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.
400 messages
Community Comment Board
The messages posted here do not reflect the opinions or views of KSL or related entities. This service and the messages that are posted within the service are provided for public information purposes only. Read about the ksl.com comment guidlines here >>
...if the LDS Church says noting and these bills don't pass than they will still say that it's the LDS's fault.
@DarkStar - ...I meant to use the work "nothing" instead of "noting" in my comment above.
@DarkStar - ...I meant to use the word "word" instead of "work" in my comment above. LOL! I swear, I think KSL has a conspiracy to randomly change words on peoples comments.
@DarkStar - You meant to say "oops" and not "opps".
@Achylady - ...I think you're right! KSL got me again...I can not believe this! LOL!
@DarkStar - I don't think it is KSL's fault. Most of us have a very difficult time proof reading our own writing, as we tend to read what we were thinking, and not what our fingers actually typed. And I'm certainly guilty as charged!
@DarkStar - Even if the LDS Church does say something and these bills don't pass than gay rights activists will still say that it's the LDS Church's fault.
@Antenna Girl - ...and my sisters middle name is Gaye. Bummer...it was a great name until it got redefined.
@DarkStar - had a "gay old time" according to the theme song, although I never saw any behavior from Fred and Barney that seemed out of the ordinary.
@konakula29er - What about Wilma and Betty??? Remember, Betty was portrayed by Rosie O'Donnell in the movie!!!
@DarkStar - If people are so proud of their "gay pride" then why can't they be proud enough of it to call it what it is? Homosexuality.
No one has ever answered that question.
No one has ever answered that question.
@Antenna Girl - ...they needed a shorter word that was easier for them to spell.
@Antenna Girl - if the gay community and the media can place a negative designation like "homo-phobic" on those who disagree with the gay lifestyle, then maybe they should call it "homo-pride" instead of "gay pride".
@Antenna Girl - I am just sick and tired of queers complaining and picking on the mormons. why not pick on all christians, and muslims for that matter since they all believe that homo's are against gods will and a sin in his sight. Why dont you all queers complain about everyone and see if you can get some cash from the government while your at it..
@DarkStar - will continue to seperate in perspective. It is just another ploy to get gay marriage to pass, it's just a way to keep the foot in the door and then sooner or later we will see the supreme court overturn it here.
What a joke you can vote on an issue pass it and it will be overturned over and over again.
What a joke you can vote on an issue pass it and it will be overturned over and over again.
@Jack Mormon - The supreme court cannot overturn our state constitution unless it violates the federal constitution.
@DarkStar - No they won't blame the LDS for it's defeat.
Equality Utah will prove a point that
they (LDS Church) they are not "pro-family" like they claim.
Equality Utah will prove a point that
they (LDS Church) they are not "pro-family" like they claim.
@come on ye'all - That wouldn't "prove" anything.
@come on ye'all - This battle will go on and on.... They have been trying to define the word "Marriage" for years and still cant define it as being between a man and a woman. Same thing will happen with the word "family" the homosexuals will try and redefine Family like they have Marriage.
@come on ye'all - I'm Catholic. Am I not pro family? I think my Mormon neighbors are. Why don't you? Why are you the bigot?
@Finish First or Last - That is all I can have for my family. I am so scared to have to sit down with my children and explain Homosexuality years before puberty sets in.
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'
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'
@guesswhat - if your son is gay, then yeah he will like boys, if not he will like girls. Most people dont' hear about being gay and make that choice, it is programed into you. It is not a choice! No one would choose to be a "monster" in the eyes of the public. No one would choose to be gay over having their families turn their backs on them. Really, really do you really beleive that? come on people, use a little more of your brain and look at what makes sense.... no one would ever choose to be gay, knowing what people think of gay people. Not everyone plays "follow the leader" and believes something is right or wrong becuase their church told them so, their friend told them so, their co worker told them so, the Jones's told them so.....why don't you choose to be differnt and open your heart?
@L L. - Try looking at this as though it isn't just black and white. Those are just opposites in the color chart. Not everyone is either for or against GAY. There are so many different factors that play into this. I just fear the liberal side of the Gay movement. not the ones that just want there own peace. There is a deeper agenda that most don't see like your self, L.L.
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.
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 called political blackmail. This group not only does not want the LDS Church to oppose the legislation, but is asking for their endorsement, knowing the it rubs against the grain of Church doctrine. So the people who chastise the Church for getting involved politically, not want them involved politically but to the special interest group's advantage. Sly move.
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.
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.
@Oldref - they have already issued statements on the church's stance on the issue, why waste more breath on the subject.
@Oldref - The LDS church only got involved in CA after it was invited to as part of the coalition. Notice it didn't get involved in AZ and FL.
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.
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.
@Web geek - they did get involved in AZ - I don't know for sure about FL or Ark. It just didn't make the news because Hollywood didn't get invovled in those other states either. But all kinds of churches also got preotested in those other states as well.
@Web geek - You are so off on your statement it's just too funny! After invited? The LDS church has been planning to "be invited" for the past 10 years on this issue - that way they can divert the blame to others besides them.
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.
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.
@UtahDevil - Let's hope that the US Supreme Court is wise enough to see the problems that gay marriage has created in other countries where it has been legalized.
@Oldref - QUOTE:
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.
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.
@Oldref - I feel what they're saying is ok, you don't want us entering "the religious institution of marriage", so let us have the other benefits.
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.
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.
@StupidPplShldntBreed - Sure the request is fair, although I think redundant and unnecessary given the statements already made - but wouldn't it be nice of the gay activist groups maybe put out a little apology, maybe even just one or two lines, about the harrassment they have heaped upon the LDS church, and other churches? Maybe that they are willing to respect the deeply held beliefs of these religions and will try to find a solution that respects the rights and beliefs of both sides?
@Jani S. - Your religion's members donated the majority of funds to prop 8, even though the LDS population of California is 2%
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?
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?
@acoustic_mayhem - I know how I would feel - read the history of the LDS church - we lost our homes, our land, our lives, were forced out of a state by a government-assigned extermination order (which was rescinded and apologized for only in the 1970s). These were my ancestors. And we did have a government that passed legislation that mormons couldn't marry other mormons (polygamy) - you know what our response was in each of these cases? 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. Polygamy is stil illegal. And a US army regiment was sent out to quell the supposed mormon uprising in the Utah territories. We even sent troops during the Civil War to fight for this government that let us down.
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.
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.
@Jani S. - Your people lost their homes, land, lives, and then had the audacity to fight for what they thought should be right to them?
" 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.
" 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.
@Steph R. - that gay rights groups are harrassing and vandalizing churches all over the country - and none of you seems to think that this might justify an apology before they start asking for support from the very people they have been calling names and demeaning.
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.
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.
@acoustic_mayhem - Its about morals. think about something other than personal gratification. Homosexuality is the next step in the decline of humanity.
