Opponents of Prop. 8 protest in front of LDS temple
This afternoon, California protesters singled out the involvement of the LDS Church in promoting the passage of Proposition 8 during by hosting a rally in front of the church's Los Angeles temple. Late today, the Church issued a statement asking that debate on the issue be civil and respectful. November 6th, 2008 @ 10:00pm
By Carole Mikita
Sorry, we are not accepting new comments on this story.
I am deeply disappointed that propostion 8 passed and hope that as a nation we can see that this is an injustice and equality is needed for all.
I am quite satisfied that Prop. 8 passed. I don't believe allowing gays to marry would adversely affect my marriage, but as society continues to shun traditional morale values, this would have been another step in the wrong direction.
Feel free to disagree, but my opinion is just as valuable as yours.
One thing many people won't bring up is that the Exit Polls also showed 70% of African Americans voted 'Yes' on prop8. Knowing what outstanding influence the LDS church has on black people, I guess this shouldn't surprise you? /sarcasm
The LDS church is an easy target. Our members did donate quite a bit of money to the cause. No one else really likes the Church, so they are preaching to the choir. If Homosexuals really want their cause to move forward, they should tell the other "Christian" religions, "Hey - the Mormons wanted this, do you really want to support the Mormons?" - They could go far.
I think the hypocrisy of the LDS church having a religious foundation that supported the non-traditional family, and now supporting laws that would preclude its own founding prophet from having his family, makes the church an easy target.
Only problem is with your twisted logic you must also think Muslims must be some chosen people... many of them think the same way and also create an environment that is hostel to them and only reinforces their views...
Wow, I never can get over the fact that you use Thomas Jefferson.... When your views are nothing like his...
I don't think that the should be allowed to marry children or teenagers.
But what is hypocritical is that the Christians in general are the fist one to cry about "liberty" when it is their liberty or freedom on the line... but when it's others who don't believe as they do they don't care or even worse take a stand against them.. such as in this case.
'Tail.
But I also hope the church understands when the next person doesn't want a temple build in their backyard. Or when a HOA doesn't want missionaries knocking on their doors. Or when someone stands outside of temple square with a "ani-Mormon" poster.
You have to tolerate to be tolerated unfortunately.
2. Adverse reaction to missionaries is common.
3. Anti-Mormon posters are expected.
The church will always uphold the highest moral decisions regardless of the misunderstanding of the immoral. After all, the church merely relays common sense and the will of God to the masses.
'Tail.
To put it simply in a way you might understand... All humans were born with free agency... government should only infringe on that agency when it restricts the agency of others.. Understand?
Do know the man in Mormon myth who wanted to force others to live gods commandments? I forget is name... could it be SATAN? (Church lady look)
Your arrogance in thinking that only gay peoples rights were affected by this is absolutely wrong. My rights to be able to have a society free from filth and perversion spread as normalcy is affected if this didn't pass.
Rights go both ways, and your idea that gays rights trump that of people who don't want themselves to be subject to immoral teachings and practices is a LIE!!!
It is the historical fact that societies live and die by the morality which they uphold. Societies that have chosen immoral paths have gone down in flames.
The passage of this proposition will allow churches and peoples to stand free from harmful prosecutors and gay rights advocates who are threatening all churches and moral people with lawsuits if they don't except gay lifestyle to infringe in their beliefs.
I am glad your side lost Brett because that means I won't have to live in a society of fear from prosecution when I stand up and say "GAY MARRIAGE AND GAY LIFESTYLE IS WRONG AND WILL INEVITABLY DESTROY US IF ALLOWED TO BECOME MAINSTREAM AND NORMAL!!!!"
By your version and definition then, people should be allowed to smoke what they want, shoot into their veins what they want and wear what they want. I hope you can see the fallacy of your reasoning and I sincerely hope you don't think that a no-holes-barred (excuse the pun) approach to free agency and loss of personal maturity is going to make your life any better. Just the opposite has been proven to be true. The moral high road will always produce better results and will always lay a better foundation for future generations.
You cannot be gay and NOT adversely affect society regardless of your attempts to make it so. You do not live in this city or on this planet alone, but you do share it with others who demand, and get, a more fulfilling life by choosing the right.
'Tail.
If you want to do drugs, that is your choice (as it is today in spite of laws)... And I dont' even think there should be laws against it. I don't do drugs, I do eat a poor diet once could say it has the same effect.
How far do you want to take the "high moral road" of yours. . When does free agency and natural consequences need to be reinforced with law and punishment? All "evil" or immoral things have their own natural consequences. Didn't the law of Moses illustrate this point? We don't live in Old Testament rule for a reason.
No, it is not your choice if you want to do drugs. If you do, and you are caught, you will be punished by the law that moral people have written and uphold. If you want to eat poorly, then yes, that is your choice and you will not be punished by the law, but only by the normal consequences which must surely come. Do you see the difference between breaking the law and making personal incorrect decisions?
Banning same-sex marriage follows the same scenario. It is, and will most likely permanently remain, a law which must be obeyed. A law written and voted upon by moral people with moral values which you must now follow. And no, you do not have a choice in this matter. The law of marriage has been voted upon and decided by the electorate and has been pronounced good.
'Tail.
It just brings more negitive feedback to that sad church!!
a few points;
polygamist cults have nothing to do with the LDS faith of yesteryears or today. Get over the mis-info. further, we dont sit on the sidelines. Many church members have encouraged law enforcement in polygamous communities, you just didn't listen because it wasn't on the national news.
it's nothing to do with judging others, only with protecting an ancient and sacred (to many, many cultures and faiths) institution from curruption of meaning. we never sought to take away their legal rights to do as they please in their private lives.
I'm sure you are free of hypocricy, aren't you.
Say it how you want, but the laws the LDS church wants to implement would preclude Joseph Smith from having the family he had – I guess your prophet was not really worth it, right?
It is inappropriate to compare polygamous sects that you are familiar with from the media with the church during the days of its practice of polygamy. I will not spend the time here to deliniate them all, but church members (those who lived plural marriage) were not committing the crimes that these communities do today.
First, polygamy was not a crime in the USA at the time. Probably because there was Biblical support for its practice (no biblical support can be found for homosexuality by the way - quite the opposite).
Second, when laws against polygamy were passed the Mormon church did NOT live in the USA. They had fled to Mexico where the USA felt inclined to send armies to harass them anyway and try to bring them to justice - imagine if we chased whole nations of migrants across jurisdictional borders today to force them to live by our laws instead of the laws of their new home.
Third, when Utah - then Deseret - was being considered to be admitted and the application of the new laws against polygamy were to be applied to Utahns, the church gave it up - thereby complying with the law.
Forth, the church did then, and does today, tell its members to comply with the law - wherever they live.
Fifth, note that Joseph Smith expressed his opinion that constitutions are not themselves law, but the supreme governing document that dictates HOW laws will be created and enforced. It is up to the people to elect leaders that will pass laws that are not in conflict with God's law. Many people, including God-fearing, non-Mormon, wonderful Christians who we Mormons consider friends and fellow citizens, sincerely believe that to keep our laws from being in conflict with Biblical standards is an expression of the majority that we still worship the God of the Bible.
Sixth, Joseph and church members upheld the consitution even though their rights to worship, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were trammeled on - particulary by elected leaders in Missouri. Besides maybe the aboriginals of this land, tell me one other group of people in the land of the free had elected leaders declare it legal to hunt to kill them. Sorry, but if you are suggesting that church members are putting out extermination orders on gays today then your comparison is wreckless and poisonous at best. The church has, and continues, to put out statements calling for peace, dialogue and understanding. Never once have I heard a call for violence on a class of people, a group, or an individual in my 40 years in the church. But I have seen numerous members turn the other cheek when violence was pressed upon them. What is your point?
