Activists want LDS support with gay rights legislation
Leaders of the LDS Church have said they do not object to rights for same-sex couples, as long as those rights do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family. Now, gay-rights activists and at least five Utah legislators are asking the Church to demonstrate its conviction. November 10th, 2008 @ 5:00pm
By Richard Piatt and Becky Bruce
Sorry, we are not accepting new comments on this story.
Sorry, we are not accepting new comments on this story.
Most Popular
Site Index
News |
Weather
Traffic |
TV
Sports
Opinion |
Radio |
Classifieds
Announcements
Events
Movies |
Advertise with KSL
Other Resources
Wireless
Legal
Sister Sites
|
© 2009 ksl.com KSL Television & Radio, Salt Lake City UT A Division of Bonneville International m36
KSL's public inspection files, including the Children's Television Programming Reports and the DTV Quarterly Activity Station Report, are available for viewing during regular office hours at the KSL Broadcast House.
The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) 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 family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.
--end quote--
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage
I'll solve the probate matter right now... you don't need a piece of paper telling you you have a right to make a will out to whoever you want. If you want to make sure your gay lover gets your property when you are dead, make a will for crying out loud... it's fairly easy.
Employment... It is already against the law to discriminate against someone based on age, gender, color, smell, hight, weight, sexual preference, or anything else you can think of. What more do you want there???
Housing... explain this one to me please... are you trying to pass a law mandating that all gay people can rent from you even if the landlord dosn't want to rent to them? So... that would work out great... find a real nice house and even if you have bad credit all you have to say is "I'm gay" and they legally have to rent to you? get real. Gay people have as much right to housing as everyone else in this country. They could only be asking for special treatment here.
Medical - so you want your unrelated lover to be covered by your work insurance? That's messed up. Using this logic it would require employers to insure anyone their employees have sex with. It's just not feesible.
Because being gay is a psychological disorder, homosexuals should be able to seek legal protections under the Americans With Disabilities Act.
They have no tax benefits as hetero's do, and they are oftentimes not allowed to carry their life partner on their health insurance.
In terms of your housing argument, no, it doesn't work that way for blacks, wouldnt work that way for gays. It's a matter of not declining to sell or rent to someone SOLEY because they're gay. Which is protected under the civil rights act, same as if they were black, mexican, asian, old, etc.
If you don't like the medical repercussions, then allow them to marry. It doens't hurt you to let them, it only hurts them NOT to allow it.
Even if it could be, who are you to say that someone with a different set of religious beliefs can't make the same commitment to their partner?
Make a will. Life support removal??? all this kerfluffel because of a 1 in 1,000,000 chance that someone who is gay will be faced with that decision. come on. If you are that worried about it you can sign over power of attourny and include in your will that you want your significant other to be able to pull your plug. Heck you can do it yourself... it's calld a "DNR". Which means "Do Not Resessitate".
Tax benifits... they have the same as heteros who live together but are not married... I don't see the problem. Health insurance... already addressed in former post. In order to extend insurance to them you would have to extend insurance to all heteros who have sex with someone other than a spouse wether single or married. Just won't work.
Housing... you just made my argument for me. The laws are already in place... what more do you want?
Medical reprecussions... like I said... it might be possible if you deport the 50 million illegals who are getting free health care... I would much rather my tax dollars go to caring for US citizens be they black brown red gay or hetero. But to force insurance companies to cover people just because they have sex will cause major problems
2) have a living will in place to decide about life-support.
As for health insurance, well, that's for the insurance companies to decide. They aren't owned by the state so they get to do what they want.
In many cases, even with married couples, it is advantageous to file separately anyway.
So, go back and parse the statement made by the church again. Note carefully: "No objection" if the state wants to extend certain limited kinds of benefits to gay couples does not mean that the church "supports" even that limited shift; but it recognizes that, again in the limited case, it is strictly a state matter, even though it is not logically justified by any compelling state interest.
In spite of the fact that the state has no compelling interest in sponsoring benefits to gay unions, the church will "not oppose" granting them AS LONG AS the state doesn't go so far as to compromise the definition of family and marriage or interfere with the churches' guaranteed first amendment liberties.
A recurring question posted over and over and over again by various posters is, "what rights are missing?" Here is the elephant in the room that remains unnamed: I believe the unstated but real goal of the so-called gay-rights movement is to have unfettered parental rights to adoptive and surrogate children by normalizing homosexual relationships as legitimate family constructs and to recast homosexuality as normative via indoctrination of the rising generation.
The church's statement makes it clear that the church will stand resolutely in protection of traditional families and marriage and, by association, defense of the innocents who do not and cannot consent to being placed and raised in a degenerate familial group.
As I've outline elsewhere in this thread: The point at which the state subjects non-consenting children to being unnaturally imprinted and raised in a degenerate sexual environment, the state will be interfering destructively with the family; and using innocent children as pawns in an ill-advised social experiment. I believe this is the line where the church will continue to mount moral opposition to obviously immoral practices.
If you are inclined to take offense of my use of the term "degenerate", please read my other post in this thread that unemotionally and etymologically deconstructs the word "degenerate" and proves that it is a true and accurate usage of the term. Its usage here is in that classic sense of the word and does not intend to imply condemnation.
It bears repeating "...free from government interference"
How ironic that it IS government interference they are seeking when attempting to stop gay marriage. They want to take a clearly religious concept and institution (marriage) and impose upon it, a legal description and definition which suits their beliefs within the religious framework, while claiming it is about protecting the family.
I guess they never bothered to notice that two gay men, whether "married" or otherwise, are UNLIKELY to produce children anyway!
Funny how separation of church and state and the constitutional principle of freedom of religion are always cited as justification for a hand's off policy when it benefits the church, but as soon as they're faced with loosing their tax exempt status, well, then they want all the "government involvment" they can get.
It's called hipocrisy, and there isn't a church in this country that isn't ripe with it!
The "separation" clause is a fiction. It does not exist. If you think it does, I challenge you to show it to me.
The first amendment, coupled with habeus corpus are the keystones of our constitutional liberties and are under concerted attack.
The idea that everyone's entitled to the fruits of virtue, regardless of their conduct, is a threat to individual liberty and accountability (which go hand in hand).
As I've argued elsewhere in this thread: The State has a valid compelling interest in fostering and incentivizing traditional marriage and traditional families. The state has no equal interest in sponsoring homosexual unions as such have no redeeming strategic value to the state.
In spite of the fact that the state has no logical interest in sponsoring benefits to gay unions, I doubt that the church will oppose granting them AS LONG AS the state doesn't go so far as to compromise the definition of family and marriage.
As I've outline elsewhere in this thread: The point at which you subject non-consenting children to being unnaturally imprinted and raised in a degenerate sexual environment, the state will be interfering destructively with the family; and using innocent children as pawns in social experiments. I believe this is the line where the church will continue to mount moral opposition to immoral politics.
Many people are struggling here, trying to understand what "Rights" are missing. I believe the unstated goal of the so-called gay-rights movement is to have unfettered parental rights to adoptive and surrogate children by normalizing homosexual relationships as legitimate families. That is why "marriage" is such an issue for them.
So, go back and parse the statement made by the church again. Note carefully: "No objection" if the state wants to extend certain limited kinds of benefits to gay couples does not mean that the church "supports" this kind of a shift; but it recognizes that it is strictly a state matter, even if it is not logically justifiable. However, the statement makes it clear that the church will stand resolutely in protection of traditional families and marriage in defense of the innocents who do not and cannot consent to being placed and raised in a degenerate familial group.
But they DO refuse to do weddings. Don't think that they don't.
They should not have the right to prevent other people who are in love from enjoying the same benefits provided by our govt.
I think you meant 'bigamy'
A church and its members may practice religion as they see fit, WITHIN the confines of the law. Bigamy is illegal in this country, e.g., no church can "legally" perform such marriages any more than they could allow the practice of human sacrifice, since murder is also illegal.
The argument with respect to Prop. 8 concerns the definition of what is "traditional" marriage?