@acoustic_mayhem - The Mormon religion didn't take away any rights. It was never a right for homosexuals to get married. The people approved the ban once, 4 rogue judges who thought it was there job to legislate from the bench instead of uphold the laws reversed the vote of the people, then the people voted again to ban gay marriage. So it isn't a right, and up to this point, never has been as far as the amendment is concerned.
The point that homosexuals miss is that this wasn't about taking away rights. It was about preserving marriage as it is.
The point that homosexuals miss is that this wasn't about taking away rights. It was about preserving marriage as it is.
@iliveforfall - Marriage is no longer a religious institution when you can buy a marriage license FROM THE GOVT, get married in the county clerk's office BY THE GOVT, and then receive benefits from the private sector AND THE GOVT because you're married. So you're not really 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.
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.
@StupidPplShldntBreed - You make a good point, but it isn't up to the LDS Church. The state has already spoken. We legally cannot do this. Rep. Dave Clark was right.
@StupidPplShldntBreed - ...Stupid People Shouldn't breed say a whole lot...Is that why [removed]???
...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.
...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.
@Oldref - Blackmail or not, it really puts the Church in the spotlight.
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.
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.
@come on ye'all - The church has received negative repercussions for many things regardless of what stand they have taken. Why should this 'cause' be any different.
@Oldref - ask the church to express how it feels about homosexuality, but invite it to contradict itself by expressing its family values? Please read slow and understand: A family = man + woman + children (sometimes there are no children), but that is what a family is all about.
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.
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.
to ask for their support *BEFORE* bashing the Church and its members all over the media.
I dunno, I don't think I'd feel like going out of my way to be real helpful right now...
I dunno, I don't think I'd feel like going out of my way to be real helpful right now...
@Mike lafontaine - Let's see, first they protest in front of temples, then they call for a boycott of the liberal parts of Utah, and now they want the church to support them?
@Web geek - I don't know why, but when I see nice little old ladies being harassed as they try to enter their house of worship for their religion, I just wanna go ballistic. Support them and their cause? Gee, I don't think so. A LOT of people who were on the fence with this issue have been EASILY swayed to the Yes on Prop 8 side by the actions of the militant homosexuals. The anger displayed by them, the slurs, the violence towards women and children, it won't get them any new supporters (I suspect).
They will also start helping lower the drinking age, and smoking age while they are at it. Its funny how the "other" team wants to force us to accept what they are and what they believe. At the same time they won't understand why we want to keep our values and what we believe.
I think they ought to just be happy if they don't get any action or comment at all, much less some sort of endorsement - especially after all the vandalism and harrassment the LDS church has received over this issue.
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.
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.
instead of saying the LDS church is "Anti-Gay", the correct term to use would be "Anti-Sin". If gay/homosexual behavior falls under the description of sin based on the Bible and other scripture, then the conclusion is simple...
You be the judge!
You be the judge!
@konakula29er - That your basing your life choices out of a 2000-4000 year old book(the bible) And a book that was "translated" out of a hat with a rock and special glasses(BofM)
@noodlekaboodle - That truths are forever? Thay can't and won't be changed with your wim.
@Whatswrong - They are based on personal experience and advice from people older and smarter than me.
@noodlekaboodle - people who are 2000-4000 years older than you don't count? OR is it because you didn't know them personally that their words don't count? I guess we'd better start discounting the great people in history as well - no more Abe Lincoln quotes, Ghandi, Mother Theresa . . .
@noodlekaboodle - Were Written by people older and smarter than me. Why do you bash my beliefs and then ask me to accept yours?
@noodlekaboodle - community is trying to use those same books to justify their lifestyles by citing God's love for all humanity instead of using the scriptures which clearly define the difference (in God's eyes) between marriage and abomination.
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.
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.
@older but wiser - I don't see what the big issue is. Why can't we just compromise. Let gays get married. But you can't talk about it in school, just like you can't talk about religion, and you can't force someone to marry you in their church (ie. LDS temples) And every body just leaves each other alone and goes on trying to live a happy life. BAM, problem solved. I should have been president instead of B.O or Grandpa McCain.
@noodlekaboodle - Unfortunately, gays don't just keep it to themselves. They throw parties and parades to show that they are gay. They have their own cruises and vacations. When was the last time you saw a "Hetero-pride days" parage? How about a "Heterosexuals only" cruise? The problem is, the gays don't leave the rest of us alone! So we shouldn't be expected to just turn our heads.
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.
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.
@iliveforfall - I'm a straight athiest(so I don't fall into either catagory). On one side the gays are pushing their agenda, on the other hand, so is every religion, your both the same kind of people with completly different views. GET OVER YOURSELVE. Homosexuals, stop flaunting it, you can be gay without a lisp and rainbow cloths. Religious people, stop telling me the bible is the only truth. It's not. The bible is like that game telephone when you were a kid. By the time it's been translated 4000 years later your not sure if thats even what the people in it were saying. SO BOTH SIDES, GET OFF YOUR [no swearing please]HIGH HORSE, LEAVE EACH OTHER ALONE AND STOP PUSHING YOUR AGENDA. If you don't like gay people FINE, if you just let them get married you never would have to think about them again. GAy's if you didn't feel the need to make every one like you, and just realized some people won't no matter what it wouldn't be as big of a deal. JUST GET OVER YOURSELVES.
@noodlekaboodle - Holy crap! That's the first time I've realized that Barack Obama's initials are B.O.
@noodlekaboodle - belief in this subject on the fact that God is the same today, yesterday, and forever.
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.
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.
@noodlekaboodle - You forgot to include the highly "accurate"......pardon me just had to guffaw at that one.....Book of Abraham.
Who has any kind of problem with the gay community getting equal rights when it comes to medical coverage, etc. It's just the whole idea of redifining what marriage means and trying to force that change on a variety of religious organizations that don't want it that people take offense to.
@wilco64256 - you just have to shell out the dough.
@Jack Mormon - Currently it is not a requirement that a company provide benefits for non married people. This applies to both hetero and homosexual couples. The difference is if hetero's want the coverage they CAN get married and the health ins company HAS to provide.
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.
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.
@StupidPplShldntBreed - gender however I don't think it should be a requirement to provide health insurance to those who are unmarried. People can still get their own polocies on there own and I have no problem with that. Nor do I have a problem that people have a an attraction to the same gender.
@Jack Mormon - to provide benefits to unmarrieds. BUT if you're going to provide benefits to the married (and health care is legally mandated if you're company has so many employees) then a human should be allowed to marry the human they fall in love with, and receive those benefits.
@StupidPplShldntBreed - ...make a lifelong committment to the person you love and want to spend the rest of your life with. No one here is stopping you.
@iliveforfall - Second, you may not be stopping anyone from making a commitment (unless you live in a state that has banned that as well) but you're discriminating when we get benefits and they don't. The GOVT is guilty of it because they legally mandate health insurance for the married, give tax breaks, and then won't allow anyone who wants to marry the person they love to marry them.
