their prophet was killed, in part, because of their polygamous definition of marriage. After years of isolation and marginalization in the desert, the church abandoned the practice to achieve statehood, political legitimacy and validation in American society. Now, Mormons are using the same words that were used against their ancestors."
Having just visited LDS history sites in Missouri, such attempts to equate the current battle over rights with what happened to Mormons in the early history of the church is a nonsequitur. Mormons aren't organizing mobs against those who don't agree with them. They haven't tarred and feathered anyone. They haven't driven them from their land and homes at the point of a gun. They haven't locked anyone in a cellar of a jail for months on trumped-up charges.
Instead, Mormons, along with people of many faiths, have entered the public arena supporting an idea which they feel strongly about. They have engaged the public dialogue in good faith despite the vocal opposition. They have stood for something, believing it has an important implication on the future of society. They have used the First Amendment as a means to enter the marketplace of ideas. Those who opposed those ideas were allowed the same privilege. Not terrorism or violence was used to make a stand, but the standard of majority rule was sought. It was not irony, but democracy in action."
As I understand it, relatively few marriages were polygamous. Even then, from what I gather, you weren't supposed to just get a notion and go looking for another wife. Those that went around randomly soliciting extra wives were shunned then as they are now. If you got married and you had kids (or if you were going to get married and have kids), you'd better be able to take care of them because this was the frontier and the nanny state had't been invented yet.
I'm not saying I want to live this way, I'm just saying that it was a different way and time. The traditional values of marriage still applied (man and wife responsible for and raising the kids). Granted, it was sometimes man and wife and wife and wife and so on but...
Nobody was supposed to forced into anything and everybody was supposed to agree to the arrangement. Everybody was supposed to be of age of consent. All marital, ahem, duties were to performed in private as a couple (no groups!). I think the original idea was that a good man who was a model husband and father was a rare item in the 1800's (there aren't a whole lot now!) and that sharing a good guy was better than having a bad guy (or no guy) all to yourself.
I dunno, you make the call.
They did practice that, but haven't fought to make it legal, and those that are part of a rogue sect that do tend to keep it and the practice to themselves.
So who's trying to indoctrinate who? And who's not defending what?
Yes, Yes, I know that is not popular opinion but how does it impact anyone other than the two people involved if they want to be married or not? It doesn't !
The LDS Church does not belong in this. Please keep in mind that it wasn't all that long ago "The Church" wouldn't allow black men to hold the Priesthood.. This is just one more Church sanctioned form of discrimination..
Any loving couple should be allowed to enjoy the happiness of marriage and family no matter who they are..
Marriage is one thing the church will never change positions on. Sorry.... Its different.
Any loving couple can be allowed happiness together. Just do not expect the rest of society to embrase it.
as told by smith
I am calling you out right now, I want to know what the heck you are talking about and I want proof
RIGHT NOW!
If you hate the church then that is your bussiness but dont try to lead others astray with your filth and lies about a great man. One who gave his life for what he believed in, even if he was wrong he would not deny it to his last breath, something I would bet you dont have the stones to do.
Like when they changed their position on plural marriage in 1890? Totally moved away from it being a celestial practice to being a sin? Hmmm. Ya MIGHT want to check your facts.
Those kind of marriages should be banned too
Lets allow same sex marriage and lets allow religious organizations to maintain traditional marriage if they desire. How is that hurting anyone???
My point is a well defined law could allow same sex marriage yet allow religious organizations to practice traditional marriage only. A well defined law can deal with polygamy or incest or whatever.
I am LDS just not a utard.
WHo am I to say that living together but you can't share insurance, taxes, and decide end of life decisions for someone you have been with for 20 plus years?
If religion is the real issue then make it possible for these marriages to be performed by a judge and not a pastor.
There are marriages of people of different beliefs everyday- all over the world- and they don't lessen or make my marriage less of a marriage.
I honestly think the ban on same sex marriages is nothing more than religious hype that has no base.
Before you fire religious comments at me I am very religious, but just as Jesus was the one who said let ye without sin cast the first stone.
My God and Jesus do not hate or reject anyone.