Lastly, Joseph Smith was a prophet and it is worth it for me and my family to learn and apply his teachings every day. The better I learn to live what he taught the happier I becomes. That is unimpeable. I've experienced it and nothing can take that away from me. Was Joseph Smith worth it? Absolutely. Has your comment hurt my faith? No. You strengthened it. I can't expect fighting the good fight to be fight-free. Thanks for the struggle.
it was well known that - on the other hand - many members of the congress and administrations that condemned the church themselves were fathering children out of wedlock, burying the relationships in the closets, refusing to even admit to their love children let alone provide for their needs, and otherwise committing crimes against the women with whom they had cheated against their first wives and the children that were the products of those illegitimate relationships.
Quite a comparison that I seldom hear mentioned from the nay-sayers on your side of the argument. How about a little intellectual honesty???
You do know the Mormons aren't confined to one state, right? Not even confined to one country.
One of the reasons the Mormon church stepped in to try to define a marriage in Prop 8 is to counter the acceptance of polygamy.
Gay marriage is just the beginning of the deterioration of traditional marriage. If gay marriages become acceptable and legitimate in the eyes of the community and the laws of the land, then polygamists are next. They will then stand up and demand the same rights the gays were demanding.
Where do you want to stop? If not at gay marriages, then why would you stop polygamist marriages? The argument is the same for both groups. (And please don't confuse polygamy with the deviant peversions that are taking place with underaged sex. They are two seperate issues. Polygamy can take place without molestation).
One of the reasons the Mormon church stepped in to try to define a marriage in Prop 8 is to counter the acceptance of polygamy.
Gay marriage is just the beginning of the deterioration of traditional marriage. If gay marriages become acceptable and legitimate in the eyes of the community and the laws of the land, then polygamists are next. They will then stand up and demand the same rights the gays were demanding.
Where do you want to stop? If not at gay marriages, then why would you stop polygamist marriages? The argument is the same for both groups. (And please don't confuse polygamy with the deviant peversions that are taking place with underaged sex. They are two seperate issues. Polygamy can take place without molestation).
FYI everyone is perfect... Why doesn't anyone understand that? Being alive means you are perfect; you have a heart that pumps for you without having to think about it, some people are born with a defect but they are still perfect for taking on the world as they were born to it with either defective muscles a dying heart, etc. Do you thank God every day for the ability to live your life and wake up the next morning? I sure as heaven do.
Maybe you should go to an LDS church meeting and actually live and work with some good, true LDS members and then you will see they don't hate others and they don't make up lies to spread anger and hate toward your side.
I believe your Muslim analogy reflects the pro-gay world, not the LDS. (And by this, I assume you only meant radical Muslims. At least I don't equate Muslims with hatred, violence, and chaos, only the extremists. I assume you also meant the same.)
In my experience the LDS only seek to promote good.
Promoting the idea that sexual orientation is a civil right is as ludicrous as promoting acceptance and respect for someone that practices bestiality.
Interesting how it's only tolerance if you agree with them. If you disagree with their lifestyle, then hell hath no fury...they don't know what tolerance is.(sigh)
If you told me I couldn't or shouldn't get married to my wife I wouldn't be tolerant of it either. Just like the Mormon church wasn't' too tolerant of those that opposed them practicing polygamy.
It's not about disagreeing with lifestyle it's about interfering with lifestyle.
Freedom of Religion
Slavery
Woman's Rights
Equal Rights
Slavery was even allowed by the Constitution at one time.
What do all these have in common?
One side was restricting the rights of the other side in the name of God and Morality.
DNA does mutate it is not unchangeable if all DNA was the same all humans would be carbon copies of each other. Even twins who share the same DNA physically develop slightly differently then each other.
But I am not fighting the gay issue here.... I don't care if gay people are born gay or chose to be gay or what have you.
You chose to be a Christian, Mormon, and chose to belief as you do.... so why should that interfere on the choices of people around you? You have the right and freedom to live your life as you chose. Why don't you want others to have that choice?
I agree with you on that one. We might actually be getting somewhere.
Freedom of religion (surprised you mentioned it!, It was written into the constitution in order to keep states from oppressing people like the Mormons, still happened.)
Slavery (minority because of color, explained below)
Woman's Rights (not a minority but not given the right to vote or own land)
Equal Rights (buzz word for liberals, gays or anyone who is trying to force through their own legislation to deny others their own rights)
Slavery was not allowed by the constitution, slavery was upheld by a loud majority that was threatening with violence, anyone who should speak up contrary to what they practiced. The fact that some of our fore fathers practiced this was an embarrassment to some of our other forefathers (mainly Christians from the northern states, that felt slavery was an abomination).
What do all these have in common?
It is NOT that one side was restricting the other side in the name of GOD and Morality.
Equating your side to that of what some Americans experienced is an out right fallacy. What are rights in the first place? What rights are given in the constitution? We have the bill of rights that guarantee freedom of religion (which allows us to oppose certain practices as harmful to us and society and uphold practices that we feel are good and true).
Are their rights for gays in the Constitution? Yes there are, you have the right to believe the way you choose, you have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness (this is where the constitution says slavery is wrong). THERE IS NO RIGHT LISTED THAT FORCES SOCIETIES TO GIVE UP THERE RIGHT TO CHOOSE HOW MARRIAGE IS REGULATED!!
The majority and the Christian's have civil rights too Brett. Gays have been trying to take those away in small pieces and use some of the most vial hate speech to rile up their communities and supporters to do it.
In Mass. the catholic church ran an adoption agency, they wouldn't adopt to gay couples because the church had "the freedom of religion" (a right guaranteed in the constitution) to believe that a gay couple could not provide an adequate household for children. Gay people took them to court and had that church's right overturned despite the fact that the constitution is clearly on the side of the Catholics in this case. Churches are afraid (and with good reason) that you will force the churches to give them a marriage in the temple or church facility or face prosecution and lawsuit.
It is not the churches side that is violating rights Brett, it is your side.
Gays has civil unions which are the governments version of marriage. You have all the same rights under this law as marriage affords the majority. so tell me where are your rights violated?
It's nothing compared to gay Marriage... IF two adults want to get married no one is losing their rights. Yes acceptance of gay marriage would change the united states. My kids face views different then theirs everyday. That's where the family unit is important.
I see gay marriage far less evil or immoral as people having children out of wedlock. Divorce and Adultery are embraced as normal in our society... if you want to restore "traditional marriage" to the United States maybe you should start there before you chose who can get married.
And it is a lie to think that it has nothing to do with the marriage issue being pushed by these perverted people.
And the point of where we should start in restoring traditional marriage begins in first of all destroying the perversions destroying it. Homosexuality is one of those. Your argument is the silliest I have seen from you regarding this point. Divorce and Adultery are in the same category as homosexuality and allowing it over the former is stupid.
Where we should start with restoring marriage is first by protecting the proper use of marriage. The use that guarantees that children will be brought up in a home free from perversion and lifestyles that bring sadness to the people that choose them (the suicide rate among homosexuals is extremely high so don't use the argument that they live a happy lifestyle, besides after that lady's speech in San Francisco, all I see is rage, anger and hate from Gays).
We should protect marriage from alternative lifestyles that threaten the young children. These children need to have an environment that will teach them right and wrong, morals, consequences of choosing immoral paths, and give them the tools to have happiness in their life when they are adults and free to choose how they live their life (this includes if they do want to become "gay" or whatever).
But it does surprise me that a Church that practiced polygamy and fought so hard for the right now is turning around and saying that the rest of America shouldn't have the right to marriage as they see fit either.
I think the LDS church is trying too hard to fit in with other Christian churches and it's sad because it's the differences that made the LDS church great... and it's what millions of people fought for, crossed the planes for and died for.
I really doubt if Joseph Smith or Brigham Young were in charge today if they would be taking this stance on Gay Marriage.
I think we are sliding backwards as a nation...
I like this one! You are probably right - the only difference to their approach would be to deny them gas or food while these people traveled through our state! Maybe there would be a flier given out at the border of Nevada and Utah to avoid stopping for people outside of major towns because they may be massacred? It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy to think that history has been purified with time to classify these people as kind gentile souls!
Thanks for the correction...
I even made it through the complete history of the Church all 7 volumes and it even sits on my book shelf next to me right now. So sorry if I overlooked something... But I can tell you I didn't make anything up.