You can't have it both ways. We can either allow them to marry, or we can get rid of benefits of marriage.
You can't have it both ways. We can either allow them to marry, or we can get rid of benefits of marriage.
@wilco64256 - in fact, why are they even passing laws about it...it's already something that happens. heck, two business partners can get life insurance on each other...I'm pretty sure there's no problem with a couple of people who are somehow dependent on each other whether it's romantic or not getting these things worked out.
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.
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.
@pre - Utah's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage also prevents gay couples from having the rights you speak of--
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
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
I think the Church said enough dont you? The LDS church is for families! Eternal families that are not of the same sex. So go spin your words and try to get them to agree with your thinking, right!? Wrong, the gay community was in the closet for so long and now that they are out, they can dictate the way we say and the way we feel. That is wrong my gay friends. I dont care what you believe, just like you dont care what I believe. So keep it that way!
@Walter B. - California voters dictated to the gay community how it's going to be in the future. The majority spoke. The minority - the lesbians/homosexuals - are only loud because the media makes them so.
@konakula29er - "Dictated" ?????
@Max V Ewing - Ms. Palin said when asked how her time with Mr. McCain went.
She said: "His dictated good."
She said: "His dictated good."
I am a bit new to Utah, the state I came from already have co-habitation equality no matter the gender of the couple. If they lived together they had the same rights as if they were married in regard to taxes, health insurance etc. I was under the impression Utah had similar laws, it sounds like I mistaken. So what are the laws presently?
@Ms Rogers - The SL city government passed a law granting domestic partnership benefits that includes persons such as an adult child taking care of an adult parent, homosexuals, non-custodial adults with minor children, etc. But it is not binding law throughout the state, although individual companies can provide similar benefits should they choose and of course, anyone can hire a lawyer to work out estate issues, custody, etc.
@Jani S. - that insurance companys might still retain the right to define the marital partnership as they see fit. Can't wait to see what stand the gay/lesbian community will take against them. Oh, of course, more of the same...discimination.
@Ms Rogers - I don't know of any state or federal program that allows you to claim to be married on your taxes when you are not.
get married! WE have been living together now for 5 years. We are so happy together. Is there anything wrong with that? Listen up homos It's the same concept. There is a difference between right and wrong. I'm sure none of you were conceived in a "gay relationship" Why do you want to continue to confuse our youth and destroy the time tested traditional family? If you want to be gay that's your right, but to impose your rare lifestyle on the silent straight majority is absolutely unacceptable. Most people are SICK and TIRED of all you whiners and your gay agenda. Get a life and stop with your preoccupation with sex. Keep it in the closet because we DON'T want to hear about it.
@Mark M. - Brilliant in saying it's the same as two men or women getting married. Do some researchwith an open mind. There have been studies. Look at what makes someone gay. Can you imagine a young gentleman deciding one day....girl or dude....yeah I think I'm going to hook up with guys instead of girls.
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.
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.
@oliver22 - I'm tired of you talking about it. I personally don't care if you have sex or not. I don't make a public statement of my sex life.
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.
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.
@oliver22 - in science that you are born gay. People are just sick minded and decide to be that way.
@Airplaneman - Like Bonobos, some birds, etc. are obviously just as sick minded...
@Airplaneman - I personally know many gay men, and as far as I know ALL of them have this in common...
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.
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.
@oliver22 - That is exactly what they "young gentleman" say..."yeah I think I'm going to hook up with guys instead of girls." (and visa versa)
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.
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.
@Fiznart - Speak for yourself, but I've never had any gay sexual behaviors I've had to control. Do some research. Gay men's left hemispheres are similar in size to womens....which are larger than straight men......gay women's right hemispheres are larger which corresponds to straight men. Fact.
@Mark M. - is your dog a legal person? Can he/she/it sign a marriage certificate? Can it drive a car or shop for groceries? No.
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.
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.
@jinxie1300 - to the masses of Normal heterosexuals It's got to be less than .5% To all Gays: If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen! You choose what you are. So if you can't handle it, stay in the closet.
I understand why the church made that statement but in reality the are "ant-gay" they definitely are not "pro-gay" The gay lifestyle is in direct contradiction to church doctrine.
Do they suffer from some ill-founded notion that the world should revolve around their every whim and caprice? Certainly they can speak in this free society of ours, WHILE affording the same courtesy to those who disagree with them. But good grief, the majority who live peaceful, happy lives shouldn't have to continually listen to their obnoixiouness just for the sake of letting them vent their miserable derangement and obsession with being gay.
Homosexual relationships should not be supported by any government or even by humanity. Humans would cease to exist and funding for benefits for non-working individuals would also cease. Who is accounting for this? Who is going to support these couples benefits when they are not working and retired?? My children and neighbors children..
@mooshu - Dude think about it for one minute.... The gay community works jobs just like you do.... and pay the same taxes you do.
@Tyler L. - he does have a point about the future tax base. Our taxes today pay for those currently on SS and Medicaid. Not for our future benefit. That is where our kids come in.
@Jani S. - A large percentage of gay couples have children- many have adopted, many have been artificially inseminated, many have children from previous relationships--
So by your logic should we ban childless couples from ever getting married as well?
So by your logic should we ban childless couples from ever getting married as well?
@acoustic_mayhem - no, a large percentage do not have children - I have a gay friend at a university back east who studies these facts and issues and actually most gays do not have children, or adopt, etc.
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 . . .
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 . . .
@acoustic_mayhem - I would say a MAJORITY of homosexual couples do not have children. When the incentives the results change. Promoting homosexual relationships as equal to a relationship between a Man and Woman is not in the best interest for humanity or any government.
@Tyler L. - If you read what I wrote it says after retirement. Everybody knows that benefits that are being experienced now are being funded by currently working and tax paying individuals. Roads, utilities, health-care, etc.
If you haven't heard the US is in debt and keeps printing money a.k.a. "defecit spending".
If you haven't heard the US is in debt and keeps printing money a.k.a. "defecit spending".
@mooshu - AND AGAIN I SAY TO YOU..... THE PEOPLE "CURRENTLY WORKING AND ARE TAX PAYING INDIVIDUALS" INCLUDES THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE FROM THE GAY COMMUNITY, AS WELL AS THOSE OF THE STRAIGHT COMMUNITY.
[Please don't shout with ALL CAPS.]
[Please don't shout with ALL CAPS.]
@Tyler L. - And are you going to continue to pay taxes after you are retired? Did you want to pay social security when you are retired and did you want to pay federal taxes, state taxes to pay for all the services and benefits you enjoy now? The tax base will suffer. These funds are perpetual and are spent as the funds are contributed. The US does not have a stock pile of money sitting waiting for you after you retire there is a general assumption that somebody else will be around to pay the bill for the future.
@Tyler L. - You make too much sense. Unfortunately you can't win an argument when the rules of logic only apply to one of you.