The concept of marriage itself predates written human history, but the institution of marriage as we "practice" it in modern society, defines it as a union between a man and woman, and while that may have been the basic concept 1,000,000 years ago too, in modern society, that concept is clearly embedded within the dogma of RELIGION, not as defined by the government.
You can go down to any county courthouse and have a justice of the peace marry you without any mention of the word God and without any of the "traditional" religious ceremony or vows, and that marriage will be just as legal as if you'd been married by your local Bishop, Priest, Pastor, Preacher, Rabi or Imam.
But make no mistake: Churches do NOT have the right to do whatever they please and call it religious freedom, but they DO have the freedom to choose who they will or will not marry, even if the marriage itself would otherwise be legal as far as the government is concerned.
What an absurd accusation.
Read the tax code. It's spelled out clearly in the tax code what you need to do to be a tax exempt church. You can find it all online.
It reads:
Article I, Section 29. [Marriage.]
(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
(2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.
The second paragraph of that section dramatically limits the extent to which Utah government can grant official recognition of or benefits to relationships other than a marriage between a man and a woman.
California does not have such a provision and indeed has granted full legal equality via their civil union law for some time now.
I still keep trying to figure out what "rights" gay couples are missing.
Employers are free to grant benefits to partners if they want to. But are not forced to do so. Would you legally require employers to treat gay couples exactly the same way they treat married couples, even if they did not want to?
Landlords are free to rent to who them will. Would you require landlords to treat gay couples exactly the same way they treat married couples even if they did not want to?
Whether married or not, a will, durable powers of attorney, and medical directives are a very good idea for all adults. I certainly did not and do not view my marriage license as a replacement for these critical documents.
And there isn't a hospital in this State that is going to deny visitation to an intimate partner whether married or not. If push comes to shove and legal next of kin object, you better have stronger documentation in place than just a marriage license anyway as the Terry Schrivo case made painfully clear.
So what exactly are gay couples missing out on that you figure they ought to have that would not require infringing the rights of employers, landlords, or churches?
Now where does it go from here? To the Legislature... then to the people.
The people are still in charge here, We still all have a vote.
Rather than trying to twist the churches arm and words, just take it to the people...
I have gay friends that feel that the limitations they put upon them selves by their lifestyle choices and the choice they make to live in Utah, are worth it... Mass. is open for all of these demands, But they simply don't want to live in such a "messed up state."
Rather than trying to ramrod your gay agenda down the throats of us Utah'ns follow the example of the LDS church, move and gather in a friendly location...where no one else wants to live.
Yes, the 'Church' is involved in many great humanitarian efforts which benefit people of all faiths, but don't make the mistake of assuming that they are not ACTIVELY working to pursue their own goals in a very self-centered way! Whether it is attempting to preserve what they believe to be the traditional (religious) definition of marriage, or presumptuously baptizing those who were never members of their church to begin with, and without respect to whether or not that person (or their family) would wish to have them baptized, they are "activists" to their own cause.
I'm actively involved in trying to force our government to enforce the immigration laws that already exist, as a means to address the serious problem I see with illegal immigration in this country. Some may call that selfish or self-centered, but it's all a matter of perspective.
In that respect then, I guess I would be considered an "activist," but I'm also involved in many other things, including donating time and money to charity, which would not be deemed by most people to be selfish or self-centered.
People focus on the negative because the negative stuff that is going on is so offensive.
Nobody ever gets credit for the positive stuff they do.... NOBODY gets credit. It's the society we live in.
A bro is an article of clothing worn by usually heavy males used to give support to man bubes or moobs!!!
Below are just 2 (OUT OF THE MANY) good enough reasons against:
1/ "In Sweden, gay couples and marriages are legal. The divorce rate among gay men is 50 percent higher than the heterosexual divorce rate. For lesbian women, the divorce rate is 170 percent higher. The effect of these divorces is significant. These high rates of divorce lower cultural esteem for marriage."
2/ Aides was first introduced by the gay people. Soon after heterosexuals and other innocent people became infected, so now it is not just a gay disease anymore. Thanks to the gays, it is now a disease that does not discriminate. Gay men have 52% higher infection rate of hepatitis than the general population does. By legalizing gay marriage it would thereby increase health care costs for all. This would effect the majority of people, and not just the minority for gay marriage anymore.
Our state constitution won't allow for this. Even if you want to, we legally cannot.
The only valid reason to oppose gay marriage is because you simply believe in traditional values that have been the foundation of society since Adam. You need not make further excuse. If those who disagree with you discount your beliefs sobeit. That's part of society.
Sidebar, notice these legislators are the same ones that ask Mormons not to become involved in politics and are now asking them to become involved? Irony.
You are a biggot, and jesus would be disgusted...
My guess would be too, that IF a gay Mormon couple were to ever be married, that the church would NOT encourage them to divorce, any more that it would encourage any other heterosexual couple to divorce.
I assume your point in #1 was related not only to the cultural value of marriage, but also to the basic concept of the traditional family, but a single divorced mother with 2 children is no more "traditional" than a gay marriage, even if children are not involved.
According to once source I found, divorce rates for Mormons is lower than for those non-demoninational groups by 10%, but is actually higher than for Catholics, but unless that rate were zero for those married in the "traditional" manner, then I fail to see any point to your argument.
Divorce Rates:
Non-denominational 34%
Baptists 29%
Mainline Protestants 25%
Mormons 24%
Catholics 21%
Lutherans 21%
As for #2, I don't know what scientific source you're citing as the basis for your claim that Aids was first introduced by gay people, but I'm very interested to find out how it came to infect heterosexuals if they WERE in fact heterosexuals. Aids spread through the population in the same way that every other STD spreads; through unprotected sex and promiscuous sexual behavior, REGARDLESS of the religion or religious beliefs of those being infected!
There are a great many things that the LDS Church has opposed over the years. Like giving up polygamy, and accepting women's sufferage, and admiting blacks to the priesthood. They were ALL moral issues on which the church found itself (historically) on the WRONG side of the argument!
Women now have the right to vote, but at one time, they did not, and the LDS Church was OPENLY OPPOSED to giving them that right, so I guess you must be suggesting that since the LDS church was ONCE opposed to women's sufferage, that they now actively discourage their female members from voting? Of course not.
In principle then -- IF the church recognizes that there are gay members of their church (which they do recognize), and at such time in the future as such members may legally be married, then I postulated they (the church) would not then attempt to encourage them to divorce, any more than they would ENCOURAGE their members to take multiple wives, or try to discourage a black male member from the priesthood.
You want to try and isolate this one issue and MAKE BELIEVE it is any different from any other MORAL issue that has ever confronted the modern LDS church. You're a full of hipocrisy as you bloody church!
"You want to try and isolate this one issue and MAKE BELIEVE it is any different from any other MORAL issue that has ever confronted the modern LDS church."
There is no need for make believe. It is simple:
Giving women the right to vote was not a moral issue; it is not nor has it ever been a sin to allow women to vote.
Stopping the practice of polygamy was not a moral issue; it is not nor has it ever been a sin to take multiple wives so long as it is God's commandment and instruction to do so.
Endowing black male members with the priesthood of God was not a moral issue; it is not nor has it ever been a sin to ordain a black male to the priesthood of God.
Practicing homosexuality is a moral issue; it is, always has been, and always will be a sin to act on homosexual desires or engage in a homosexual relationship.
"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."
Further more you have embellished quite a bit on your divorce rates. Gay male couples were 50% more LIKELY to divorce within an eight-year period than were heterosexuals; and lesbian couples were 167% more LIKLEY to divorce than heterosexual couples.
Why do people not check their facts before they spew their hate, all it does it gets people riled up over half truths.
As the outbreak became an epidemic, the Surgeon General and the CDC, in response to pressure from gay advocate groups, failed to quarantine and aggressively track the disease in accordance with long-established policy and medical protocols. This failure resulted in the the eventual contamination of the nations blood supplies and the infection spread to a larger demographic of non-gay victims via contaminated blood products.