Period. If you body parts couldn't create a human being, then being married to each other is just gross and yucky.
Also, parents that believe in traditional marriage are devastated when one of their children become gay. Normalizing homosexuality, teaching it as acceptable behavior in public schools and other forums encourages a child's interest. Curiosity too often leads to experimentation. Experimentation often leads to repeated behaviors and changed personality. This chain of events increases the likelihood that a child will become gay that would not have otherwise.
Most traditional parents that lose a child to homosexuality are devastated for two reasons:
1)they know the chances for that child to have a happy life go down dramatically.
2)they know the chances of having grandchildren from that child are all but gone.
It's really that simple. Don't for a second fool yourself into thinking that no one is hurt by normalizing homosexuality.
The fact is the early church's only income source was tithing. Somewhere along the line, tithing money was used to start their business ventures. Those ventures operate separately using their own funds. The church itself uses tithing money, which likely pays their travel costs.
So, your claim that all church money is essentially tithing money is incorrect. Since you refer to the church as "they," I'll assume you're not a member, which makes it reasonable that you're not well versed in church history. But now you know the truth about that one, I hope that in the future you'll not state as facts things that are, in fact, conjecture on your part.
These days travel expenses and things of that nature are paid for out of the businesses owned and operated by the church - real estate, agriculture, publishing, things like that.
You can't moralize something by changing the law.
Sorry
Circumstances, laws, etc. should allow religious organizations to maintain traditional marriage, if desired without participating in same sex marriage. Yet there should be a place within the law to allow same sex marriage giving them all rights that any other marriage would allow.
Why can't a law maker create a bill that respects freedom of religion, yet allows same sex marriage under the law? Why does one have to do away the other???
If civil unions are granted the same secular rights (federal, state and local) as a 'marriage', then I would have no problem with civil unions being the vehicle for same-sex relationships. However I get the feeling that civil unions are NOT given the same rights. A veneer of "separate but equal" could quite possibly be used to discriminate, just as it did in the segregated South of the past.
I have heard the irrational fear of some Mormons that that the LDS Church would be "forced" to marry homosexuals in their temples if Prop 8 had not passed. Others mention the possible loss of 'tax exempt status' for the Church if they discriminated against marrying homosexuals. I doubt either would come to pass and if any religious institution were so threatened I could easily see a compromise as mentioned above.
In the past, religious institutions have had "undue influence" over birth control (contraceptives - Roman Catholic Church and others) and the right to marry inter-racially or even inter-religiously. I can't imagine modern day America going back to such "definitions of marriage". In the same vein I think the pro-Prop 8 crowd is similarly misguided.
The difference between a civil union and a marriage is merely a social status difference. This proposition had nothing to do with permitting gay and lesbian couples to form unions. In fact, in the Church's statement, they stated they have no issue with such unions.
This proposition had everything to do with forcing what is considered an immoral practice by many to be accepted and taught as acceptable. Civil unions are granted all the same secular rights as marriages. The only difference is the implied social status marriage brings. This implied social status stems from the fact that marriages are universally accepted and encouraged by society. There is no "separate but equal" at play in this issue because social status is not right protected by the Constitution. When the California Suprume Court fabricated a "right to marry," they were in fact fabricating a "right to social status."
The consequences of forcing acceptance of gay marriage is that it removes the right of a person to have a belief systems they define. It violates two provisions of the first amendment - Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. The risk of forcing gay marriage in temples was never real, since temple access is already limited. I think that stemmed from a real risk, that of ecclesiastical leaders being forced to perform gay weddings or risk losing their tax-exempt status. This has already happened in New Jersey where a Methodist Church refused to allow a gay civil union and had their tax exempt status revoked.
Proposition 8 was never about discrimination. It was about the people's right to religious freedom.
The New Jersey case of the Methodist Church's tax exempt status being revoked (for the operation of the campground, not the entire religious group) seems interesting. I'm GUESSING that the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association offered rental of their pavilion to the public for marriages and when it was discovered that a homosexual civil union was to be performed they refused to rent.