I will say that I am not a bitter ex-member... I think the Church does great things in many peoples lives, and it has improved the quality of life for many people on many levels. I have seen it first hand. It's just not for me and my family for many personal reasons.
I am a libertarian and I don't think the government should intrude in lives unless necessary to uphold the liberty and freedom of others.
I am very passionate about issues with personal freedom. Gay marriage itself doesn't even effect me personally... but I would be just as passionate about abortion, assisted suicide, the right to own guns, anything in relation to personal freedom and choice..
AS I have said here before, I think it's hypocritical of a Church who fought and fights for it's freedom today to promote laws that restrict the freedoms of others.
So you are a libertarian, What about the catholic churches right to refuse adoptions to gay couples. they are a private institution why did they have their rights taken away?
Why didn't you stand up an protest when that happened?
What was the wife of the prophet Joseph doing for the governor of Illinois after he went and changed the guard making it possible for a mob of painted face murderer to assasinate her husband? She was offering a meal and boarding to him in the nauvoo mansion. Did you ever read of her publishing public calls for retribution? If so I have not heard of any. She and Joseph were like-minded, gentle characters who gave the best of their lives protecting the freedoms of people who would not respect theirs.
That, sir, is is history, unsulied by your ilk. so was Brigham's letter headed south to cedar city to instruct the church members to let the Fancher party go through unharmed. A man was duly executed for that crime. Chase him to hell if you don't think his punishment was harsh enough and leave the rest of us who weren't there alone!
I for one will stand up for President Monson and say I am quite certain that he has done what was required of him by God and that he loves all people. Joseph and Brigham's day was not our day. Circumstances change and I am never prepared to say what Joseph would have done today or what Thomas Monson would have done back then. The Lord instructs them to guide the church for reasons only He sees. The church has not condemned those who opposed the ballot measure. have you heard of an excommunication over this? Did any of the insults thrown at Steve Young a last week come from Thomas Monson? Hardly! Now that it has passed, we will never know what the results of it's not passing would have been. Time never backs up, so we cannot pass judgements based upon what we think should have been.
It is sad to think that just because a church(one of many) let its opinion be known about its stand on this issure is being so blatently attacked and treated as if they are the only one that was againsdt the other side. All of the polls show that it was an extremly diverse group of people that voten in favor of Prop 8. People of all religions and faiths and ethnic backgrounds.
For this group to think that the LDS Church is the only one that deserves their protests, angst, and total disrespect is preposterous. Maybe these people need to take a step back, look at the numbers, and see that the state of CA voted on the issue and they lost. Fair and square.
I for one am a proud supporter of traditional marriage and although I believe that it is someone's God given right to choose their lifestyle I dont have to agree with that lifestyle.
This country - wether people like it or not - was based on freedom and the rule of the people. The people have spoken and that is that. If you dont like it then maybe you should try again. Me personally I will fight against Gay marriage every time that it comes up. I dont think that it strenghtens our country at all. It just shows how far we have come from the values that our Country were founded on.
MANY of these were motivated to vote in the election due to the candidacy of now president-elect Obama.
So while the LDS Church can share the credit for protecting marriage with many other conservative churches and individuals, they will also have to share some credit with president-elect Obama. Even though he opposed the measure, a large number of his supporters were in favor of it.
The good Lord works in mysterious ways.
California is only 6% black...
Do you think the lord would also be in favor of making adultery criminal? What about divorce, should laws also ban divorce?
And acording to your own relgion Non-temple marrages are not even reconized by your God... so why would your God care if people Got married...
Also your church also once banned interracial marriage, do you think that your God changed his mind on that or do you think?
I am just wondering if Your god will change his mind on Gay marriage, like he did interracial marriage, polygamy and so on..
This country was founded under God, and God has said long ago, and nothing has changed, that a marriage is between a man and a women. The problem isn't that God has changed his mind. Your "society" has created this one.
The pilgrims left England to get away from state Church own land and practice their region as they chose to.
Ironically now as Evangelical Christians try and force more and more of their belies and theology onto America government and the masses we are going back to the days of State Church.
"In God We Trust"... Does not mean the Mormon God, the Baptist God, the Buddhist God, the Muslim God... or any one persons God. So why should your ideas, your churches ideas, or even your gods ideas restrict my life?
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1815825713
if people like you are our future i fear for us all
http://www.census.gov/popest/states/asrh/SC-EST2007-04.html
36,553,215 people in CA 2,450,444 of them "Black or African American" making 6.7% of the population.
Remember two rosters don't make a hen
Here are the other laws of the bible you should also follow:
Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)
Don't have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)
Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)
Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)
Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9)
If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10).
If a man sleeps with his father's wife... both him and his father's wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11)
If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14)
If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16).
If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)
Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27)
If a priest's daughter is a [removed], she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21:9)
People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)
Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)
Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)
Which do you prefer? (they vary quite a bit).
LOL Honestly I think my father that took his LDS home teaching too far wishes he would have at least thought of birth control. (there is a laying on of hands joke in there)
But fast forward though LDS social service adoption, strict LDS upbringing and all that brings me here today... I am happy that he didn't :)
if thats all you two offer than i suggest that you attend the children s debates and leave the adults to talk about real issues
But just saying I am wrong with nothing to backup your statement doesn't really make you look like the educated one does it?
Sorry, it wasn't the parts you like... I will try harder next time.. LOL
Over 9 or 10 Latino Americans voted Yes on 8
Why aren't you hassling them?
only 5 out of 10 Whites voted Yes on 8
It amazes me how big a tantrum gays throw when they are told no.
Besides, if you didn't know this is Utah, KSL.... Really we just wanted to reinforce your faith... Give you somthing to talk about next testimony meating.
It amazes me how big a tantrum Black people throw when they are told no.
It amazes me how big a tantrum polygamist throw when they are told no.
It amazes me how big a tantrum Women throw when they are told no.
It amazes me how big a tantrum people throw when they are told no.
It's amazing to me that people don't allow others in 2008 to live as they see fit. Respect goes both people... You can't cry out for liberty and freedom and restrict the liberty and freedom of others. No matter what your god tells you.
It's not a "gay" issue, its a a issue of liberty and freedom... just as the polygamous issue, civil rights issue.. and the issues that founded this great country.
I know freedom, liberty and self governance is sadly still foreign to some people in this Country.
But yes, I would try to deny you the liberty of owning slaves, kidnapping someone, prohibiting the free speech of someone, or infringe on the rights of others in anyway... legal or not legal. Liberty and Freedom are not just buzzwords to me, they actually mean something and are values of mine.
What is so wrong with live and let live?
If Mormons Christians or what have you... really think that the way to enforce judo Christian values and promote their ever changing idea of "morality" then are they going to stop at gay marriage? Why would you stop at gay marriage... why not uses laws to enforce all things that modern Christians chose to embrace from the bible and society? Adultery, masturbation, cursing, blasphemy, divorce... Modern acceptance of Divorce and Adultery alone have done more damage to "traditional marriages" then homosexuality.
It's a scary world to me. Facsism is comming to to this country draped with an American flag and carrying a cross (or statue of Moroni in some cases:)
Do you really think that kids who see gay as a option are going to turn gay?
There are millions of people out there with lifestyles I don't agree with... Mormons included... but I don't think that legally restricting their lifestyle is constitutional or even going to protect my children from their ideology.
Were do you draw the line on converting your beliefs into law? Do you think that Adultery should be illegal? What about Masturbation? What about the Word of Wisdom should it be law? You could use the same argument couldn't you? Protecting traditional marrage, protecting your children.
Your country "UNDER GOD" is not the MORMON GOD. Its "God" as you see fit to worship God. The founding fathers were not Mormon, they were not all evangelical they were not even all Christian.
leave people alone, soon youll have all the gays shuffled into vans heading off to the psych ward so they can be healed of their evilness
why not take me too because i think that constricting the rights of all to further your beliefs is wrong
FYI, your 1000 gay friends marching at the LDS temple in LA is an act of bigotry.
or would it be different because it would be happening to you and not someone else.
But, marriage is not a Constitutional Right for anyone. Otherwise it would discriminate against singles.