The reluctance to impose rational epidemic controls stemmed from political reluctance to stigmatize homosexuals. Studies have concluded that this lapse in judgment and unwillingness to follow established epidemic protocols resulted in several hundred thousand unnecessary deaths and many more infections.
As if failure to impose standard epidemic protocols weren't bad enough, the surgeon general effected policies that forbade doctors from even informing their staffs when they were dealing with an AIDS patient in order to protect the anonymity of AIDS victims. This political mandate to protect the identity of AIDS victims made it even more difficult to isolated and control its spread. By politicizing the epidemic, gay advocates and the government produced a pandemic.
Now, you asserted with certainty that it was not introduced in the United States by the gay community. Every indication that I've read indicates that it most certainly was transferred from Haiti by one or more gay men. The only myth that was dispelled is the early rumor that it had been introduced by a gay flight steward while visiting the US.
Below is Andersen's shortened version to rebuttals to ten of the most common arguments that were proffered against the marriage amendment and an explanation of why the need for state and national constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman are essential. To read his entire explanation please click on the title:
WHY EVERY STATE AND OUR NATION NEED A MARRIAGE AMENDMENT
1. "Gay marriage won't affect my marriage or family." This common argument, which is based on false assumptions, is the red herring of the marriage debate. First, this argument ignores the existence of any harm that is not a direct and immediate harm on one's own marriage and family. No rational person would argue, for example, that child pornography should be legalized because it "doesn't affect my marriage or family." See UFI Guide to Family Issues: Sexual Orientation and The Marriage Advantage available at www.unitedfamilies.org.
2. "There are more pressing issues than defining marriage." Opponents of man-woman marriage often list a host of other societal problems that require more urgent attention than marriage-issues ranging from violent crime to economic hardship. To these opponents, marriage is simply a side issue used to distract voters from "real" issues such as gas prices and global warming. What these opponents do not appreciate, however, is that the root cause of many of the social and economic ills facing our nation and our communities is the disintegration of the family.
3. "Marriage is not a constitutional issue." Unfortunately, activist judges have made marriage a constitutional issue. While opponents of man-woman marriage clamor that we should "keep politicians out of marriage," unelected judges have already entered that realm and have caused great damage in overriding the will of the people.
4. "You can't legislate morality." Every law-be it a statute, an ordinance, or a regulation-legislates morality because laws are the central means by which society collectively draws lines between right and wrong.
5. "Gay marriage can provide the same level of benefits as man-woman marriage." No other social institution has ever provided or will ever provide the same level of benefits as marriage between a man and a woman.
6. "Two people who love each other should be allowed to get married." Marriage has a far more fundamental and influential role than simply the public or legal recognition of "love." Many people love each other, but love is not the sole basis for allowing them to marry.
7. "People should be free to define 'marriage' for themselves." The purpose of defining anything under the law is to preserve and to promote the order and stability of societal institutions. If people were left to define these social institutions for themselves, there would be no consensus on why these institutions exist and what purpose they serve.
8. "Marriage is solely a religious institution that has no place in the law." No one can deny the important role that marriage has in the doctrines of religions and the beliefs of religious adherents. However, such religious importance is no reason for the law not to recognize and value the social importance of man-woman marriage.
9. "A marriage amendment would write discrimination into the Constitution." Contrary to what the some argue, defining marriage as the legal union of a man and a woman does not "discriminate" against anyone as that term has been used by the opposition.
10. "Gay marriage will not affect religious institutions or religious adherents." Once again, recent history and logic do not support this argument. If genderless marriage takes over as the primary social unit of society, religious institutions and adherents will face (and already have faced) a social and political onslaught against their religious freedoms.
Fortunately for families in Arizona, California, and Florida, voters recognized the dangers of failing to protect the institution of marriage as the foundation of a family and the cornerstone of society. Unfortunately, this round of our fight for the family has just begun.
Here's the difference, Kimmy. Proposition 8 wasn't about rights! There is no right gained or lost with the passage of Proposition 8 or had it lost. Gay couples would've had the same rights, exactly.
California's Prop. 8 was titled: "Eliminates RIGHTS of Same-Sex Marriage."
You may argue that the title should not have had the word 'rights' in it, but it was there, nonetheless, and more voters noted "Yes" than voted "No", meaning they approve the elimination of said rights.
Secondly, you read the title. You did not read the language of the bill. Simply, they defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. Homosexuals have the right to marry as much as agnostics have the right to practice religion. If they, through their own free will, decide not to exercise those rights then the state of California has an acceptable option: domestic partnership.
Domestic Partners in California enjoy all of the same state-level rights as married couples. So your debate about "rights" is without merit.
Talk about feeding just enough truth mixed with a vast amount of lies to make their nonsense palpable.
Next thing they'll want you to believe is the world really is flat and the moon is made out of cheese.
Key word here is "traditional".
A Traditional family means Man, Woman and Children.
Anything else is atypical and an abomination.
The LDS church doesn't have to prove anything to gays.
Just don't be homosexual or lesbian.
No one has ever answered that question.
What a joke you can vote on an issue pass it and it will be overturned over and over again.
Equality Utah will prove a point that
they (LDS Church) they are not "pro-family" like they claim.
My boy will embrace it for the wrong reason. Do eight year old boys like girls... Not too much. But he loves his buddies(playing army, cowboys, legos, tree forts and so on) What if he acts on the things he is shown by our so called MEDIA(what a joke) what do i tell the parents of his buddy. Accept it, your son is queer. I think not! This is a TOTAL PERVERSION of socioty.
I tolorate The Homo-community but I can not allow the influences they are forcing on my life. If marriage was man and man or whatever then what i have becomes a perverted union.
I follow natures law, like gravity and motion, I reproduce and affiliate myself with the opposite sex. There is no Homosexual Zoo's, nor is there a single Gay community that has lasted through ONE generation. Unless you sway others to your belief, but they come from the straight way of life. And still they are not a second generation.
I'm done ramblin'
You have been programed to respond to life in only one way? That is the stupidest thing i have heard. So when a boy wants to be superman, that was just his genetics, and it had nothing to do with waht he saw on T.V.? Dude, pick a good argument, I chose mine and your's is just to argue with others point of views. I am trying to protect what i Love most.
This is just a political ploy, not a genuine request for the Church to "put its influence where its mouth is". In reality they are saying that non-interference is not enough to satisfy them. They want active support. I doubt that will ever happen and they will, no doubt, cry foul.
But alas, as others have pointed out, this is just a ploy by activists. It's like all the lawyers that tried to tempt Christ with the woman taken in adultery.
This issue WILL become a civil rights issue and, in my opinion, eventually go to the US Supreme Court. And that, my friends, will supercede any state constitution.
The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) 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 family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.
--end quote--
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage
I think only if the bills are worded or intended in a way to "infringe on the integrity of the family", etc. that I think there would be opposition from the Church. I doubt you'll get the Church leaders to go down and lobby for these measures, but I doubt they'll have anything against the legislature and constituents working on such bills.
It's what the church has said, so will they pony up and stick to their guns, or was it just PC BS to soothe the evil, violent gays?
I think it's a fair request based on what the church has publicly stated.
How would you feel if the majority of people passed an amendment to your state constitution that said Mormons couldn't marry other Mormons? (I know this would never happen in Utah, but please try to imagine this for just one minute) Wouldn't you be upset that someone took away your right to marry the person you loved? You don't have to agree, but come on, how can you not understand that your religion has hurt and angered many people in California?
Do you think that my ancestors were not hurt or angered? But they never once mobbed, harrassed, threatened, or otherwise infringed upon other's rights; not in New York, Ohio, Missouri, Illinois, or any other state they lived in and faced the same persecutions. In the one instance that a local mormon group acted out in violence (Mountain Meadows Massacre) the LDS church has repeatedly tried to apologize and make amends for that action, and prosecuted or excommunicated the members they could prove participated in it.
I understand that this is saddening news for the gay rights groups - what I do not understand is their continued harrassment and vandalism of churches who opppsed them. It is just plain wrong, no matter how much your feelings are hurt. We teach our kids that - shouldn't we act better than spoiled children throwing a tantrum when we don't get our way? We are adults after all.