New Jersey's anti-discrimination laws currently forbid those who "offer goods, services, and facilities to the general public" from "directly or indirectly denying or withholding any accommodation, service, benefit, or privilege to an individual" on the basis of sexual orientation. If this group only offered the pavilion to members of their church, then I guess they wouldn't have run afoul of this law. I'm not sure how they would get around this to offer their pavilion/campground only to other conservative Christians.
The preservation of marriage is a good step in stopping, or at least slowing the loss of the validity of the AMERICAN Constitution... My Constitution.
Serious question, if you think that consenting adults sould be able to do as they please, what are your thoughts on polygamy? It seems to me that if we let gays marry because it would be discrimination not to, then why not polygamy, as long as it is between consenting adults? Or what about incest as long as they are both 18 years old? No offense meant, I just wonder what people who are for this think, and how they can justify that and not polygamy. Thanks
However most practicing polygamists have VERY unbalanced rights, partially due to the lawfully unrecognized nature of those relationships. The FLDS type of polygamy seems to be one of the most worst offenders in this regard. If you want out of the relationship you are cut-off from your children, any material possessions and the community as a whole. On top of this the youth (females mostly) are pushed into marriages with much older males not of their choosing. The whole practice survives on religious blackmail and inbreeding of "victims" taken at young ages.
If polygamous relationships had to be defined in a manner similar to monogamous ones, most of them would fall apart and/or not grow in the number of partners within relationships.
As for incest. 1st Cousins seems plausible; brother and sister seems strange and undesirable (especially if raised in the same household) and parent-child would definitely be unlawful (at least on the basis that the relationship was mostly likely started when the 'child' was an underage dependent).
As stated above, there's no reason to force these "redefinitions" on any religious group. If your choice of partner goes against the teachings of your religious group, then it is a personal struggle between you and your religious group and not one that the state has to be involved in. At the same time a religious group shouldn't be able to define marriage for everyone else.
In my opinion it would be very hard to practice a "fair" version of polygamy. It has far more emotional, financial and legal complications than a standard monogamous marriage would (and those can be hard enough).
Outside of public sentiment (religious and otherwise), which is the biggest factor, polygamy remains illegal because no one is willing to define a fair, legal version of it. Such efforts would just fly in the face of current popular opinion.
It would be interesting to see how the various polygamous groups would react if offered a means of legalizing their relationships. Would they bother with secular definitions of marriage or would a number of them (most likely FLDS) just shun any attempts to define their "marriage" in any secular legal fashion ?
Marriage has "always" and I MEAN always (not just for decades but for centuries)been defined as 1 man and 1 woman. I swear there are people who will swallow a camel and choke on a flea.
Find something really important to be so adamant about. Stop trying to re-mold everyone and everything into your definition of right and wrong.
I believe many religions are trying to preserve marriage between a man and a woman because that is obviously (to those who believe) how God set it up and that's kinda what religion is all about - spreading and maintaining God's ways.
"Discrimination" is thrown out at those who believe they are trying to keep God's ways intact but that's sort of like a little kid saying "HUH! Well, well...my daddy is stronger than your daddy". It is (I believe) unfounded.
"Even more, the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches."
So, separate but equal. Disgusting.
The only thing we ask is that they do not call what they choose to do marriage. There is no 'separate but equal' here. You are making up issues that don't exist.
I grew up in a ward, neighborhood, and family where it was normal and common to always judge everyone around you. I knew it wasn't right but I started to do the same thing. Then as I grew older and started exercising my right to free agency, I realized that I had been judging people for very similar things I was doing and experiencing. I just wanted to be loved and accepted just like everyone else and I chose to go about getting that love and acceptance the way that I saw fit was best for me. I realized that everyone else in this world was doing the exact same thing; they just chose to go about it in a different way than I was and I had the nerve to judge them. Every single one of us does and will and is making mistakes whether we consciously chose to make them or whether we didn't know until after the mistake was made. Very rarely are these mistakes made with the intent of harming others or the world in a way that people like Hitler or Saddam Hussein intended. It takes a lot of conscious thought, commitment and effort to cause that kind of evil in the world. Everyone just wants to be loved and everyone is just trying to do the best they can to make it in this life. We all have our own set of personal and unique trials that we have faced, are facing or will face but each of us is dealing with them the best and only way we know how. And just because we may not have a trial that someone else does, doesn't mean that we are any better and that we are allowed to judge them because of it. We all need to stop hating, belittling and discriminating against each other for the very reason we were put on earth to experience. In any situation or circumstance, there is always an opportunity to learn how to love.