1. How can you blame any single organization in this fight. There are multiple groups that helped pass Prop 8. Get over it.
2. I find it interesting that Ms. Gene isn't telling how much money California celebrities, like Ellen DeGeneres, gave to defeating Prop 8. I guess that's what you call an inconvenient truth.
3. The LDS Church is the second largest Christian denomination in California. That should give Ms. Gene a big clue as to what is going on, but yet, she must still be under the belief that EVERYONE in Utah is Mormon and sent their money. Jeez, get educated woman.
4. If Ms. Gene was really clued in, she would have read the LDS Church's statement saying that it believes that gay people should have the same rights as straight people, but that the definition of marriage is what is at issue here. Ignorance must be bliss.
5. The Mormons are the easiest target for a ton of people, so this is no different. Again, I guess it would take too much brain power for Ms. Gene to produce a comprehensive list of all of the groups that were in favor of Prop 8, but that's why she is who she is.
6. I find it interesting that she had to look at her notes to see who the President of the LDS Church is. I know this may sound like a little thing, but it does show that you have at least done your homework.
7. President Monson will be getting a ton of postcards from California. Oh well, I know he appreciates the beautiful things of life so hopefully, they will have beautiful pictures of the loverly California scenery. Even so, it still won't change the LDS Church's stand.
Ms. Gene, please get educated before you host another useless rally. It will add so much more meat to your cause.
Some of them do hate: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/uploads//monthly_11_2008/post-5050-1226027581_thumb.jpg
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=585
No one can force the LDS church to accept gay marriage... and the idea that people think that makes me rethink the whole black priesthood ban issue.
The supreme court ruled in the Bob Jones University case that Church can practice "discrimination" in effect... under religious rights given in the Constitution. Bob Jones University didn't allow black students to attend the university and the IRS (in the Days when the IRS has too much power) revoked the tax exempt status from the university because of this. This happened in 1970.. the supreme court ruling was in 1983... many have argued that the LDS church was fearfully of losing their tax exempt status because of this and lifted the ban on black people holding the priesthood and receiving endowments in 1978... I often wondered myself.
Churches should have the right... just as family's and any other organization to govern themselves. This self governance should include marriage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University_v._United_States
Restricting rights is trying to destroy the democratic process - Californians (overwhelmingly non-Mormon by the way) voted to amend their Constitution. Gays are trying to destroy that - now that is attempting to restrict rights.
The rights of society to keep a lifestyle that they see as wrong and destructive out of mainstream society (taught in schools, etc.) is in jeopardy. I know that this has been debated a million times, but yes, I do consider that our right.
Yes, trying to destroy the democratic process is restricting rights. But our nation was founded on principles that are not always trumped by majority rule.
Not agreeing with something taught in schools is not an infringement on your rights. I was taught many things in school that I didn't agree with morally or on other levels. AS I am sure you were. It was not an infringement on my rights.
That simple uh?
Read your D&C, Church History... then tell me it was that simple.. The Church fought long and Hard to practice polygamy. It was a very sacred ordnance and essential... You can't even have really read the D&C entirely to be that ignorant.
2. Was Ellen trying to pass a law telling you who you can marry?
3. Yeah, it's not like the church held firesides encored people from the pulpit and priesthood meetings, or even had people who live in Utah call California.
4. Are you saying getting married is not a right?
5. You are on KSL, a website that happens to be full of Mormon prop 8 supporters in Utah. Is it really that hard for you to figure out?
6. 7. Did you just run out of things to say?
1. You are right, just like I said, you can't blame one single organization. I don't think Ms. Gene specifically held this rally so it could be discussed on KSL.com.
2. No, Ellen was trying to vote down Proposition 8. What is your point with this inquiry?
3. I'm sure the LDS Church did some things in California as it should have. And I'm certain the other religious organizations in this fight were not simply limited to their California members.
4. What I am saying is that the LDS Church believes that members of the gay community have rights, but the definition of marriage should remain as it currently is, between a man and a woman. Nothing more, nothing less.
5. No it is not hard for me to figure out, that is not the point. The point is that for generations now, Mormans have been the easiest target for a lot of folks and Ms. Gene has perpetuated that. She could sound a lot more intelligent, but she took the easy way out.
6. 7. No, I did not run out of things to say. Pertaining to point 6, Ms. Gene would add a measure of credibility to her quest if she looked and sounded informed about the leadership of the organization she is decrying. Again, she could do it, it doesn't take much, but she elects not to and thus looks like she is ignorant.
Pertaining to point 7, every last person in California could send a post card to Monson and it's not going to change anything. So why waste the money on that campaign and put the money to a better use such as decrying the whole coalition that was in favor of Prop 8. Oh wait, that would take some effort. Yeah, go ahead, throw the money down the drain. Maybe Ellen will help pay for it.
How's that workin for you?
We are amongst you in sacrament meeting, Gospel Doctrine and Priesthood meetings... (Jaws sound).... President Faust was even a Democrat...
But you are part right... I am not active at all. My Wife and I some time ago decided that the LDS church wasn't for us. But I respect the church and acknowledge the good it does and the difference it makes in peoples lives including my own.
But sorry sometimes it's political stands are just wrong, Woman's rights, Black rights, and now Gay rights.
By the way Gays.. I have no problem with you other than the fact that when something doesn't go your way you boob and cry about it like a spoiled brat. GET OVER IT.. the rest of us have to get over that Obama was elected.. so get over the fact that most Americans don't want you shoving your lifestyles down our throats.
Banning sex with minors, public nudity and public sex, and other such acts are also majority morality properly enforced by law.
Sorry, but some things are not black and white and which portions of which moral codes to enforce by law and which to leave to individual conscience are often tricky questions without easy answers, no matter how many sound bites you use.
Utah- if both are 65 or older, or if both are 55 or older and one is unable to reproduce.
moral issue my butt....
Funny how you bring this up and yet forget to notice and emphasize some of the most important parts of that fact.
Did you not notice that the only reason a person could marry their first cousin in Utah is if they are both or at least the woman past child bearing age? If they can have kids then they can't get married. Why didn't you also cite that the great leader of trends in our nation known as California allows first cousins of any legal age to marry while the backwards hillbillies of Kentucky and Louisiana think that is so morally wrong that it is illegal.
Seeing as how you weren't considerate enough to provide the citation of your information I'll do it for you:
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/cousins.htm
Joke people...
So they blame the LDS people--Guardians of the American family.
Peace out-->libs
How can any sane person compare same-sex relationship to a male and female of different race relationship?
Love you say?
We think not and the people have voted against same-sex marriage.
So please do society a favor--go back to the closet or reduce you carbon footprint forever.
Peace out-->libs
But, what the hey let's blame the Mormans anyway!!
They are the only ones that voted RIGHT
Or maybe because the Church opened call centers to beg for support for Prop 8.
Or maybe because the churches history with polygamy some people think that they would be a bit more understanding of people who want to live lifestyles outside the norm?
So all of God's laws should be put into mans laws?
Assuming you could even get all Christians to agree (even all Mormons) just want god's laws are... Wouldn't that be contracting the New Testament and the words of Christ? Not to mention the founding principals of this country.?
They did this despite Brigham Youngs previous state of "Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned." The same thing happened with "Woman Suffrage" It took The Utah territorial congress twice passing it before it stuck.
The LDS church waited until 1978 to give African Americans full rights and privelages in the LDS church. This was after Brigham Young had said the following two statements Brigham Young said his discourses are as good as Scripture. "I say now, when they [ His Discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible . . . " (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 264; see also page 95.) And he said the following: "You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind....Cain slew his brother. Can might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, page 290)
Since God told him these things, wouldn't it be prudent that the LDS church follow his prophecy? The answer is no, the LDS church gave African Americans the priesthood because they would have ceased to exist as a church if they had not, just as they would have ceased in the previous two instances. I know that there will be a day that their stance will become so unpopular that they will once again be forced to change their stance on Gay marriage or they will lose their memberships.
I know that it is a matter of a few decades and Homosexuals will be getting married in LDS temples even if that seems far-fetched now, so did the disbandment of polygamy and blacks receiving the priesthood in the 1800's. Wait and see...