" We petitioned the government, we spoke before Congress, we sent our women and our men to talk to our government, the government that ignored our pleas over unjust imprisonments and mob action. And guess what? We lost. We were ignored."
Really? So let's see... because you aren't able to have more than one wife, I shouldn't be able to have any?
Nice! I am not trying to be rude, but if you are doing all of this "research" about the history of the LDS church, you may want to read and understand what it means.
I have no disagreement about "fighting for your rights" as it were - I Think all people should just do it in the proper manner, meaning they respect the laws and the people regardless of whether things always go their way or not.
I'm not seeing this from the gay rights groups. Maybe you are watching a reading different meadia reports than I am.
The point that homosexuals miss is that this wasn't about taking away rights. It was about preserving marriage as it is.
The "rogue judges" were upholding the states mandate not to discriminate. You are also going to find the supreme court likely saying that a ban on gay marriage is a violation of our civil rights ammendment in the bill of rights.
Why should you receive benefits from our govt and discriminate against another couple, regardless of whether you think gay is a sin? Christians used to think it was a sin to marry a black person too.
...That is the quote, but, It is a long stretch to go from "does not object to" to "support." The church looks to have said they would remain neutral on this issue, not mute, or supportive.
Now where does it go from here? To the Legislature... then to the people.
The people are still in charge here, We still all have a vote.
Rather than trying to twist the churches arm and words, just take it to the people...
I have gay friends that feel that the limitations they put upon them selves by their lifestyle choices and the choice they make to live in Utah, are worth it... Mass. is open for all of these demands, But they simply don't want to live in such a "messed up state."
Rather than trying to ramrod your gay agenda down the throats of us Utah'ns follow the example of the LDS church, move and gather in a friendly location...where no one else wants to live.
If the Church does nothing and have negative reprocusions then they have only themselves to blame - for the sole purpose that they claim they are not "anti-gay" but rather "pro-family" yet when it comes time to step up and back what they say and they don't, that makes bad on the Church.
With all due respect, if you live that kind of lifestyle, so be it, but do not imply that your human or civil rights are being diminished or thwarted, just because in a normal society, those are not acceptable values.
I dunno, I don't think I'd feel like going out of my way to be real helpful right now...
Put the bills before the people and let them vote - I think you will find that most people will support some level of domestic partnership law, as long as it applies to all types of non-traditional families, not just honmosexuals.
You be the judge!
Now, what a person does within the walls of their home is their business. When they flaunt it for the world to see, don't be surprised that people take a stand and most will take God's side.
This brings up a larger problem in society. Everyone just wants to turn their head and plug their ears and not have to stand up for anything. People don't want to be held accountable. Instead, they want to justify their actions by saying that those who don't agree with them are bigots, haters, intolerant, racist, etc. I think it is great that the silent majority has finally awakened on this issue.
God's not going to suddenly change His mind that homosexuality is an abomination in His sight just because a bunch of gays and lesbians say it should be acceptable.
To me it seems like the "gay community" in Sodom and Gomorrah constituted a majority of the population. Look what happend to those cities.
If you truly believe that homosexuality is an accepted form of behavior, then you don't believe in God, or at least the God of the Bible.
and for some of us it's not a redefining of marriage, some of us believed all along is marriage is a lifelong commitment to the person you love and want to spend the rest of your life with.
You can't have it both ways. We can either allow them to marry, or we can get rid of benefits of marriage.
I don't why they want the church to make some sort of statement about it...
A) they already have made their position known
B) no one cares if gay people have medical and other such agreements.
They want the church to make a statement about it because they want to show that the LDS church actually is "anti-gay" despite what they have said- if they were not anti-gay they would not have supported the Utah constitutional amendment that removed the possibility of gay couples obtaining civil union rights as well as marriage
Whatever you think is right. Isn't right for everyone. Have some compassion.
And to those voting funny and ditto.....brilliant. Goes to show how bigoted we as a country still are.
You'll never convince me you were born homosexual. You made your choice. Now, That said, I get to make mine. Quit trying to influence others with your sick individuality.
As for the Mormon Church getting involved with politics where they are not protecting a moral issue. I think there is a truth that is not going to be changed. They are neutral. They will probably stay that way.
Either they were molested as a child and/or they had an extremely poor relationship with their fathers.
It seems to me that these two factors mess with a child's sexual development. I am curious if anyone agrees/disagrees.
Being homosexual is a manmade choice - it does not follow natural laws, scientific laws, and most of all God's law.
So you open the door to man/man or woman/woman relationships and others will what a relationship with their pet and so on and so forth.
My compassion is to continue to spread truth by example and by teaching the erroring person(s) right and wrong. Homosexually is wrong.
What makes a person "gay" is their unwillingness to control their sexual behavior (yes it is a behavior and it can be controlled) And yes people who are adulters; pedifiles; child abusers (all immoral behaviors of any kind) etc. all could have controlled their behavior but chose not to.
And lastly God already drew the line when he sanctioned Adam and Eve's marriage in the beginning. There is no discussion or debate - marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman and God.
Rare lifestyle- open up an anthropology book sometime. There are polyandryous couples in India. Polygamous families in the Middle East and even families where children are raised by all the women in the village not just their birth mothers.
"Traditional marriage" is a myth.
So by your logic should we ban childless couples from ever getting married as well?
I didn't say anyone should be banned based on their child-bearing capability. Just that when we are talking about tax base, there is a point about people who do not procreate to ensure a future tax base . . . of course some think we are already overpopulated anyway . . .
If you haven't heard the US is in debt and keeps printing money a.k.a. "defecit spending".
[Please don't shout with ALL CAPS.]
You just proved my point when you said "when incentives are given to not couple as man and woman that changes things". What incentives are you talking about? What is the gay community asking for that straight couples don't already have?
Granting these rights will not make you and I gay any more than the civil rights movement made us black.
Acception for a gay couple to be "married" and being "Black" are not the same. This is a moral movement not a civil movement.
why would this state want to recoginize an extinct couple ?? un-natural selection doesnt foster natural selection and gay couples are extinct factors, they can not continue their union other then they both fade away into extinction
what next .. i love football .. i can marry or be considered a couple with football .. or better yet jello ??
your pleasure is not my concern as long as it doesnt KILL me ... when your pleasure can now kill us .. get real folks .. i suggest gay couples find a country that will tolerate them .. but to threaten me with death for their pleasure doesnt warrant my attention other then stay out of my town
how dare this state consider any action to recognize potential killers ?? and provide them with any benefits ...
did i say i love ice cream ...
NOSE IN THE TENT,THEY JUST KEEP PUSHING TIL THE TENT
COLLAPSES AND IS USELESS TO ANYONE.
The sad truth is,evil can never be satisfied because
moderation is part of self control.homosexuality,like
other perversions,is a product of self indulgence.that is why they scream and kik like babies when thier every whim is not catered to.
I can understand that there are some gays that just want to be quiet and in the closet and be not in everyone's face.
However, this gay rights activist leader is nothing but trouble and a predator to society and should be treated as such
I have gigabit internet and KSL pages load like 56k modem because of all the ads. Jeeze.
It seems like they posted this one so quickly, they didn't even have time to proofread their writing.
based on past statements, that it not "anti-gay," but "pro-family.
That "it" ?
Does the LDS church have to convince the un-convincible?
Puh-leeze. Gays and 5 legislators (also gay) are wanting the LDS church to convince.....
Are you sneer-ious?
While I attended USU an article came out in the newspaper stating that such and such day was dedicated as gay day and if you wore jeans that day, you are supporting gays.
Another article came out stating that such and such day was dedicated as straight day and if you wore any shoes on your feet, you were supporting straights.
That put the gay community in an uproar.
How DARE YOU! HOW DARE you do that. Don't you know that the majority of people wear shoes? (Don't you know that the majority of people wear jeans?)
Lame.
It's amazing what counts as discrimination and what doesn't. If somebody does something that makes an exception for a minority, it's fair. However, if the same thing is done for the majority, it's discrimination.