I don't know why I am attracted to other women but I do know that it is not something that I chose. I would not wish that kind of struggle on anyone. I have tried to fight it and tried to “choose” to be straight several times even to the point of suicide. I didn’t find my peace and happiness until I went to a past bishop of mine and explained my struggle of not being able to change my sexuality so that I could be a good member of the church but I still had a very strong testimony of the gospel. That night I received a blessing from him that only reconfirmed my love and devotion to the gospel and at the same time find peace with who I am as a lesbian. But most importantly that night I realized for the first time, that my Heavenly Father and my Savior still love me with the same immeasurable, unconditional love that They have for all of us, regardless of our sexual orientation. I also learned that night that I needed to have faith that this whole controversy will be sorted out and dealt with at a different point and time by the appropriate person (our Savior) and that I am to live my life the best way I know how despite the churches stance on homosexuals as well as the typical gay perspective that I shouldn't have a testimony of the LDS faith. And I am doing exactly that. I’m not in the closet about who I am but I’m not on a rainbow rampage either. I am in a loving, committed relationship with a wonderful woman whom I feel very honored and blessed to share my life with. We share the same religious beliefs about the church and she really is my perfect other half. We are not out trying to recruit or force others to believe and live as we do. Like I said, I wouldn’t wish the struggle of homosexuality on my worst enemy. My partner and I go to work, go to school, and yes, go to church on Sunday (to an LDS ward). We live our lives the best way we know how just like everyone else in this world. We do what we can to help others out in times of need and are happy, productive members of society. Nothing that we do or say is in anyway shape or form, threatening the sanctity of marriage or the family unit. If marriages and family units are being threatened, it’s being done by the individuals within those marriages and families. Saying that two people (gay or straight) who have chosen to be committed to one another is threatening the sanctity of someone else’s marriage is not allowing the individuals within the “threatened marriage” to take full responsibility of their actions that is causing the real threat to their marriage. What is threatening the sanctity of marriage and the family unit rests in the actions or lack of, by each individual in those marriages and family units. There is by far greater, more important and valid threats to families and marriages like infidelity between spouses, pornography, fathers and mothers neglecting to spend time together as families to strengthen the bonds of their marriage and their family ties, parents refusing to talk to and be honest with their kids, parents prioritizing worldly possessions and events above their families and children, the filth on television and in movies, video games and the internet, parents abusing each other and their kids, parents refusing to teach their children morals and values and then lead by example, and parents choosing drugs and alcohol over their duty of being parents. But where is the money that should be poured into those causes?
I know that the decision that has been made on Proposition 8 is what was supposed to happen. I understand why so many people voted yes on proposition 8 and I am not angry at them or hold it against them. That is their perspective and they are just trying to live their lives the best way they know how. But it wouldn't matter if it was passed or not. It still doesn’t stop me from having my testimony and loving the gospel nor does it stop me from having a healthy, stable, loving relationship with my partner.
“If you judge people, you have no time to love them.” ~Mother Teresa
“When we forgive our loved ones, we are also forgiving ourselves and we are choosing love over anger and regret. And that is truly divine.” ~ Dr. Laura Berman
I'm glad the Prop 8 passed and I support the Church. I hope members will someday get to the point that they can show genuine love and compassion for others they don't understand. I think in that regard, we have a long ways to go as a church and community.
I know General Authorities of the Church support and often speak to conferences of this group - a support group for Latter-Day Saints and others with same-sex attraction.
Unfortionatly there is little constructive help just high emotions and rhetoric as if one side cannot be heard.
It is as if some have to carry their cross themselves and fear and shame of the world watches on without helping.