You're PATHETIC!!!!!
And this is the condemnation of the world and of man: that light has been revealed; but that we reject it, spurn it and hate it: choosing instead to act, think, believe, and desire alternate, less worthy perceptions.
I bear solemn witness that the day will come when all men will realize that reality here is presented ambiguously before our eyes for agency's sake, viz., that we may choose for ourselves what we will believe.
The day will most surely come when all men will know that there is a perfect order that has been architected and ordained by a living and loving Father and God; that our potential place in the universe was truly without limit; but while today lasts, that reality is hidden from view, so that we can choose for ourselves.
I tell you these things so that you might understand that your perceptions about what is going on around you, and why it happens, is a manifestation of your choice of what you want to believe. In effect we choose our worldview and then interpret the universe to fit it: and this is possible because of ambiguity. The world is in a state of mass hallucination: darkness covers the world and gross darkness the minds of the people.
So, you say, the church decided to ordain Blacks because of political constraints and it abandoned polygamy because of political constraints. Is it possible that there is an alternate view?
How about Polygamy: The Book of Mormon implies that God ordains polygamy in order to quickly grow a rising generation. From a legitimate frame of reference, the establishment of the latter-day church faced great opposition: its adherents were driven, raped, and slayed in the most free country upon the earth - largely, incidentally, because of its opposition to slavery. It seems reasonable that this was such a period that necessitated the rapid embryonic growth required to set the Kingdom firmly in place. Once the critical mass was achieved, polygamy was no longer 'required' for the Lord's purposes.
How about Blacks and the Priesthood:
In the colonial days of the Americas, slavery was a common and ACCEPTED practice in most of the world. Black men were not free. The founding fathers, many of whom were slave holders themselves and subjects of their own times, wisely set in motion a political system that was not in their own self-interest and that would eventually politically liberate the slaves. To understand the early restrictions on the priesthood, I believe you have to understand the solemnity, oath and covenant of the priesthood.
A man who accepts the priesthood incurs a solemn obligation to magnify that priesthood and to function in the world as a free agent in the service of God in administering truth and light to others. Instead of viewing the Priesthood as a privilege that was denied from some because of their skin color, I view the Priesthood as a grave obligation that results in condemnation when not handled properly; and that God mercifully withheld that obligation from Blacks until the time when very real political, educational, and cultural impediments were removed; and conditions were such that they could take upon themselves these sacred obligations with a reasonable probability of success. I'm convinced that Blacks in the early history of the United States, because of their limited liberty, will be judged to a different standard than their white contemporaries who had, but abused, greater liberty; and that the priesthood restrictions correlate to this reality.
Now, I recognize that you likely won't jump to my frame of reference just because I showed it too you. However, I wish that I could merely convince you to renew a childlike, meek, humble, search for truth and to recognize that the ultimate reality typically transcends our poverty of perception.
Choose wisely what you believe... it is the foundation of your perceptions... it comprises the self-imposed limits on what you can see. What is "obvious" to you is an artifact of where you stand spiritually. Your conclusions are built upon the foundation of your desires.
A long answer; but what Angie meant by "BS" is that you hold your conclusions up as objective truth; that you measure yourself and the world by your own light (and the light of others who stand with you) instead of submitting yourself to the measure and light of God.
I know that there is a living God in the Heavens, that Christ has set forth his hand in these latter days to restore his Kingdom upon the earth preparatory to his coming in great glory. The Book of Mormon is exactly what it purports to be and Joseph Smith truly saw the Father of Heaven and his only begotten Son. I solemnly affirm that just because you don't know these things doesn't have anything to do with whether such knowledge can be held; and I do hold it, and that it has been given to me by the power of the Holy Ghost. Such things may sound nonsensical to the world; but so it is, and I know it.
I've always been fascinated by folks who stand on lower ground and confidently declare, "all that I see is all that there is!" Will you tell me that I don't know these things? Or will you stand there and insanely bear witness of what is not? Please come quickly out of darkness and ignorance: humble yourself before God. Believe that He is, believe that he has power to change our natures, believe that he can lift us from our fallen state, believe that he operates among men according to their faith because of free agency.
Nevertheless, you may choose for yourself: for it is given to you to choose life or death, light or darkness, truth or error, salvation or damnation. This is a great key to understanding: God has prepared a plan for each soul to choose its own destiny - therein lies tragedy; therein lies triumph.
Choose wisely what you desire!
The existence of God (and therefore judgment, the afterlife, and other related topics) cannot be proven or disproved by the scientific method so your point is moot.
I personally believe that this is on purpose so we would be forced to rely on one degree or another of faith.
1: homosexuality is condemned as a heinous sin in multiple passages of the bible. Therefore, the logical extension would be that homosexual marriage would also be wrong...since that would facilitate and give approval of a homosexual relationship. While the bible does not mention gay marriage explicitly, you can't avoid the condemnation of homosexual relationships and by extension a homosexual marriage.
2: Yes the New Testament was put together in the manner you describe, however, I would argue that most of it is still intact. Yes, there are things missing obviously and some things have been changed etc, but basically the message is the same, otherwise we wouldn't believe in it (which we most definitely do)...and since the passages dealing with homosexuality demonstrate the same basic premise (homosexuality is sinful) as the ones in the OT/Talmud, then it is probably safe to say that those passages are correct.
Regarding your first question: Could you show me where scriptures explicitly teach that a man shouldn't marry his dog, or his cat, or his donkey, or his...." Do you think it necessary that God delineate each and every form of union that is unacceptable; or could it be that His pronouncement that his will that a man and a woman be wed and become one is sufficient to exclude the infinitude of erroneous potential unions.
I can certainly show you plenty of references that indicate that marriage between a man and woman is ordained of God. Where does it say that marrying a man to a man is acceptable in God's eye?
Wrest, wrest, wrest away.
1. So, we are to assume God told Brigham Young EVERYTHING that came out of his mouth?
2. By your argument about the blacks and the priesthood, are we to assume that the decision to take the gospel to the Gentiles only AFTER Christ was resurrected was a political decision, or the "popular" thing to do? The Levites used to be the only holders of the priesthood, was that changed because it was no longer popular? The way I see it, God works through natural situations and will often shape "revelation" in actions around us that we need to be keen to. That said, the fundamental principles that govern eternal law are the same, how the human race is prepared to receive them is a different story.
3. At what point in the history of the universe will the continuing propagation of the species be magically introduced to gay couples? You obviously know nothing about LDS doctrine, so you may want to go back to reading your Anti-Momron propaganda until you come across something that talks about the "sealing" in the temple as related to the first commandment given to Adam and Eve to "Multiply and Replenish the earth" - it's kind of an eternal principle that homosexuality can't accomplish for reasons maybe you should look up in a sexual education book.
Funny, you say a few decades? How about never? Why? Because GOD says it is an abomination. Because GOD won't ever go back and say "oh gosh. How silly of me to have stepped on the toes of people".
He is the same today, tomorrow and forever (that's in the Bible, folks)which means His attitudes are unchanging.
You may at some point win the war you wage to have the world recognize you as "married". You won't. someday have that same allowance from God.
I think you have every right to say what you did and shouldn't be trolled for it.
The fact is that you don't understand the issue with Plural Marriage and the Blacks having the Priesthood. With Plural Marriage: Throughout the Bible, there have been instances of God commanding his people to have more than one wife, many people assume that is some perverted sexual issue but that it not the case, many times it was so that men that were financially stable could help multiple women have the opportunity to go to school, get educated. This was not the only reason but Plural Marriage isn't just about sex/prevision. The church only discontinued this practice after the prophet received revelation that this was the case - he said that he would allow the temples to be taken and the members to be arrested if this was the will of God. He did not cave into social pressure but just as in times of old, God is able to command people to practice and not practice plural marriage.
With Blacks and the Priesthood: Throughout time, God has given the power to act in his name to select and limited groups of people. There are examples of groups of people not being able to receive this power until God commanded it. The Blacks were not given the power to act in God's name, not as a racist decision, but because that was God's will. When God gave the leaders of the church the authority to give Black's the priesthood they did so.