@Kimmy - I would strongly disagree; it applies to everybody in breathing-living extistance. All existing humans were born by man and woman not man and man or woman and woman. And when incentives are given to not couple as man and woman that changes things. Granted not ALL individuals are given the capacity to create children. But I would say in general this point DOES apply to ALL.
@mooshu - It doesn't apply to people who make irrational arguments. They are impossible to reason with because they will continue to make ridiculous arguments in order to get the last word.
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.
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.
@Kimmy - The gay community wants marriages for homosexuals. California already has civil unions. Why marriage? A homosexual relationship is not the same.
Acception for a gay couple to be "married" and being "Black" are not the same. This is a moral movement not a civil movement.
Acception for a gay couple to be "married" and being "Black" are not the same. This is a moral movement not a civil movement.
gay marriage = legalized AIDS & HIV ...
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 ...
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 ...
@Randy H. - Your statement is absolutely absurd! No intelligent person would actualy make such an idiotic statement. And how does being married to another living person equate having a relationship with football or jello? They are also human beings! Just because you do not believe what they are doing is correct doesn't mean that we don't all have our free agency to choose what we want. Don't all religions focus on free agency?!?!I think people like you is what is wrong with our society!
@Randy H. - Um.... straight people carry aids & HIV just as much as any other person in any community. Get a life. Noone is killing anyone by legalizing something. And you think that people are just gonna start dying off AFTER it was legalized???? I dont think the amount of sex or aids people have will change once its legal.
UNDERSTAND "NO".THEY ARE LIKE THE CAMEL WHO GETS HIS
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.
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.
@HOLYSHIZ !!! - Are exactly how I think of the Mormon missionaries when they show up at my doorstep.
@Str8-Up - Could you be any more disingenuine? If they knock on your door, they don't try to force their way in. Tell them no, and they go away. They are looking for those who are seeking something more; for answers. You clearly aren't one of those. Cool. No problem.
@Str8-Up - They ask a simple question and leave if your not interested. The gays would just picket your house if you disagreed.
These homosexuals just don't get it. The LDS church is the Lord's church and the Lord is not going to give in to a homosexual agenda.
@Daniel H. - Just like He didn't give in on blacks not having the priesthood and being able to go to the temple, and just like He didn't give in on abandoning the doctrine that Brigham Young said you had to be a polygamist to get into the highest kingdom of heaven. Boy I hope He holds a little firmer on this issue than those....oops sorry !!!! There I go letting factual documented info get into the way of a good emotional debate...doh !!!
Attempting be LDS and openly homosexual is self-defeating behavior.
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 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
For crying out loud the moron's, it wasn't just the LDS church that voted on the issue. It was the USA! And why keep voting on it.It's just not normal.I guess the population explosion would slow down on the otherhand, hmmmm. New Twist?
that KSL posts these Gay vs. LDS Church stories so they get tons of hits on these pages. Hits = Ads = $.
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.
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.
@the1chad - Ha! I was there that day! Unfortuantely, I didn't get the memo until I showed up already wearing jeans... my usual attire.
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.
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.
So lets see if I get this right....
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.
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.
@winter1 - the vast majority didn't like black's free, black's voting, women voting, women holding property, and so because the majority says it should be so, it should be?
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???
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???
@StupidPplShldntBreed - Finally somebody who has a head on their shoulders who is not so narrow minded as to not see whats happening. This is the truth... It will happen and its how it should happen. The definition of marriage doesnt have to change. But you will soon realize that you didnt see anything happened (after 16000 couples were married in same sex relationships), to you or anyone else for that matter. So stop giving a dammm about the people who DO NOT AFFECT YOUR LIFE.
@Tyler L. - Next these blasted gay activist will want their perverted stuff taught to my kindergartner and children. I am sorry but as a parent these things do matter because they will affect my life and my children's lives. I wonder how long God is going to withold his hand and not in his wrath cleanse he earth once more? He didn't hold back on Sodom and Gommororah and I have a feeling he won't be holding back on us either.
@Jack Mormon - You really think that they are gonna stop teaching the ABC's and start teaching your child about homosexuality?
@Tyler L. - Obama flat out said that sex education should be taught in Kindergarten and if these gays and lesbians get their ways they will be teaching my kid in school at Age 6 that homosexuality is okay.
@Jack Mormon - I do not agree with teaching children at that age. And you should know as a parent you have the choice to have your children not learn sex ed in school. You have to sign a lease form to even let them be in the room. And please dont think that all gays alike are the way you speak... we are not all as bad as you make it sound.
@StupidPplShldntBreed - Let's examine what you said: "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."
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.
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.
@Jani S. - There are no civil union laws in Utah and in most other states- the constitutional amendment in Utah barred those as well
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...
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...
@acoustic_mayhem - Did you know going into your relationship that you would be deprived of some of those benefits? If so, then why is that someone else's fault? It's not so much that if homosexuals are allowed civil marriages that we will be hurt or offended. The problem is that it will only snowball into other things. Soon, some gay Mormon will want to be married in a temple and will sue for it. I don't want my kid in elementary, junior or high school to have to hear about alternative lifestyles. What will be taught in anatomy classes? That's the funniest part to me. Teaching something that is so blatantly unnatural!
@StupidPplShldntBreed - Interesting screen name....
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.
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.
@winter1 - Because our supreme court interprets the civil rights act to cover sexual preference, so ya, that makes this a civil rights issue.
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.
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.
@StupidPplShldntBreed - I hate to break it to you, but people do choose to be gay. I believe that some people are born genetically wired with same sex attractions, but there are a multitude of other factors that can lead a person to identify themselves as homosexual. Even having a same sex attraction doesn't mean that a person is gay, or is going to choose to enter a gay lifestyle. We all have choices. My family has genetics related to alcoholism. Does that make me an alcoholic? No. I choose not to drink. I choose to live differently. I am not a slave to the urges that I have. The argument that "all gay people are born that way" is simply an excuse that people use to avoid taking responsibility for their own actions.
@StupidPplShldntBreed - You are comparing Apples and Oranges. Blacks and women in the past were considered property now they can own property; it was inhuman treatment to consider people as property as others did back then.
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.
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.
Listen up homos we call ours Marriage an exclusive man and woman relationship. Come up with your own name like Joint Union, Homounion, Same Sex partnership, Cohabitants, Gay couple, Gayriage, and we will give you rights Just quit using our name MARRIAGE
You know it doesn't matter what the LDS Church says or does you will still point your finger at them. And if you think [removed] or lesbian or what ever. The LDS church Beleif is that marriage is between man and women only
The have no consideration of the moral implecations they are creating for us.
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.
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 got the answer, take away all marriages, Make them purely religous, the state can have civil unions for all people for taxes and record purposes. That way each religion has it's "defined marriages" and everyone else can move on with their lives.
I know, I know, I'm too good.