Case:
Many colleges have a Black Student Union. Ever heard of a White Student Union? No. It's discrimination. Similar thing goes for a gay alliance vs a straignt alliance.
Don't get me wrong, I applaud diversity in our society. I enjoy associating with people of all races, genders, religions, beliefs, and nationalities. I even have several gay friends/relatives. However, the ways some go about to create diversity are, quite frankly, wrong and distasteful. There has to be a better way.
Minorities should have a say in democracy, but remember. The majority rules or it's not a democracy.
A group of people separate themselves from a church because they don't want their behavior to be consistent with the teachings of that church. Then, after they have freely chosen to leave they cry out that they have been kicked out and are victims of this cold hearted church. In a neighboring state there is a vote about how marriage should be defined. The people voice their opinions and pass it. This same group says they are being picked on, takes it to a liberal court and gets the law overturned. The people of that state then craft and pass a proposition defining marriage. Again the group cries out that the church is picking on them because the church supports a standard of marriage that is held by the majority of the people. So the group lashes out against the church and the state where the church is based, demonstrating at religious sites and threatening boycotts. The next week they turn around and announce that they intend to pursue legislation friendly to their group and expect support from the voters of the state and the church that they have been actively bashing.
Give me a break! I don't think it matters what the Church says about the legislation it will likely get opposed because the citizens are sick of the entitled, self-serving, "woe is me" garbage the gay community has been spewing.
I think many of you fail to understand that a democracy does not equate to a rule via majority.
OUR democracy was established in such a way to protect the rights of minorities from the majority.
Just because you don't like gays and think it's a sin doens't mean you should deny them and their partners the privilages you enjoy every day.
The church is a target because they wholeheartedly told their people to make phone calls, volunteer time and to donate their money to see this proposition fail.
The "liberal court" overturned it because it's discriminatory. Do you really think that ammending the state's constitution with a discriminatory ammendment is going to last?
It wont because it violates the civil rights ammendment. So, enjoy your gay-marriage-free state while you can because once it reaches the supreme court Utah's going to have to recognize gay marriage as well.
And all you "tolerant, christ-following" mormons go ahead and troll me because you can't accept the truth. How does it affect YOU for your gay neighbor to marry???
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78829
Wow - you are just really thinking about a person's religious rights too, there, aren't you?
I can't speak for other religions, but to mormons, their religion IS a part of their everyday life.
You talk about the civil rights amendment being violated - what about the religion amendment that guarentees those rights?
Why do they have to fight for "gay marraige" since they don't beleive in the institution anyway? Civil union laws, as defined by government, handles that pesky civil rights issue, without infringing on the religious rights.
Religious institutions will still have the freedom to refuse to marry same-sex couples in their own churches, just like the Mormon church today can refuse to marry someone in its temple that isn't an upstanding member of the church-- we are fighting for the right to have a civil marriage not a religious marriage...
I have been with my girlfriend for 7 years and we have no rights whatsoever to each other- if something were to happen to me and I ended up in the hospital she would not be allowed to even see me until the hospital got permission from my parents that live over 2,000 miles away-- please think about that as you rail against my desire to have protection for my family...
Look. This is not a civil rights issue. Civil rights issues are about things like race and gender that a person has no control over and being discriminated against based on those characteristics. This is an issue of people actively choosing behavior that seperates them from society's norms and then trying to say that they are being victimized.
NEWS FLASH, people don't choose to be gay. People are born that way and many have suffered their entire lives denying it.
they choose to be gay as much as you choose to be hetero.
With "Gays" they have, on their own (each individual), choosen to act on a behavior that is contrary to natural laws, scientific laws and God's law. To act upon a deviant behavior of any kind is wrong, be it homosexuality, bestiality, adulterer, child abuser etc. etc. the list is endless - but most people recognize the importance of controlling their behaviors unlike these few "gays" who are trying to force their immoral believes on others.
They are like a large over-sized turd in the toilet. You keep flushing, but you can't get rid of it, and they stink to high heaven.
I know, I know, I'm too good.
For fun, he told some of his friends that I'd stolen his car. They said "Really? Why would he DO that?" They thought that was terrible that his Dad would steal his car.
Then we told them the truth- he never had a car.
But that's how the gay activists are behaving today. They're raising the public alarm, because we "stole" their rights.
We've taken nothing from them. We just refuse to give them EXTRA rights that no one else has. Hey, I can't marry anyone of the same sex either. They don't have any more or any fewer rights than I do right now.
But if gays are allowed to have marriage the same as traditional man/woman marriages, they will have something extra. And THEN it won't be fair.
The church said it does not OBJECT to those things in the quote, it did not say they will SUPPORT creating new legislation.
Get over it already... God is not going to condone Homosexuality, EVER!
Take some more of your dosage honey. Then come slowly out of the basement and you'll be okay.
ps. you have a grudge with the church that could be worked out if you talked to any other member than the extreme member you talked to when you were 14. And i think at 14 you probably miss understood them, and then for the rest of your life this story just just grew and grew an grew.
Unless the person telling you those things was in fact the prophet, they had no business doing so, particularly since that is one of the more ridiculous things I've heard anyone ever try to pass off as church doctrine.
The fact that you didn't bother to ask yourself why someone in your ward would make such a comment, makes me wonder where your self-esteem was at that time. Why you would ever tolerate such a comment from anyone without a rebuttal is troubling to me; and I believe you ought to deal with it, even now. Then maybe you can place your anger where it belongs- with the person who made the comment, not the LDS church.
Or, you could hang onto it, and use it as a convenient excuse to dislike "The Church", so you can justify whatever path you choose to follow.
Probably it's best to place the blame for your anger on the person who offended you, and then live the best way you know how, and decide to be happy.
It would be kinda like me moving to San Francisco and being surprised that homosexuals don't influence the government there.
and ummm the votes were in california!!!
I can guarantee you that Christ would not condone the practice of homosexuality. He would embrace the sinner and tell them to sin no more. Jesus would not condone any form of sin. Homosexuality honestly preaches against God. God created man and woman to fill the earth with offspring. WE are created after God's image. There's a reason men and women are different. Satan wants to deceive mankind into not feeling they're children of our Heavenly Father.... It's obvious he's messing with the minds and hearts of many of God's children.
If you're practicing homosexuality, ask God for help to be able to overcome it. I have to pray to Heavenly Father to help me overcome other temptations because none of us is perfect.
Many of you people are deceived about marriage and what its purpose is.... Our society will only get worse and worse as people try not to offend the devil rather than follow God and his truths.Marriage between two men or two women will never be valid in God's eyes, even if our corrupt society views it as such.
I'm reading a lot of people calling gays "homo's", and that they should move to another country, etc... While I am perfectly straight, I think it appalling to read some of these comments. "Gay people" are not criminals, and do not deserve to be treated differently than any one of us.
As you may see it wrong in your eyes, I see them as human beings--not criminals. If they want to love another from the same sex, that's their perrogative. Gay-bashing, on the other hand, is a crime.
I know many married man-woman couples...and most of them have little or no love for their spouses. It's sad to say, but that's the way it seems to be. On the other hand, the gay couples that I know have a strong bond that is immeasurable. So, I think they have just as much as a right to express themselves as straight couples do.
So...if you follow your religion, follow all aspects of it: You may not agree, but Do not judge, and treat fellow humans like...well, humans.
The gays have a right to live how they want, but they keep screaming that we should not force our beliefs on them. What do they think they are doing to us. if they live their lives and not try to force themselves into my life I will leave them to live their lives in peace.
The whole deal with prop. 8 was that they wanted the right to legally be married. How again does this cause a threat to you?
if anything i look up to the lds faith because of not giving into the world and changing their beliefs like every other church.
You said that Gay-bashing is a crime? If I teach that homosexual expression is a sin, am I guilty of a crime? Should it be a crime? What about my first amendment rights to free speech? Is speaking critical of religious people a crime too?
Lamentably, you are right: the sanctity and value of strong marriages and nuclear families has been under attack and has been weakened by creeping selfishness and immorality. State sponsorship of gay marriage reduces the purpose and value of marriage even further.