Homosexual behavior has nothing to do with these decisions. Marriage between and man and a women is a strict commandment from God. Look in the Bible. We are trying to defend God's commands - no matter the cost.
/that's all I have to say.
PS Did you know we have our own law school, usually ranked #35?
It seams as though the LAPD needs to have their best goon squad out with tasers, tear-gas, knight-sticks and the paddy wagon ready to go!
There are 1,400 legal rights that come with having a spouse, and you're in support of denying those rights to fellow Americans.
Why do gay leaders target children with such voracity? One reason: "RECRUITS"!
Understand this, Gays leaders and organizations do NOT want rights for all, just for themselves...otherwise they would vigorously be championing the plight of:
1. People who want to marry their family members...
2. People who want to marry livestock...
3. People who want polygamous marriages...
etc..
Why might you ask, do religions, including the LDS church get involved in supporting a ban on gay marriage? Two reasons:
1st, it is their right to (anyone who coughs up the old separation of church and state argument doesn't really understand the constitution and needs to educate themselves by reading the following: http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state.htm)
2nd, the very survival of organized churches and religions who oppose gay marriage is at stake... If judges can effectively close down a catholic orphanage for refusing to allow gay couples to adopt (a lifestyle not acceptable to the catholic and most other Christian churches), then judges can try and force Mormons to solemnize gay marriages in their temples as well (and that is most probably where it would be headed) This would effectively close the LDS temples as Mormon leaders certainly wouldn’t allow them to be desecrated. Hate speech could be defined as meaning any person or organization who speaks out against gays or gay marriage, with huge financial or penal penalties, etc...
Legalized gay marriage is a very slippery slope...we've seen exactly what gay organizations have done with a little power (indoctrinate your children at public school by teaching them about the homosexual lifestyle and marching kindergartners to city hall to witness a lesbian marriage ceremonies, shutting down religious orphanages), etc...
Imagine what they would do with a LOT of power... think it doesn't affect you? think again, especially if you have children attending public schools or frequent a Christian church. I make no apology for my belief in God and what I know to be right and wrong.
Homosexuality is a sexual perversion and certainly not intended by God or nature. Gay marriage doesn’t make it better…it just destroys a nation.
It's what they do with that that can or cannot go against teachings. Not necessarily whether or not they are.
He holds a temple recommend, he comes to church each week and he has decided to live a celibate, albeit lonely life.
Not much different from a woman who doesn't have the opportunity to marry.
Some of the comments calling me stupid make me think you haven't thought it through - or that you're convinced those feelings are something someone brings on themselves. I honestly don't know but who am I to judge what someone else feels?
It's a cross I hope I'm never called to bear - and suffer seeing someone I care about bear and yet I'm so impressed with his strength.
They need to come up with a "just plain stupid" voting option for you.
(no offense "service for you" although I don't agree with you either)
Btw, it's not just some church leaders that go with that--it's all of them.
Gays have a terrible burden to bear to have attractions to the same sex. It is pretty easy to judge them having not had to live with the same temptations. Each person has to work out their salvation on their own, including gays.
They have just as much right to consider themselves Mormons as the rest of the church as long as they are striving to live its teachings and not openly opposing it.
I think someone who calls themselves gay could have that attraction to same sex but doesn't mean they are acting on those impulses. Some really do believe they were born with those feelings - some think it's something you choose.
I don't know which it is and I have NEVER heard an official church statement saying that it is one or the other.
For the lawyers it would be a bonanza!
And how many smaller churches, whose donations are all by local, smaller congregations, could afford to countersue? Most struggle to pay their preacher and keep up their buildings.
What rights are being taken from them?
Every right granted under marriage can be granted under civil union, or be drawn up by an attorney.
Civil unions are, in effect, the exact same thing. You are giving homosexuals the same rights, but getting so caught up in the rhetoric and separating the two realms because it makes you feel uncomfortable, that you fail to see the discrimination instated by such unions. You are declaring them inferior by means of their sexual orientation.
The Courts will see that when this gets to them. Thank goodness the framers of our Constitution set up this counter-majoritarian institution to protect people from such a blatant violation of human dignity.
Imagine if 48% of the people in the U.S. were rioting and demanding that John McCain be put in as president "NOW"? Would you think that was right? What if they really, really wanted him to be president. Quit pouting and grow up!
Who does it really harm if two people with the same sex organ wed?
In the past there were things reserved for only white, or only men. As we evolved or grew... women fought for their rights... blacks fought for their rights. Now Gays are fighting for theirs.
Back then it was absurd to even think about giving them their rights.... I hear some of the same arguments about gays having their rights... the same bull hucky.
Why is it reserved??? Because a man decades ago said so and wrote it down somewhere??? Because people fear it will corrupt others???
NO matter what the vote is or was.... Homosexuality will be around for all of time. Get used to it. Give them at least.... the rights to insurance of their partner... rights to property... I think it is so so wrong to deny them that.
The world is growing more and more evil by the day.
Incest is real and I'm using that example to make my point. The advocates of pro gay-marriage stand on the basis that two loving adults joining in marriage in no way effect the rest of society. So why not cousins? Why not siblings?
However, you can't take any of our taxes to do it and everyone must be 18 or older.
However, you can't take any of our taxes to do it and everyone must be 18 or older.
"Marriage" would grant a status that takes taxes.
While the LDS Church should not alter their religious views and doctrine because of a changing of the political current or public opinion, they should maintain the passive role that they have embraced with nearly every other political stand. The teachings of Joseph Smith, the first Prophet of the LDS Church, taught, “Teach people correct principles and let them govern themselves”.
Seriously let there be peace and happiness for all people--
Homosexuality has been around decades... if someone else wants to marry his sister or daughter for the claim of love.... It is on their own behalf.... Not the behalf of homosexuals.
In reading your comment, I believe you are more evil than you claim the world to be growing. By that I mean... It is far more evil to deny gays their rights as human beings, citizens of our nation.
Give it awhile, we will win, and everyone will have the right to be married. I will guarantee it!
And so you're saying that my opinion on who should be president doesn't matter since the guy I voted for lost? That's part of democracy -- we vote, the majority rules, and we try to live together as a united nation in spite of our differences.
First if it would not of past, then the next thing would be that they would be required to teach in schools that same sex marriage is fine.
Second, any one that teach, or believed that marriage is between a man and a woman would be said that they are being raciest (I know that not the right word but I can not think of the exact one, basically they hate same sex couples) This would go for all religious origination, and if they are proven to teach against this then they could and would lose there protections as a church.
Finally, marriage does not give same sex couples any additional items under the law that they can not get them self by going to a loyer and writing up stuff like a living will, power of attorney ex.
well.....
Keep religious beliefs out of state issues.
Did the citizens of those states have the imposition of influence from "out of state churches" or did the majority of their citizens simply not like the idea of gay marriage (as seems to have also been the case in California).
Is it that "she" doesn't like the outside influence of a church, or would she have been happier if those opposed had been paid lobbists?
Personally, I don't care if gay couples want to get married, and I think the LDS Church was only inviting trouble by sending members from Utah to California. After all, they have LDS Churches all over the state of California, and their local members could have just as easily handled the opposition, but in the end, it was the citizens of Arizona, California and Florida who VOTED to make gay marriage illegal, and not the LDS Church or anyone else from outside of those states.
This remained an issue for CA residents to work on.
If marriage is NOT defined as only between a man and woman, the effects reach beyond those in the gay community. For example, in Boston, MA (where gay marriages are now legal,) the Catholic Charities have closed their doors because the state has required them to allow adoptions to same sex couples, and they refused. They are a large and worthwhile charity with great power in the state and they were overruled. A Methodist church has lost their tax exempt status because the minister refused to perform a marriage of a same sex couple (they were not of his congregation). A physician who refused to do fertility treatments on a same sex couple because of religious reasons was sued, lost and the state is requiring him to treat everyone as equals. Our schools will be required to teach, starting in kindergarten, that marriages make up many different combinations. Parents can not opt out of these lessons if they have different moral beliefs.