I know, I know, I'm too good.
www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/
@Chris M. - While your plugging websites why don't you do a google image search for sodomy. See how that brightens everyone's day.
@Chris M. - Yeah. And I "stole" my son's car.
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.
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.
Being played out by the sore losers. It is simply to harass the church and stir up more controversy. How PATHETIC!
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!
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!
The thing that concerns me more than anything else is the fact that the Mormon Church has so much say in everything! I have been saying this for years, but now it just goes to show it!
@Wildflower - There are about 5 million Mormons in a nation of 300 million. You do the math. When did you last hear of a Mormon policy in this nation?
Take some more of your dosage honey. Then come slowly out of the basement and you'll be okay.
Take some more of your dosage honey. Then come slowly out of the basement and you'll be okay.
@Diedre J. - I have been here long enough to see it and experience it honey..... In schools, workplaces and in life! I was also told I could never be a true member at 14 years old because my parents were divorced and my mother was living with her boyfriend even though I had been baptized and went to church every week, I wasn't good enough because of what my parents chose to do... They judge way to much and they have their influence in a lot of places it doesn't belong.... I am not in the basement, I am wide awake and perhaps you should wake up too Honey....
@Wildflower - means that i have to accept something i don't agree with, then i'll just set up a better home entertainment system and install a bathroom and a fridge.
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.
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.
@collin carnahan - I understood perfectly well at 14 when I was told in the exact words "you can never be a true member because your parents to not follow our teachings" hmmm I don't think that is to hard to mis understand... I was not taking a personal attack like you did, I was making a comment. and besides we all have to accept something we don't agree with, such as the missionaries knocking on my door frequently when I have told them I'm no longer interested... I did not bring all this up, I made a simple comment and like the lady when I was 14, you opened a bag of worms and have now shown me that even talking to someone else will not work because I'm obviously still not entitled to my own oppinion unless it's what you believe! If you want to set up a better home it's up to you!
@Wildflower - As you can see by reading these posts, many people offer opinions, purporting to speak for "the Church," when the rest of us who have an IQ higher than single digits can see that they speak only of themselves.
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.
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.
@Wildflower - I'd be shocked if they didn't have influence on Utah's laws. A person would have to be awful naive to think the majority in any state don't make their enfluence felt.
It would be kinda like me moving to San Francisco and being surprised that homosexuals don't influence the government there.
It would be kinda like me moving to San Francisco and being surprised that homosexuals don't influence the government there.
@Rifleman - Separation between church and state???? maybe you haven't heard of this one, uh, no, they shouldn't have an influence!
and ummm the votes were in california!!!
and ummm the votes were in california!!!
is just added proof that we are in the last days. People, you need to decide whose side you're on.... You either follow Christ or you follow Satan. Satan has a hold on many people through the cunningness of mixing Gospel Principles with the teachings of man.
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 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.
While I will be the first to admit...I don't know the ins and out of the LDS church, I did, however grow up in a Christian home with a minister under my roof. Now, if I remember right, I was taught to "love your fellow man" (not in a gay sense).
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.
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.
@Jeff D. - I live on a ranch and we have alot of mice around. I leave the mice alone and let them live their happy lives, But when they come into my home, and force themselves into my life, then I kill them.
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 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.
@ . - Oh, I didn't realize that you had a colony of gay people trying to "convert" you into the gayness.
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?
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?
@Jeff D. - because opening the laws to gay marriage goes against their belief and i'm pretty sure they have to god given right to vote against it if they want. get over it people the church didn't ever say they hated gay's they have been very clear on there stance on the situation.
if anything i look up to the lds faith because of not giving into the world and changing their beliefs like every other church.
if anything i look up to the lds faith because of not giving into the world and changing their beliefs like every other church.
@lundgrener02 - If you look up to the LDS faith for not giving into the world and changing, here are some other great examples you must pine for. Why oh why did the Catholic church cave to Galileo's theory that the solar system revolves around the sun. Oh for the good old days when churches knew how to handle their witches...burn them. How about those cowardly churches who apologized for supporting Hitler? So many examples. Perhaps you could start up those great crusades again.
@Jeff D. - I agree, they should not be treated differently. Do you agree that marrying two men is different than marrying a man and a woman.
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.
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.
@Revilo - There is a big difference between 2 men (or women) being married than a man/womman...in many aspects of the relationship. But to condemn for that relationship is wrong (in my humble opinion)
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!
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!
@Jeff D. - I have hesitated using the term "degenerate" in this debate because it can carry emotional-laden meaning; but decided to so anyway because the objective meaning of "degenerate" is, "Having declined, as in function or nature, from a former or original state", or "lacking or having progressively lost normative biological or psychological characteristics."
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.
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.
Pro family doesn't mean pro gay. How do you have a family without a mommy and daddy? The fact that two gals or two guys want to delude themselves that they are a family doesn't mean that we all have to run over that same cliff like a bunch of lemmings.
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......
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......
In Utah their is no separation of Church and State - it's all run by the Church
@come on ye'all - THEN LEAVE!! If you hate it here so much, then you have 49 other choices. Go for it!
See Ya!
See Ya!
@come on ye'all - The state is not run by the LDS Church. However, it would appear that the vast majority of people willing to step up to the plate and run for office are members of the LDS Church. Just because they pass laws that represent their moral beliefs and normal day to day living beliefs doesn't mean that the Church runs the state. It is run by people like you and me. If you don't like it, then run for office yourself so you can change that. If you don't want to do that then stop complaining because you have no right to complain if you don't actively participate in that could change it.
@come on ye'all - depend on this church, even if they don't recognize it. Who keeps their businesses in business? Who pays the taxes for their well fare? And who do you think you interact with almost on a day to day basis. Gays can have their rights too but when it infringes on the rights and beliefs of the major percentage of the state then that's a problem.
So my uncle is Gay, and way back when, he said humans do not have instincts. My response to this was, of course they do, especially when they are babies. A baby has an instinct to cry when it is hungry, to clamor after a nipple to eat and start the sucking motion. He disagreed with me saying everything was a choice. Sometime later he says to me that he is gay and that he was born that way and he cannot help it. So I say, so are you saying it is an instinct. He says yes. Totally contradicted what he said earlier. So my rebuttal was that he said humans don't have instincts, but make choices. So I have to take him at face value, he made a choice to be gay and that it is not instinct.
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.
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.
Ok, so god said marriage should be between a man and a woman, but any sins you make are between yourself and god.... You are the only person who will have to answer for your sins to god, and I feel that god is very forgiving. I think he is more forgiving to people who have love for another human being, than someone with more violent sins. I am female, I have been married to a male for 15 years, I do not have any desire to be with anyone of the same sex, it's just not my thing, but it's also not my job to judge someone for who they fall in love with! No One but god should judge anyone. Everyone has sins, everyone has told a white lie at one point or another, everyone has put something harmful into their body at one point or another (c'mon who hasn't ate at Mc'D's?) But yet everyone wants to say it's not what god wants, and no I haven't met God personally yet, but honestly I don't see him being terribly mad at someone for loving another human being.