But even if none of that were true, it doesn’t change some certain facts (I’m not judging, I’m just explaining how the gospel works as you know): To find true and lasting happiness, and BEFORE SOMEONE CAN BE EXALTED to the highest order in God’s Kingdom, Mormons believe that that someone must make certain covenants through performing certain ordinances. One of those ordinances is to be married eternally to a man (for a woman) or to a woman (for a man).
Now thankfully I am not God, and I don’t get to decide who gets there and who doesn’t. But He has been clear as to what people must do to enter in there. Will God suddenly help you be attracted to men after you die, and then you’ll have a chance to marry a man and be exalted? I DON’T KNOW. I’d like to think that God is more merciful than most of us think.
Will God allow you to marry your partner in heaven, then both of you can be exalted to the highest order of the Celestial Kingdom? NO, WE CAN BE SURE THAT THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN.
I wish you the best of luck in your struggles, just like the rest of us deal with failings/weaknesses/faults/shortcomings/struggling in varying degrees, in order to prepare to return to live with our Father.
I just think it's up to people about who they want to marry and what they think is 'morally right'. Not everyone is going to have the same morals and people don't need to push them upon others. They aren't hurting you doing it, so just leave them alone.
No religion can accept a practice it considers a sin. Any legislation allowing gay marriage MUST protect the right of religions to practice as they choose. By the same token, no religion should be allowed to force its will on anyone who is not a true believer.
Until I hear a solid secular argument for banning gay marriage, I will continue to support it. Homosexuality is an anomoly that occurs in a very small portion of the population, so any argument about procreation is baseless and we all know it.
Now, I do not agree with the lifestyle. I believe its practice to be a sin of grave proportions. I do not however, have any problem with two concenting people who say they love eachother living together and obtaining the benefits they need for basic survival, such as insurance, tax-breaks, hospital visitations, and what not. Just don't ask the church to recognize, or even perform your ceremony if and when homosexual marriage becomes legal, or sue the church when you are denied!
I am very curious how long it took you to come to the conclusion that it is more of an infection than a religion? good thinking Tex.
Go ahead gay people and be gay...just stop trying to make it apart of mainstream society. LDS people are not trying to get their religon taught in the schools getting special laws.
Lets worship how we want to and let everyone else have the same privelege. That is LDS doctrine.
BUT that doesn't mean we won't proctect the laws of this country so gay people don't force their lifestyle into mainstream culture..
GO BE GAY, BUT STOP TRYING TO MAKE IT APART OF SOCIETY
I have been in a position for the past several years where I have seen several members of the Church get divorced. In most cases, it was a very sad experience. However, I have seen many more go through very difficult times and pull through and are now very happy they decided to stay together. Most looked to the covenants they made in the temple as times were difficult. This is the true, divine nature of marriage - that it can be an eternal union.
Well, every time I run into a missionary I have their gospel pro beliefs forced upon me. And while gay pro may be offensive to you, gospel pro is offensive to me.
I'm not saying this to jockey any side, but just to make a point. The churches and religions are forcing their side just as much as the minorities are forcing theirs.
Because we have become a litigious society we are required "by Law" to define what is what. If I were to add an amendment to the constitution of any state to say that aggravated murder consisted of just pointing a gun at someone then the death penalty would apply to a lot more people. Because our laws use the word Marriage we must define what that word means. Prop 8 did that because the courts forced us to and no other reason.
Or are you really bringing back the tired old "judge not" means "take no moral positions" argument?
Read the church's statement. That's what the church teaches, and it doesn't sound hateful or unchristian to me. But to each his own.
I deem it not acceptable that someone drive drunk.
I deem it not acceptable that someone yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
I deem it not acceptable that someone waves a gun in the air to threaten somebody.
I deem it not acceptable for a child molester to babysit my children.
In each of these instances, you bet I am judging.
And you, Not_so_concerned_citizen, make similar judgments daily. The difference is, you draw your line in the sand a little to the left, or the little to the right of mine.
The problem with you and other rabid-rainbow-fanatics, is anybody (i.e. Mormons) who doesn't draw the exact same line in the sand as you are judgmental bigots, in your mind. You demand "tolerance" from everybody else, yet you don't offer a shred of tolerance to anybody else. You are completely blinded by your own hypocrisy.
Clay