Directly tied into ALL of this is our right to continue to go to the Temple. If Gay Marriage is supported by the government, then those who are same-sex married, who are 'LDS' and legally recognized as married by the government, can sue to be married in the temple. II seriously doubt the church will bend on this issue, and our rights to go to the temple will be in jeopardy. AND goodbye to those religious tax-deductions. Tithing, fast offerings, etc. We will lose our tax-exemption status if the government legally forces the church to support same-sex marriage.'
So obviously I changed my opinion on the matter. I don't feel any hate or animosity towards those in the gay community and I believe they should have the rights granted to them by civil unions. But once their rights start to infringe on mine, things change entirely.
I don't know about you but it kind of makes me rethink the whole issue with black people and the LDS priesthood.
Jefferson swore eternal hostility toward any form of tyranny upon the mind of man.
Religious Liberty was of the highest order and concern to these colonists, and the very first of their spelled out "Bill of Rights" reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
So, the First Amendment was to keep the damned hand of government tyranny off of religion, for "Congress shall make no law" concerning religion, and neither shall the damned Soviet Courts in the United States today. Prop 8 was not "anti-gay" measure, but a 1st Amendment measure to protect religion from the wicked courts who are hostile and seek an inroad as slaughtering the First Amendment. Judges the ilk of Governor Lilburn W. Boggs of Missouri are ready and anxious to criminalize religion if they can do so.
An example of these most wicked courts. Recently, the Soviet US District Court in San Francisco ruled that "parental rights are severed" when a child crosses the threshold of the school. Where did this Stalin/Mao/Hitlarian ruling come from? Straight from a tyrannical hell, a US Court that is as un-American as anything you hear of today. People 30 years ago would have laughed you to scorn if you would have predicted a court ruling could take place in America that followed the Marxist ideology of the USSR. But, here we are. Such Soviet rulings have been made and will continue to be made. That ruling enforced a plank of the Communist Manifesto.
Respecting religion and the "free exercise thereof" churches absolutely have to defend against these damned, wicked courts who now "make law" which the 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from doing.
I hope, in a nutshell, this explains the real issue. What a damned lie to say this is "hate filled" by churches. Churches did not start this battle, but they shall be destroyed if they don't stand up and defend the 1st Amendment. It is their defense against hate filled judges who will begin criminalizing churches as soon as they can get an inroad to do so. Marriage as defined as a "man and a woman" is a buffer against such tyranny upon the 1st Amendment. Gay people can have every right and do so under the law. The only difference is their "domestic unions" are not given the legal definition to be a "marriage" which protects churches from a ruthless tyrannical government hell bent upon legislating it into oblivion by the Secularist High Priests of the State Religion of Secularism---the Judges.
Mormon's, more than any other people on earth today, perhaps, ought to know what governments can do, for in the 19th Century, the US Federal government sought to "destroy the LDS Church as an institution" as Gordon B. Hinckley expressed a while back. It is true, murder of leadership, their imprisonment, lootings, robbings, plunder, seizure of assets, burning of temples, shutting down of temples, "extermination orders," it's all been had before, and is prophesied to transpire again. We're fools to let it come about easily by not seeking to ensure the 1st Amendment is of force, keeping judges damned hands from "making law" against religion and "the free exercise thereof."
If this is a civil rights issue then everyone should have equal rights to marriage including homosexuals, polygamists, animal lovers, etc.
Until death when you will part... Adam and Bruce
"....The battle with the evil one will go on and on and on. It will rise against this Church. It will rise against you individually. It will be felt in the future as it has been felt in the past." (Gordon B. Hinckley, Church News, Jan. 29, 2000. p.5.)
We can too remember that Ezra Taft Benson in his landmark "Cleansing the Inner Vessel" talk told us:
"As a people, it seems we can survive persecution easier and better than we can peace and prosperity." (Ezra Taft Benson, “Cleansing the Inner Vessel,” Ensign, May 1986, 4)
Brigham Young counseled against fearing persecution:
“You that have not passed thro’ the trials and persecutions, and drivings with this people from the beginning, but have only read them, or heard some of them related, may think how awful they were to endure, and wonder that the saints survived them at all.—The thought of it makes your heart sink within you, your brain reel, and your body tremble, and you are ready to exclaim, ‘I could not have endured it.’ I have been in the heat of it, and never felt better in all my life; I never felt the peace and power of the Almighty more copiously poured upon me than in the keenest part of our trials. They appeared nothing to me” (Deseret News Weekly, 24 Aug. 1854, 83). (L. Aldin Porter, “‘But We Heeded Them Not’,” Ensign, Aug 1998, 6)
Gordon B. Hinckley told us we did not need to fear persecution. In a 2007 address at BYU, Elder Tingey shared:
"Speaking of persecution, President Gordon B. Hinckley recently counseled General Authorities to not worry about being persecuted. He noted that it has been going on since the War in Heaven. He further counseled us that the Church is in good condition and that we should just work harder to move the work forward. He concluded by saying that he would worry more about us if people did not speak evil of us. This is good counsel from a prophet." (Earl C. Tingey, "The Watchman on the Tower," BYU devotional address, 5 June 2007.)
Now, militant homosexuals will target the church. They've already shown vandalism, vulgarity, thievery in this campaign, over 20 signs from my own yard stolen or destroyed, and this from the "diversity of opinion for everyone crowd" and the "freedom of speech for all" professing group. Such are the most intolerant to be had. They scream of suffering intolerance, and show their hypocrisy to the fullest extent in how they treat those who don't side with their pint of view. It's amazing how they reveal themselves so beautifully. They are like the anti-Christs of the Book of Mormon who will not tolerate others to "judge" them, for "there is not sin," and "there is no God." I think of Nehor who loving "freedom of speech" beat the elderly Gideon to death with a sword for speaking his mind. Those after his order (the ORder of Nehor's) with their secular religion, burned thousands of "believers" alive, along with their scriptures. Yes, these were "tolerant" people, demanding always that they be "tolerated" but never would they "live and let live."
Should I blame Obama's campaign manager because McCAin didn't win? Should I protest on Oprahs show for campaining for Obama?
As a matter of fact majority voted. Obama won, I accept it and I respect it. Why can't you respect peoples vote for Prop8? They voted using their free will not a dictate from the LDS president. I am not an LDS. I know it is hard that you canot marry but we have to accept it, as it is hard for me think that Obama supports abortion.
I am a 20-year-old female member of the LDS faith, and I am saddened by the fact that I have to be associated with such hate, intolerance, and scare tactics.
Allowing homosexuals the right to marry will not in anyway invalidate or demean marriage among man and a woman. It will also have many more positive ramifications than most people will care to see such as promoting monogamy and helping to get underprivileged children out of the foster care systems, as gays tend to adopt more children from foster care than straight couples do, and I see no reason to believe love from two parents of the same gender is worse than no love at all. We live in an imperfect world, and these children do not often have the opportunity to be raised by two parents of opposite gender. As for the argument that gay couples can only raise gay children, to this I would respond that straight couples always raise straight children and there is no reason to make such accusations.
I see this movement as an intrinsic violation of human dignity and equal rights. I refuse to participate in such degradation. I hope that we will see progress come and will one day live in a nation where people will not be forced to partake in second class citizenship based upon sexual orientation. I see no reason to feel that my marriage to a male will be threatened by this movement and hope others will realize this too.
follow the leader and you will be safe ......right
if it makes you sleep better at night
"thier"
"effect"
You're more than confused, you're functionally illiterate. For anyone on either side of the debate to state that the issue doesn't affect (Reba-see the difference between "effect" and "affect"?)every one of us and our families is to bury our head in the sand. By the way, it was a ballot issue and the majority voted in favor of the proposition. That represents a nice confirmation that in a democratic republic, the majority rules. I didn't see any McCain supporters demonstrating in front of the nation's capital against Obama's election victory, nor did I see anyone on the news attributing his victory to wealthy donors. Yet front and center in Los Angeles, we have a woman stating that the proposition passed because the "Mormons" pumped money into the issue, not because the majority spoke. Bizarre, but unfortunately typical. I also didn't see the demonstrators carrying signs protesting any of the other organizations that supported the proposition. Were there other demonstrations?