Thanks for letting me ramble.
Thanks for letting me ramble.
@Wildflower - I don't agree with the many hateful comments on this thread. Not Christian at all in my opinion. And I am ashamed. I would like to raise the level of this discussion to a more Christian level.
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?
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?
So, first they were saying to the LDS Church, "Stay out of this issue" and now they're begging for support from the church? Make up your mind! The church will NOT change their view just because you ask nicely.
The problem with the activists is that they are using the media by making claims about the LDS Church that really have nothing to do with the topic. The Church is not Anti-Gay, meaning they do not specifically seek out gay people and try to bash them or hate them. When the Church says that they are Pro Family it means that they are Pro "Mother, Father and Children" You cannot have a family in the pure definition with a mom and a mom or a dad and a dad. The activists are trying to put the gay family in the same category as a normal, natural, family. It would be against the beliefs of most religious and even some non-religious people to allow any sort of recognition of a gay family. The issue should be reported as it actually is and that is that "confused" individuals that want to start same gender relationships should have the same rights as a normal relationship such as shared finances and health care, etc.. That is already in process and is available in many states. And that is where it ends !!
@Josh H. - There are a lot of children out there with no mother and father that would be happy to have anyone in their lives, I don't think they care if it's two dads or two moms as long as it is a loving home. Pro family is great, I love my family with all my heart and I wouldn't change a thing, but seriously, how many of us pro-families are taking in these children that have had a hard life that come from an abusive man/woman relationship or etc. that would just love any family? You mean it cannot be considered a family to have two loving parents a good home, food on the table, a roof over your head, or should we just make these kids stay in foster homes or with families that abuse them, hurt them, have drug problems or etc.?
@Wildflower - You are right that there are a lot of problems with families in this world. But, I do not think that adding another problem, like gay families, makes anything better. "Two wrongs do not make a right". The problem with the whole gay thing is that once it is accepted as OK, what will be next...men and sheep relationships? I know ... that is just crazy ... but why is that crazy compared to homosexuality?
The acceptance of gay marriage and families will eventually be the downfall of society...that is a promise.
The acceptance of gay marriage and families will eventually be the downfall of society...that is a promise.
@Josh H. - I can't believe you would even bring up animals when we are talking about human beings!!! Has this been a famtasy of yours or are you really this naive? These are humans! the subject is not cats, dogs, sheep, and etc.. the subject is human lives and to bring animals into it is just sick and wrong!! I remember a day when it was wrong for balck and white to be together, I suppose you'd like to bring animals into that one too!!!!
@Wildflower - ...... beings. Prop 8 defines marriage and changed the California Constitution to state that it is between one man and one woman. Those apposed to Prop 8 lost. Deal with it.
Any society that would support any sick agenda is ripe for destruction. Fortunately, there are still some righteous in California. That is keeping it from falling into utter destruction.
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.
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.
I bet that most people reading this have never met someone who is gay. To leave peoples rights up to the vote of people who have probably never talked with or met anyone who is in the gay community is horrible. Does anyone else see this.
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?
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?
@Tyler L. - It is very sad that a Bishop would make a statement like that, let me apologize on his behalf. I wish there were a simple answer to all of this, but there is not. Satan has found a great way to cause conflict and steel away thousands of souls with the whole gay confusion. Sorry if that sounds a bit harsh.
@Josh H. - Being as strong a member in the church as I was I dont know how to respond to that. I was the one in my family who got my family up to go to church, and a lot of times got rides from the neighboring family just so I could go.
@Josh H. - I hope you realize how hurtful it is to call someone simply confused cause you don't understand where he is coming from.
@Tyler L. - My uncle is gay and brings his partner to all of our family functions. When you little sister asks, "why does uncle JOEBOB have a boyfriend and not a girlfriend." Yeah I have a problem with it and I don't want my kids growing up thinking it is ok, because it is not.
@Tyler L. - how often they interact with gay people on some level. Not all of them are flamboyant, many are just normal, hard-working good people trying to make a living like everyone else. I bet many would be surprized at how many gay people they really know.
@Tyler L. - Unfortunately I hear your same story all the time and I was fortunate to have family and friends that lived their faith and accepted me. These blogs on ksl attract all your self proclaimed religious fanatics that preach and scream using nasty comments trying to provoke fights. I love these religious types that provoke fights with nasty and belittling comments that claim to be doing God's work. Amazing.
Homosexuals claim that 10% of the population is gay. There are 40 million Californians. That means 4 million gay Californians. You still with me?
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?
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?
To stop having gays babies! That will give the Church exactly what it wants...anti-gay...errr I mean, pro-family.
@pooky84321 - How tragically sad. To go through life and never realize the power that is born into each and every human soul: The power to choose and create who and what we are, and will be.
You have my pity pooky.
You have my pity pooky.
@Diedre J. - Wow, you're a better human than I am, because I couldn't change that if society decided it was wrong to marry a diff sex partner.
@StupidPplShldntBreed - I would stop focusing on whom you are having sex with, and perhaps first try to put together a cogent sentence.
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.
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.
How dare you say and display the vile comments you have made again the LDS Church in blogs and protests both in California at the LDS Temple in Los Angeles, and around Temple Square here in Salt Lake City and then have the gall to ask the LDS leaders in our legislature and the church to support your requests for such benefits. It would serve you right if they turned a deaf ear to your pleas and snubbed their nose at you. I find it interesting how nasty you can be over Proposition 8 and then turn on the charm and kindness when you want something from our legislature. Talk about hipocrits!
And if the Church doesn't they will keep breaking church windows.
@travelall - The Church will not change its views. It never will. But I like how a hundred years ago the church was fighting over marriage and polygamy was a huge part of the religion. Was marriage considered as sacred then as it is now? Cuz im pretty sure the definition did not say "one man and multiple women".
@Tyler L. - and you wouldn't ask such questions. During the time of the American-Mexican war, so many men from the Mormon faithful were taken in a draft, leaving countless women to fend for themselves and their children, at this time, God gave revelation that the men should take more women to wife, to help support them and their children, there is nothing sexual about the polygamy that was in place over 100 years ago, it was about taking care of widows and their children, thus the reason God also put a stop to it once gender balance was again regained. So yes, it was considered sacred, the media puts a sexual spin on polygamy, and the RLDS church doesn't help, but the fact is, polygamy was used to help people in dire straits, over a century ago, that is all.
@Daniel J. - I love the gays and bigots that "disagree" with cold hard fact.
God Made Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and STEVE. If that were so, we woudn't be here today. Enough said.
@Matt G. - "God" didn't create Adam and Steve, it was totally Adam and Eve's fault, you are right on the money with that one! Good thinking!