We should love our fellowman; but enshrining degeneracy (look it up, it is the right descriptive in its classic sense) is ill-advised. Loving someone doesn't mean embracing their errors. In fact, real love often manifests itself in corrective acts.
Christ told the woman taken in adultery: "Neither do I condemn thee, GO AND SIN NO MORE." Did he judge her act? "Yes". But he didn't condemn her for it. Should we love our fellowmen regardless of their particular personal struggles? "Yes!" But we should never justify, sanction, approve or embrace their sin.
Those who insist that they are their sin, and that condemning their sin is effectively condemning them, are doing themselves a great disservice by completing internalizing sin as part of their core nature. Christ was actually quite critical of such.
Gay Bashing is a crime...however I think that the term is loosly defined. Teaching your beliefs is absolutely fine...I was referring to hate-crimes. When gay couples try to teach THEIR beliefs, it snowballs into a morally right/wrong issue. It isn't accepted, which, as you pointed out, is their first amendment right.
I have to dissagree with you on the state sponsorship of gay marriage reducing the value of marriage. On the contrary. Of course you could pick out individual gay marriages and say that they are not healthy...I would agree. But I have also seen a LOT of straight marriages that are just as harmful...if not more so due to children usually being involved. Some say that being gay "comes from" unloving homes, abusive parents, or something along those lines. I don't buy that. Anyways...
Gay people are not degenerates. Of course, you have to look at the individual...not the "group". There are more perverted and disgusting straight people out there than gay people...just my belief.
I think that we SHOULD Justifying/approve of gay couples who live their lives for the good and decency of mankind. Sexual orientation does not define who a person is. A good person is a good person...straight or gay. Look at Richard Simmons...he's been sweatin' to the oldies and making people beautiful for years! OK...sorry...just had to spark a little humor in there!
In homosexuals, the lack of correlation between sexual orientation and biology is degenerate in this classic meaning of the term.
Etymologically, the term "degenerate" signifies "to depart or stray from one's own kind or from ones genotype"
"Degenerate" is the perfect descriptor.
Do you see a problem with excluding traditional religious values in schools; but teaching progressive secular values? I do. In my considered opinion, teaching that gay unions is a "normal", "acceptable", "valid" form of familial institution in public schools is a clear and flagrant violation of the 1st amendment. It crosses the lines and sets up a state philosophy that is indoctrinated in children. Gays should have free speech rights; but using public institutions to press their version of values and morals is unconstitutional.
I find it strange that these folks who are such advocates of Darwin refuse to acknowledge the paradox that they have created. Following the logic of natural selection, homosexuality will eliminate itself. Anyone want to argue that point? Good luck.
I am sick and tired of these lunatics demanding their "rights". They choose their own destruction, and then try to impose these ideas on the rest of society. Gays are not Mormons. And Mormons are not gay. They are mutually exclusive terms. While there are those who delude themselves that they can be both, we can take solace in the fact that there are also people who believe that man hasn't been to the moon.
So, to all gays everywhere, I say go and do what you want. I doubt anybody really cares about what or who you are having in bed. I for one don't. But I will not succumb to your pressure and approve of your deviancy, which is what you really want.
People in California exercised their freedom to vote, and you folks flip out because you didn't get what you wanted. Well that is too darn bad. Democracy sucks for you folks I know. I also expect a myriad of lawsuits to be filed so that you can do what liberals always do: Legislate via the courts.
Now go burn some more Churches......
See Ya!
So I will say this. Have your relationships, partnerships, whatever you want to call them, but the Church will never waiver on this subject. I am doubtful they will even respond because it is so ludicrous. Waaa waaa waaa, wo is me for the choice I made to be gay or lesbian. Give me rights because I decided to F$%# up my own life and make everyone change the natural order of society. Get a life people. Honestly. You wants rights, start by making a choice to be NORMAL, that is, Marriage is between and Man and Woman period.
Thanks for letting me ramble.
When the adulterous woman was brought before Christ he said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.". When they left because of their own hypocrisy he said he did not condemn her. There was the love. But he also said, "Go and sin no more". On many other occasions he gave forgiveness, but he did not forgive her sins here because she had not repented (she was just caught in the middle of it). We do not know what she did afterwards, but repentance was still required.
Many do not understand the LDS doctrine of grace. We do not believe those who are unrepentant will "burn in hell". We believe that all men are saved through the atonement of Christ. Those who are unrepentant will inherit a kingdom of glory beyond anything they can imagine where they will have peace and happiness forever. That's grace, that's God's love and that's his forgiveness.
But a greater glory is available for those who live according to the laws which govern that kingdom. You cannot drive if you won't obey the laws. Otherwise, you would be a danger to yourself and others. And, if you attempt to disobey the law of gravity God will not try and stop you. That does not mean he does not love you, but he respects your free will. And he will not force you to live according to laws you do not wish to. That is also his love and grace.
There are natural consequences which come with disobeying the law of chastity. These laws apply to adultery every bit as much as they apply to homosexuality. Those who violate these laws are free to do as they choose but they will suffer the natural consequences of violating these laws.
But we believe marriage to be a sacred institution created by God, not by man or government. And just like driving without following the laws which govern the highway, we believe that allowing marriage and family to be redefined in any way other than it was originally intended would be like attempting to remove all the laws which keep us safe on the road. To do so would be harmful to society as a whole, and so we believe it is our moral obligation to protect marriage and family.
Anyone is free to disagree, but isn't that what is so wonderful about living in this wonderful country?
The acceptance of gay marriage and families will eventually be the downfall of society...that is a promise.
To all of you practicing homosexuality. What you are doing is wrong. You have a psychosis. Get some help. You can overcome it.
A generation ago, you would have never heard of this kind of non-sense.
And for all those people who think being gay is a choice... How do you know? are you gay? Even though I am gonna say that it is not a choice you will not believe me. Growing up through school was hell, I lost a lot of "friends" who later realized I was no threat to their lives.
I tried so hard to be like everybody else.
And just so you know... I was raised LDS. I was baptized LDS and held the priesthood. I really liked going to church, until one day my bishop told me I was an abomination and had to be fixed. How would that make you feel? Would you still "CHOOSE" to be gay after that?
I just hope that some of you could get a better understanding of what its really like before voting on their lives. Have you been affected by any of the 16000 gay marriages?
Now then. There are only 5 million Mormons in all of the United States, with estimates of about 500k in California.
Now why did the gays lose this vote again?
You have my pity pooky.
And, after trying to decipher what exactly you intended to communicate, I will reiterate my point. You can choose what and who you will be. You are the sum of your choices. Nothing more. Only a pitiable soul, and there are literally millions in this day and age, denies their own power to grow.
Think about it. And stop saying that it isn't your fault. Of course it is, whatever the "it" may be, for good or bad.
YEW R KEWL
Sorry... couldn't resist, I just am sick of people treating human beings like this. Does any one else remember when Black and White was a big deal, and now there is this! I am not gay, but I still don't think you can control who you love, the heart sees no one, only feels their presence.
Have a great day!
What ever happened to "love and respect your fellow humans"? Surely, the people making these harsh comments about "right and wrong" do not go to church.
Alma 30
Korihor is directly referred to in The Book of Mormon as an Anti-Christ, because he claimed there will be no Christ. Despite a freedom of religion, Korihor's views and teachings alarmed the clerical government, who felt that his views were dangerous to their society. Under his teachings, people had began to ignore the laws of the land (which were based on the religious beliefs of their society). Under arrest before a high priest, during a hearing for his apparent blasphemy and for causing social discord, Korihor offers a speech in his own defense. Korihor is turned over to higher authority and later gets into an argument with the chief judge and governor, Alma, about the existence of God. Alma refused to accept Korihor's arguments and Korihor finally demanded that Alma show him a sign from God or he, Korihor, would not believe in God. This culminated in Korihor being miraculously rendered deaf and mute, upon which Korihor confessed, in writing, ...I always knew that there was a God. But behold, the devil hath deceived me; for he appeared unto me in the form of an angel, and said unto me: Go and reclaim this people, for they have all gone astray after an unknown God. And he said unto me: There is no God; yea, and he taught me that which I should say.[1] Cast out, Korihor became a beggar and was later trampled to death by a group who had separated themselves from the main Nephite society.