My church and any other church has the right and obligation to speak on any issue that it believes affects the moral fabric of the society in which it dwells. And, do governments legislate on the basis of morals? Certainly they do. What are the bases of laws against environmental contamination, assault, trespass, larceny, robbery, making false statements, driving under the influence, domestic violence and so forth and so on? All of those laws have a basis in morals and virtue.
Finally, I see accusations of hatred against my church. The real hatred, however, that I see is in the photos of the protesters. Their "mormons [removed]" sign is full of hate.
They are just mad it passed and just trying to put the blame on someone. I really am glad the LDS church stood up for what they believe. I believe it too! Marriage is to be between a man and a woman. That is how God stated it, that is how it shall stay.
Sure homosexuals can be together, whatever, but they don't deserve the rights of being married.
If we allow same sex relationships to be married, well then lets just pass a law where we can marry animals too. It's as ridiculous as it sounds.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1815825713
I'm not sure if you were really asking, but I hope that clarifies a little.
[Please don't shout with ALL CAPS.]
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, FORNICATION, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and SUCH LIKE: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Fornicton by Definition:
"In Biblical usage, 'fornication' can mean any sexual congress outside monogamous marriage. It thus includes not only premarital sex, but also adultery, homosexual acts, incest, remarriage after un-Biblical divorce, and sexual acts with animals, all of which are explicitly forbidden in the law as given through Moses (Leviticus 20:10-21).
"pornea" Latin for Fornication
According to Christs Freedmen, now includes "premarital sex, orgies, fetishes, anything to do with pornography, 'improper' thoughts about the opposite sex, homosexuality, and just about any other sexual sin you could think of."
Also in The Old Testament Leviticus 20:10-15
the sins of the flesh are stated plainly
READ VERSE 13 GAY PEOPLE
10 ¶ And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
11 And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
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.
(Well that's pretty clear on that topic, right)
14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
All scripture references from the King James Version of The Bible.
Generally accepted to Christians everywhere as
The Word of God (ENOUGH SAID)
"Geez"
A man may have thoughts that he wants to sleep with every girl that he sees. Having that "tendency" or thought pop into his head is not wrong, but letting that thought grow, or "living it out" would be wrong. This life is about which thoughts you choose to act on. Self control. The gay community puts out lies like "you can't deny who you are." But the truth is everyone must deny themselves from carrying out any wrong thoughts like stealing something they might like to have, hitting someone that makes them mad, or having a homosexual lifestyle.
HOW UNGODLY IS THAT.
God is a loving and accepting being.
The concern comes from the legal standard being set - if, legally, all marriages between adults are sanctioned by law, it has the POTENTIAL to adversly affect the constitutional rights of churches to continue their social services programs, their congregational requirements, their preaching practices - could missionaries or pastors potentially be sued for preaching against homosexual marriage? Yes. This is a big issue for every church out there - not many could handle the financial burden of repeated discrimination lawsuits, that they shouldn't have to defend, because freedom of religion should be protected as a basic right. But if marriage is not legally defined, it leaves a great many loopholes for certain fringe advocate groups to squirm through and prosecute religions, just because they could do it.
So, in response to daily life, what would happen if your church was forced to close because it was facing a class action lawsuit that it couldn't defend itself from? You think that would affect someone's daily life. You bet.
I won't even get into the parental rights issue. I think everyone is aware of that.
Does two gays marrying in California affect me and my wife? No, probably not. However, allowing the traditional value of marriage to be changed and twisted would be just another step in the wrong direction for our country. Also, gay marriage is one step. What's the next? You and I both know there will be another.
I support civil unions that allow homosexual couples to enjoy the rights of partnership under the law, but marriage is sacred - for me and many others. It is a step I am not willing to accept.
I know there will be those to pick apart my reasoning and opinion. Go ahead! I enjoy a good, reasoned debate, even if I don't agree with everything said.
Homosexuality is not a moral issue.
Reba, why are you opposed to a clean, wholesome, decent way of life?
I will laugh and smile when the day comes when Gays are allowed to marry in Utah...
One day it will be... just as that one day came when women had rights, blacks had rights, and a black man became president. :D
Although I did get a good chuckle. Thanks!
I am not gay and don’t agree with it. I am respectful towards others though which you are not. My not liking it does not give me the right to deny their happiness. Don’t give me any bull about it ruining the American family or how you might be worried about kids becoming gay just because they see a gay couple. It does not affect me or you so let them marry. If you argue based on religion you need to remember that we have freedom of religion and no religion or beliefs based on such should be forced on others.
Doesn’t the bible say something about not judging your neighbor?
This has been especially true as my daughter has gone through puberty and is close to dating. There are some issues she is more comfortable discussing with her mother and some she is more comfortable discussing with father.
By the way, your argument of "child raping freaks" is just insulting. Neither heterosexuals nor homosexuals can claim to be perfect in that arena.
Exactly who is telling you that gay people "should be burned alive"? And while you're talking about people "speaking harshly" and being intolerant, take a look in the mirror sister.
Saying gay marriage is an abomination is not saying gay people are an abomination. Love the sinner, hate the sin. Sound familiar?
To this day I remember the words my father spoke nearly on a daily basis, "The Church is TRUE despite the saints!" Members do not always act in accordance to the teachings of the gospel. It is quite obvious that the leaders of the Church are aware of this as they continue to tell us to LOVE ONE ANOTHER, specifically in reference to ALL PEOPLE, not just those who are LDS, but to ALL PEOPLE. Unfortunately for many of us is it easier said than done.
The fact is, that the majority voted yes to ban gay marriage and you may not agree with it, but you need to accept it. I didn't want Obama to win, but the majority of the country thinks he is the best one for the job, so I accept it and will try and support him as our next president.
Who are you to judge or even question a person's level of faith. SHAME ON YOU!!!
Mojo, I'm sorry you struggle with your faith. Members of the church are only human. Remember the Lord himself said that the whole need no physician, but they that are sick. If the church is the physician then we who belong must be in need of a physician. It's not a sin to love or to feel sympathy for those who suffer in clouds of confusion or darkness. But I tell you that a greater form of love is to stand for that which will lead a soul back to our home and our Father who loves us all.
The prophet knows this and if we humble ourselves to the will of God, he will whisper peace to us so that we can know it also. Love is what counts in everything so the higher the form of love, the higher priority it is to God and he will be judge of all in the end. Trust in Him and learn from Him and He will bring you peace. I'm sorry for your pain... Good luck!
That would be the same as judging all gay rights activists by those that produced the Mormon missionary commercial (which some on this board have done).
The church did not encourage its members to discriminate against gays. In fact, they've done just the opposite, per their official statements--of which you as an LDS church member are fully aware, I imagine.
Proposition 8 defines marriage. That's all it does. Society has a right to define important societal institutions. The California Supreme Court took away that right. I would have preferred to see Proposition 8 say: the CA Supreme Court no longer has jurisdiction to rule on the meaning of marriage. But, given the choice between court-defined marriage and society-defined marriage, I'll take the latter.
Are you opposed to members of the Church preaching from the Bible? Last I checked we believed the Bible to be the word of God. "Go Forth and Multiply." I am unsure of how homosexual couples may accomplish something like this. True there are several heterosexual couples who are currently not able to fulfill this commandment, however, they at least have the proper "equipment" for such a task to take place.
Maybe you might want to re-read the "The Family: A Proclamation to The World." The Family is ordained of God.
And as flattering as it may sound to say the LDS Church is responsible for the passing of Prop 8, it is simply untrue. There are not THAT many LDS memebers in California to carry the vote itself. Accept the fact that there are plenty of other moral people in California who do not belong to the LDS Church. This is the second time MORAL PEOPLE have spoken against Gay Marriage in California, stop robbing them of THEIR CLEAR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT!
maybe tolderence of people but not of sin.
-donated large sums of church money.
-read documents at church to compel their members.
if so list them I will blame them too.
hope the link shows up, last time it didn't