@Matt G. - I think it's hilarious! You should get a copyright on that saying before someone else uses it, and maybe claims it as their own.
YEW R KEWL
YEW R KEWL
@Matt G. - Perhaps if Adam hadn't been such a jerk Eve wouldn't have found a Madam.
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!
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!
do they. Perhaps they think they're backing the Church into a corner. Of course the media plays into it all and becomes more of an instrument of self-interest groups than a free press fulfilling their responsibilities.
Since I posted about an hour ago, I have been going back and re-reading some posts. All I can say is "WOW". There are a lot of ignorant, close minded people on this discussion board.
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.
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.
@Jeff D. - they are usually the type who are living off of their parents religiosity and are very quick to shun anybody with opposing views.
Ye are laying plans to pervert the ways of the righteous, and to bring down the wrath of God upon your heads, even to the utter destruction of this people.
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.
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.
....... not being "anti-gay" and supporting their cause. If anything the LDS Church should concentrate on one man one woman traditional marriages.
I question whether the conservative makeup of the majority of legistators favor homosexual same sex unions.
I question whether the conservative makeup of the majority of legistators favor homosexual same sex unions.
I don't understand why everyone is mad at us Mormons. All we are trying to do is make everyone, living or dead, comply with what WE know is right. It is done with much love and respect(see above posts) that we tell you that how you choose to live your life or respect your dead is wrong and will not be tolerated. Now, just be quiet and let us get on with our work to make sure that our one true church prevails over all. Your protests are an affront to my religious right to impose my religious beliefs on everyone else!
@Brent H. - It is designed to stir up anger and hate. The good folks in California voted on Prop 8 and they won. Funny thing is it was the blacks and latinos voting for Obama that helped win the day. Are you suggesting that they are intolerant?
Your comment, Brent H, shows your own intolerance and bigotry. Isn't a little hypocritical to criticize another for something you yourself exhibit?
Your comment, Brent H, shows your own intolerance and bigotry. Isn't a little hypocritical to criticize another for something you yourself exhibit?
@Rifleman - The comment is not a Red Herring. It is satire. A literary device that utilyzes irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity. Thank-you for helping to illustrate my post.
@Brent H. - I lean more to your view on this one. I am LDS, and this is more satire than a red herring in my opinion. Yet, I'm sure if you are well aquainted with LDS then you might also recognize there are many good, tolerant and open minded LDS people also.
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 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.
why is our society so obsessed with sex? Why can't two people of the same gender live under the same roof without everyone speculating that they are having sex. For crying out loud people! I feel sorry for the people that for what ever reason do not have a spouse, and would like to live with a good friend.
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.
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.
You simply have to think critically to understand it.
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.
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.
@Revilo - I just wanted to comment that I found your statements articulate and cogent. I agree in every particular. If you don't mind me asking, have you been trained in law or some other profession?
Many do not believe in God.
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.
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.
@Sambecks C. - My brother is gay...and has been in the same relationship for over 20 years.
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.
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.
@Sambecks C. - ya know I have always wondered If gays rebel against god like you say how do you explain what transgendered individuals are doing? They are born with parts of both reproductive organs they had no choice in that they may seem to be one sex when in fact they are more of the opposite internally.
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.
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.
@Sambecks C. - Sambecks... regardless of how you feel about any group of people, making such blanket statements is completely unfair. I believe I can speak for many pro-8 and anti-8 readers who know many more heterosexuals that could be considered "Anti-Christ" than homosexuals. All of your statements above could just as easily be ascribed to heterosexual individuals throughout society. Someone's sexual preference alone has nothing to do with anything you listed.
The LDS church never said it would SUPPORT pro-gay legislation. It said it would oppose legislative efforts that attack the traditional family. There is a difference.
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.
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.
@Law1976 - Though the church never said it would support legislation, it did say that it supported "rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights or probate rights." I personally don't have a problem with such legislation in the name of loving the sinner not the sin (i.e., if it doesn't promote the lifestyle, then, it has my support and such doesn't promote it).
@denn034 - No wonder the LDS general authorities are not saying to much about the issue. I may come across harshy to some, but homosexuality is wrong.
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.
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.
Yet another way for gay's and lesbiens to push their agenda onto the public. When does it end? The mormon church is not to blame for the laws and regulations that our founding fathers set in place. I have never had a problem with gay's and lesbien's until now. They are americans who are having the same effect on our economy as illegal mexican coming over in droves and they call themselves citizens. I call them terrorists.
The church is against two human beings of the same sex getting married and etc., but they feel they have the right to baptize anyone they want????? hmmm nope doesn't sound to me like they stick their nose where it doesn't belong.
They are by far a much worse threat than illegal aliens.
@Sambecks C. - Sambecks...I can't believe what I'm reading from your posts. You are a very hateful and hurtful individual and your "opinions" are ludicrous. Please get some anger management counseling and spare the rest of us from your hate.
@Sambecks C. - You think Anybody with a different opinion (other than yours)is a sexual "Predator". Must be a lonely world (for you)
Let's see how the church dodges this bullet. This is their opportunity to show everyone what they are really all about...but I suspect the majority of us already know. The church states they don't discriminate by putting a twist on words. Please! I think the majority of us are intelligent enough to know the difference.
@Rebecca D. - I think there is a much higher power in charge of this situation, and it will be dealt with. I fear for those who continue to willfuly mock God.
@Rebecca D. - Homosexuality is a mental illness, it has always been. The only reason the American Psychiatric Association chose to delist it as a mental illness was in the hope that if they destigmatized it, more homosexuals would come forward and get the treatment they need. I have heard homosexuals say they were born this way and I have also heard them say they chose this lifestyle. Homosexuals will say anything they feel they need to say to attempt to justify what they know in thier heart is an immoral, self indulgent and ultimately destructive lifestyle. I pray for all homosexuals because as a Christian, I know anyone who is truly sorry for thier sins and asks for forgiveness will recieve it. I have a unique perspective on this as I have a cousin, whom I love, who is currently struggling with HIV because of the lifestyle choice he made. There are many bad people in this world and I don't consider homosexuals to be bad people, they have just made a bad lifestyle choice. There are many bad coices out there to be made. Justifying bad choices does not make them any better. Accepting bad choices will not either. The militant homosexuals need to go back into the closet or get the mental help they need. I pray for all of them, but I refuse to accept the idea that thier lifestyle choice is normal or right.
First you trash the Mormon Church, then you march in front of their temples, intimidating their members, and now you want them to join your cause to help you? are you nuts? If you shoot your allies, guess what... they don't want to be your allies!
After being disrespectful at places we consider most sacred, they now want our support. I guess this is one of those times where we have to "forget" what they did & turn the other cheek...
How many people will boycott, if they can't get out and vote, what makes you think a boycott will work?
Has anybody done a poll to see how many Mormons/Non-Mormons voted for Prop.8. I am pretty sure there are not enough Mormons in California to single handidly get legislation passed. Why aren't the Gay/Lesbian groups blaming the thousands of other people who voted for it?