I question whether the conservative makeup of the majority of legistators favor homosexual same sex unions.
Your comment, Brent H, shows your own intolerance and bigotry. Isn't a little hypocritical to criticize another for something you yourself exhibit?
I think same sex marriage and freedom of religion can co-exist without harm. Let religious organizations practice traditional marriage if they choose and let same sex marriage be legal and equal.
I certainly believe in my religions view on marriage, yet I don't think we should legislate our beliefs. ON the other hand I want traditional marriage preserved for those who want to practice it.
I feel that everyone should have the right to designate whomever they like to have legal rights to their lives without the automatic assumption that they are gay.
The only reason I can see for gay couples to marry is to legitimize their sexual relationship. This is the part that I feel most people have problems with.
It is self-evident that the purpose of marrying men and women is richer and more valuable to society than marrying men and men.
Just because society determines that marriage between a man and a woman is in society's interest doesn't mean that it must also sponsor other forms of marriage; or incentivize other forms of relationships.
This equal rights/equal protection/ equality argument for gay rights is a subtle and evil lie. It prostitutes the constitution and demeans the civil rights movement.
A Black child who was denied attendance at the SAME school and the SAME education as his White neighbor is self-evidently different than denying a homosexual to have a DIFFERENT marriage for DIFFERENT purposes than his biologically complementary neighbors.
No, what is at stake here is the godless left using a perverse interpretation of the 14 amendment to interfere with the 1st amendment's free exercise of religion.
I would argue that the state should not even sponsor civil unions for homosexuals because there is no compelling state interest in incentivizing such.
This is about the progressive left mounting a campaign of legal interference with the free exercise of religion, speech and thought.
This is about consenting homosexual couples securing parental rights via adoption or surrogacy to non-consenting minor children.
The argument is that a gay couple can love a child just as much as a heterosexual couple. This too, is another red herring. I do not disagree that love is an essential element in raising children. But a child's a priori perceptions about the world, about values, about adults, about what constitutes a normal healthy relationship, all of this is imprinted deeply in its psyche by its parents. It is that imprinting that constitutes a strategic interest in the perpetuation of civilization and society and the very reason the state is justified in incentivizing nuclear families.
Two consenting adults in a homosexual relationship is one thing; but the unnatural injection of children, who cannot legally consent, into such a home to be imprinted in a sexually degenerate family structure is deeply troubling. The use of children as non-consenting pawns in social engineering experiments is shocking, immoral and illegal. This 'campaign' seeks to change the illegal aspect.
No, the progressive won't be satisfied until they tear the 1st amendment to shreds and relegate what they view as "the religious anachronism" to the garbage heap.
Don't be deceived into believing the progressive lies that the churches are interfering with equal rights of the minority. The truth is that the progressive left wants to interfere with our rights of free association, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion - they seek to enshrine secular humanistic philosophy and values as the state's official philosophy and they seek to use the force of law to interfere with the operation, teachings, and practices of religious organizations in direct violation of the 1st amendment.
This issue is pivotal. Courts have already dictated that religious organization must adopt non-consenting children to gay couples. Courts have already held pastors at risk for refusing to perform gay marriages.
In other words, the legal force of the United States of America is already enforcing laws that violate the 1st Amendment.
Ironic, but many well meaning fools are in the process of dismantling the Constitution in the name of Equal Rights; but it is all a sham if you think critically about it.
If they do believe in God, the openly rebel against him.
They create chaos and confusion in our youth
They spread diseases like AIDS.
They are more concerned about their own pleasures of their flesh, more than they are overcoming their carnal desires.
They bring shame and sadness to families and often divide them.
They do not care for anything chaste, praiseworthy or of good report and do not seek after those things.
They are narcissistic caring about no one but themselves.
Most who are LDS already know that what they are doing is inappropriate and know they may face church disciplinary action if their sins in the closet are discovered.
They destroy marriages and leaved saddened spouses who are left to pick up the pieces and try to explain why their father went astray.
Many homosexuals hate themselves, but try to gain acceptance to lessen their shame.
He is also a VERY active volunteer at his church (6 days a week).
He is GREAT around our youth and my kid.
He doesn't have AIDS. (um...straight people can have AIDS too)
He is one of the most giving people that I have ever known...he cares first about helping others before his own "pleasures of his flesh"
He brings my family NO SHAME...he is a better person than most, and we are ALL thankful for him and all that he does.
He seeks ALL that is good...he has been the target of attack by too many people like yourself...he overcomes you.
read 3 paragraphs up
He is not LDS...he's not good enough
He has never destroyed a marriage. Besides, it takes 2 to tango.
He loves who he is and what he stands for...he absolutely has no shame.
Now, Sambecks...do you REALLY believe the things that you just typed? I would like to shoot high and say that you were just ranting.
Are they still rebelling god or was it there choice to be born that way? Ya ever think that nature doesn't always make things normal or right in the eyes of the normal.
The homosexual activists and the five legislators, three of whom are gay, are trying to force the church into a position it never said it would take.
I'm not going to be the faces in those who quietly live a homosexual lifestyle, though I do not condone their behavior. However, the minute they starting telling society you have to accept it "whether you like it or not" that is where my line is drawn.
They really have nerve! I know that the church doesn't intend on treating them just as badly as they have been treating us, because that's just plain stupid but seriously...
You fags need to be slapped.
Does this look normal?
--
or this
o-
???
This abour right verses wrong
Light verses darkness
Good verses evil
and normal verse wierd.
To all of you homosexuals. I will NEVER condon your inappropriate lifestyle no matter what you say.
By the way. You are already equal. You can marry the opposite sex just as any of us can and that is the way it should be.
In the meantime, it may interest you to know that we couldn't care less about whether or not you approve. Rather we demand equality and we will not stop until get it.
Oh and regarding your intense desire to see us marry people to whom we are not attracted and do not love. The church already tried that already. When they were busy telling gays they should just get married then their attractions would go away. The result was broken hearts and homes. But people like you don't care about that do you? Not as long as you get to discriminate on the basis of your hatred.
Last but not least. In this country we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I don't believe it unreasonable to expect that I should have the freedom to love and marry the person I love. Regardless of gender.
In parting I would like to say, may you be blessed with many children and may every last one be gay!
Do not ask for gay rights. You won't get them.
Do not ask for acceptance of you behavior
You won't get it.
Ask for excommunication if you do not wish to repent.
I'm not opposed to gays having equal rights, but I'm not going to FIGHT for it! I've got my own battles, thanks.
Gays are not so fortunate to have these BASIC rights. They could get a power of attorney, but what if they walk into a hospital and the staff wants to deny them this right? Their partner is near death and they have to start calling attorneys to let them visit their loved one or even make a decision about what procedure to do next? This isn't something they should have to worry about when there is an emotional/physical crisis.
And don't think that this doesn't happen!!! It happens all of the time. I have several close friends that work at several hospitals and they witness the discrimination first hand.
Housing: If you are married and you die, your spouse gets the house, property, etc. No taxes are paid and you get their social security.
Gays are subject to taxes as if the relationship is a business. If they share a house and the living partner can't afford the taxes, they lose the house. This is not right!
Employment: It is not against the law to discriminate based on sexual preference.
The practice of putting legal restraints on my hiring practice is a direct violation of my liberties and civil rights that should have never taken place in any form.
Do you "sick of this crap" really believe in liberty or do you believe that there is justification for forcing your value system onto the rest of us? If you were a real son of liberty you would fight to repeal state controls that interfere with my freedom to associate with whomsever I will, you would fight to reduce taxes that I bear and that are used by the state to support and sustain people in broken philosophies that I oppose. You would seek to preserve rights to discriminate in accordance with conscience.
No, the gay movement isn't about seeking liberty - it is about shredding the 1st amendment and the illegitimate imposition of secular humanistic values on society. It is about making certain kinds of speech illegal, limiting the free exercise of religion, and interfering with parental authority in the instruction and indoctrination of their children. It is about compelling others to accept them as normative and legitimate with full rights to imprint a degenerate form of family on innocent children. And its adherents threaten the use of force and violence to meet those ends.
You and your associates are not friends of liberty, nor do you seek liberty - you seek advantage and power at the expense of liberty.
The fact is that none of the rights that I outlined were trampled on until after 1963 - well after slavery was outlawed and suffrage was enacted. Incidentally, the Utah Territory was one of the first (if not the first) to enact woman suffrage. It was illegally suspended by congress in violation of the 1st Amendment.
It is true that the Constitution prohibits federal and state entities from discriminating in hiring practices and distribution of government benefits (including access to education); but the 14th amendment limits that restriction to government entities and carefully avoided instantiating language that would have violated the 1st Amendment prohibitions against government interference with individuals in following the dictates of their own conscience.
A series of Congressional Acts in 1963 and 1964 put the proverbial government camel's nose under the 1st Amendment tent and, effectually compromised the 1st Amendment by fiat. This demarcation is when Congress, in the name of individual liberty, started suspending individual liberty, and created conflict where there had been none before, between the 14th and 1st Amendments.
Since that time, the idea that it is OK for government to impose moral restraint on private institutions and individuals has been promulgated, enforced and indoctrinated by government coercion . Upon this unconstitutional foundation, we are now engaged in routine arguments and battles over which morals and values the government should impose upon its citizenry. After all, it is now presumed that the government must be the legitimate arbiter of a moral code and value system and that social engineering is now the legitimate domain of governments.
And secular humanistic philosophy provided the ready solution, "since you are intent on adopting an official state moral code and value system, it must be a godless one, here am I, adopt me!"
And here we are, nearly 50 years after the state got its nose under our 1st Amendment liberties. Public education has been transformed into a youth indoctrination system, both the political left and the political right advocate "regrettable but necessary" reductions in individual liberties. The republicans make it easier to not just suspend, but altogether eliminate habeus corpus, The Executive assumes power to mount wars of aggression, The democrats engineer great social engineering projects that take the property of the laborer and give it to others, in effect making us slaves to the state. Today, more than 50% of my real wages are taken by the state to do whatsoever it deems as moral, and worthy.
Mind you, I argue that discrimination should be used judiciously and in accordance with virtue and that we are and should be accountable to God for what we desire, believe, and do. But what the state is doing here is attempting to dethrone religion as the Constitutional arbiter of morals, values and virtue and set itself in the stead of God, shewing itself that it is godlike in its management of the affairs and conscience of men.
The reduction in individual liberty, and the increased government control over our lives directly correlates to the weakening of 1st Amendment guaranteed freedoms and the instantiation of secular humanism as the official state dogma.
The seeds for destruction of Constitutional liberty were sown long ago, and the fruit is ripening quickly. Many unwitting pawns have bought into the lie that it is but a question of which values and morals we enforce by law.
History does indeed turn on very small hinges.
I repeat, you and your associates are not friends of liberty, nor do you seek liberty - you seek advantage and power at the expense of liberty. You have no respect for my Constitutionally guaranteed rights to determine what I will believe, who I associate with, who I commerce with, how my children are indoctrinated, who I support with my wages, etc...
You are a useful and unwitting tool in the hands of forces you do not understand or see.
Finally, I proclaim to you with absolute perfect knowledge that I have the power to change my desires to whatsoever thing I set my heart on. I am a free agent in this regard. I've learned, sometimes the hard way, that we desire what we do. Like you, I am an imperfect being, but I recognize that having a weakness doesn't mean that I must reinforce it into an appetite; having an appetite doesn't mean that I must reinforce it into a habit; and having a habit doesn't require that I reinforce it into a character trait.
I most certainly could, by persistence learn to crave homosexual relationships. We learn to desire that which we do.
However, the prophets have warned us against sexual sins of all kinds for good reason. The gravity of sexual sin (because it wires us deeply and fundamentally through powerful forces), is so great that once in its orbit, it becomes extremely difficult to escape.
Vice is a monster of so frightful meins
that to be hated it needs but to be seen,
but seen too oft, and familiar with her face,
first we shun, then endure, then embrace.
The founding fathers of this nation framed the constitution base upon the un-movable truths of the God of nature. Natural law exists all around us. No matter how you twist it "same sex" will never fall under the natural laws of nature. Man and women were created for one another, the very structure and make of our bodies testify to that.
Man was never created for man! Women were never created for women! Lust and misdirected desire is what has created those unions.
The founding fathers knew that that the constitution they framed could only remain viable and exist amongst a citizenry that had strong morally based values.
And from the looks of society today and the moral degeneration that is running rampant in all of our societies, they were right.
No wonder our wonderful constitution is in trouble. The immoral minority is becoming the majority.
Sorry but Governor Schwarzenegger and the millions of fair-minded Californians, who believe that proposition 8 is not right, are on the wrong side of the issue.
It's not an issue of "rights". Everyone who is against Prop 8 is making an issue on "rights".
I challenge any one of you to go into a state constitution across America and show me where it states that marriage is between man & man or women & women. You can't, unless the states constitution has already been amended.
The "states" recognize marriage between man & woman. So show me where a "right" has been violated! There is no "right" that is being denied or violated, the right doesn't exist!
The right only exists in the minds of those who want it, and until the "people" speak and the majority wants the same it will never be a "right". Thats the way it works. And sadley we are fast approaching the time that it looks like that will happen.
You are the ones pressing the issue turning this whole thing into a battle of rights and hate.
I will be one who will always stand to preserve the sanctity of marriage the way God has ordained it, between man and woman.
He doesn't make mistakes!
So, go back and parse the statement made by the church again. Note carefully: "No objection" if the state wants to extend certain limited kinds of benefits to gay couples does not mean that the church "supports" even that limited shift; but it recognizes that, again in the limited case, it is strictly a state matter, even though it is not logically justified by any compelling state interest.
In spite of the fact that the state has no compelling interest in sponsoring benefits to gay unions, the church will "not oppose" granting them AS LONG AS the state doesn't go so far as to compromise the definition of family and marriage or interfere with the churches' guaranteed first amendment liberties.
A recurring question posted over and over and over again by various posters is, "what rights are missing?" Here is the elephant in the room that remains unnamed: I believe the unstated but real goal of the so-called gay-rights movement is to have unfettered parental rights to adoptive and surrogate children by normalizing homosexual relationships as legitimate family constructs and to recast homosexuality as normative via indoctrination of the rising generation.
The church's statement makes it clear that the church will stand resolutely in protection of traditional families and marriage and, by association, defense of the innocents who do not and cannot consent to being placed and raised in a degenerate familial group.
As I've outline elsewhere in this thread: The point at which the state subjects non-consenting children to being unnaturally imprinted and raised in a degenerate sexual environment, the state will be interfering destructively with the family; and using innocent children as pawns in an ill-advised social experiment. I believe this is the line where the church will continue to mount moral opposition to obviously immoral practices.
If you are inclined to take offense of my use of the term "degenerate", please read my other post in this thread that unemotionally and etymologically deconstructs the word "degenerate" and proves that it is a true and accurate usage of the term. Its usage here is in that classic sense of the word and does not intend to imply condemnation.
So to use the word "degenerate" is just calling "it" what it is.
Good thread.
But I have to say, the Utahns I knew when I was there must have all moved out of state. For the people left who are posting such hatred against their fellow residents are not the Utahns I met and knew. They were a tolerant and community minded group. Who respected and tolerated EVERYONE.
Now it is with great sadness, I must divorce myself from this state. Stop giving the state my money and business. As it is difficult to support such hatred and intolerance as seen by the posted comments on this website.
As the Bible says: "These things I command you, that ye love one another. If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. (John 15:17-18)".
Maybe you need to re-read your scriptural refernce again and apply what you are preaching.
You are going to divorce yourself from a whole state just because of a few people and their opinions in a blog thread?
What did the other 2,550,003 people do to diserve that???