@singformeangel - I should have proof-read that.. (hee hee)
@singformeangel - Some people are just so stupid that they don't understand the way voting works. They really must be stupid if they only realized now that Majority rules!
I know that some of these gay activists may not have been involved in the protests, but they still have nerve asking the church for help in this after we have all seen the way Gay people have been acting. Protesting at the LA and SLC temples, and they will be at the NYC temple on Wednesday. Writing hateful blogs all over the internet.
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...
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...
... sorry, good for nothing queers, has had anything good to say about the Mormons. Now you want their help and support? Of all the unmitigated gall! They would be well within their rights to tell you to take a long hike on a short pier.
You fags need to be slapped.
You fags need to be slapped.
In the U.S. around 48% of all people diagnosed with AIDS were infected with HIV through male-to-male sexual contact, while people exposed through heterosexual contact comprise around 18% of the total.
Does this look normal?
--
or this
o-
???
Does this look normal?
--
or this
o-
???
are predators to society and they should be treated as such. I reserve that right!!! That is religious freedom.
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.
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.
Thank you for exposing your silly prejudice. People like you will make our struggle for equality much easier.
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!
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!
@matratt2003 - You are free to marry the opposite sex just like anyone else.
@Sambecks C. - actually no. The marriage vows are love honor and obey. A person like yourself may take that lightly I do not.
The LDS church will give your counseling if you like to help you overcome your sinful lifestyle.
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.
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.
How very Christian of you.
@matratt2003 - Homosexuality is not.
@Sambecks C. - You might want to show me where Jesus said about the issue. In the meantime let me just advice that comments like love one another, insomuch as you have done it unto the least of these you have don it unto me and love thine enemy seem appropriate.
I mean really, what's next? Replacing the Sunday School lesson about "Go thy way and sin no more" with "Have thy way with Bob next door"?
LOL
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.
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.
Medical care and hospital visitation: If you are married then you will make the medical decisions for your spouse if they are unable. You are also allowed to visit them in the hospital.
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.
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.
If it is my business, I should be able to discriminate on any basis I want. If I hire poorly qualified employees as a result, I go out of business. But the state has no business interfering in my liberties. If you don't like it, go start your own business.
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 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.
@Revilo - If people actually believe your bull____ there would still be slaves, women wouldn't be voting, and minorities would not have equal rights. It is discrimination when we treat others differently based on something that they can't control, as in skin color, sex, and sexual orientation. Think about it pal. Can you change your sexual orientation from hetero to gay? Yeah, that's what I thought. You were born with a healthy appetite for the opposite sex. And as much as you would like to be gay, well it just aint guna happen. So when you feel like not treating gays equally, just remember they can't change the way God created them and you. By the way, it will take the majority of us to help gay people, (a minority), to have the rights they deserve. Just like it did with slavery. Can we count on your vote in this just cause? That is if you have time from hiring poor employees for you business.
@uknow - You are sincerely misinformed and need to critically examine and reconcile your core beliefs with what the Constitution actually says.
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 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.
Right is right no matter how many people are against it and wrong is wrong no matter how many people are for it!
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!
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!
do not understand the clear difference between "does not object" and "supports".
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, 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.
@Revilo - When someone's moral charachter has deteriorated to the point that they can justify and twist a natural law so that it does not pertain to them anymore, the natural consequences of that justification is the inner decay of moral value and they of themselves become "less", they "degenerate".
So to use the word "degenerate" is just calling "it" what it is.
Good thread.
So to use the word "degenerate" is just calling "it" what it is.
Good thread.
I spent almost 10 years in Utah. I came to Salt Lake City to do my post-graduate studies at the University of Utah as it was one of the premiere universities for learning genetics. I left 5 years ago to pursue my career in the pharmaceutical industry. I have been back on several occasions, to visit friends, to attend conferences, to ski, to enjoy the beautiful deserts. As a senior manager at a large pharmaceutical company I would work with our meeting planner to set up company conferences at the Grand America or Stein Erikson Lodge in Deer Valley. I wanted to show off the beauty of the state and the welcoming of the people.
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)".
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)".
@sadaboututah - Is there anything else you can say that can be more dramatic?
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???
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???
If these gay people want to get married, let them marry but not in the LDS church houses, or temples. we are all going to get a wake up call from our father in heaven, over this gay stuff, you wait and see..... so there....
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 m26
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.
1:13pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
1:18pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
1:20pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
1:25pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
1:42pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
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
2:06pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
2:24pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
2:26pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
2:48pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
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.
2:50pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
5:37pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
6:13pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
Because being gay is a psychological disorder, homosexuals should be able to seek legal protections under the Americans With Disabilities Act.
6:36pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
6:28pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
6:47pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
2:22pm - Wed Nov 12th, 2008
2:53pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
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.
3:11pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
3:22pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
4:31pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
5:47pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
3:31pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
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?
4:50pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
5:49pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
5:31pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
3:24pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
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
4:58pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
1:47am - Tue Nov 11th, 2008
2:31pm - Wed Nov 12th, 2008
5:49pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
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.
6:47pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
4:29pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
11:16am - Tue Nov 11th, 2008
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.
2:22pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
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!
2:29pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
2:51pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
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!
9:22pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
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.
3:07pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
But they DO refuse to do weddings. Don't think that they don't.
3:28pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
3:11pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
They should not have the right to prevent other people who are in love from enjoying the same benefits provided by our govt.
3:55pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
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.
2:24pm - Wed Nov 12th, 2008
3:16pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
5:40pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
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.
5:57pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
5:40pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
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?
7:47pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
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.
10:20pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
10:20pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
1:43pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
1:57pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
2:00pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
2:39pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
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.
5:45pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
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.
2:08pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
2:23pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
3:10pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
1:46pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
A bro is an article of clothing worn by usually heavy males used to give support to man bubes or moobs!!!
1:59pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
2:02pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
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.
2:10pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
2:13pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
5:05pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
2:12pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
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.
3:15pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
You are a biggot, and jesus would be disgusted...
3:18pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
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!
3:52pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
4:06pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
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!
4:49pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
"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.
5:08pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
5:54pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
6:08pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
"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."
5:34pm - Tue Nov 11th, 2008
3:21pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
3:22pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
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.
11:08pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
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.
3:24pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
2:29pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
2:50pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
4:04pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
9:11pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
1:23pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
1:30pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
1:34pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
1:36pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
4:25pm - Tue Nov 11th, 2008
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.
1:22pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
1:57pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
2:02pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
2:11pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
2:16pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
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.
2:32pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
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.
4:59pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
5:46pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
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.
2:49pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
3:33pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
3:40pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
3:23pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
3:51pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
4:44pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
5:02pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
2:15pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
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.
3:25pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
6:45pm - Mon Nov 10th, 2008
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.