Mormons and gay marriage

54 comments from readers

dengland
25 June 2008 at 16:33

I love the style of your writing. I have to say, i've been out of the closet and quite active in the gay community for 10 years now and at age 44, I've yet to find that party that has the Roman style orgy on the kitchen floor but the search continues. I did however decide to become a deputy commissioner and had the honor to marry couples "gay and straight" starting Tuesday June 17th in San Jose. It's an honor to help the couples recite their vows and see love in it's purest form 2 feet from your face.

Later my church ' who doesn't have a problem with gay people' had a big wedding celebration for same-sex couples. Really cool

Condom Nasty
25 June 2008 at 17:01

I think this is thoroughly offensive to Mormons everywhere. Well done.

elzerism
25 June 2008 at 17:26

"facing disciplinary action from the church" - wha?

"privileges curtailed" - again, what?

I think it is great when people who seem "uber religious" like yourself and others admit that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and such. Of course it should be a persons right to be with whoever they please (pun intended.) But here is my thing, when it comes to living your life by guidelines, dictated by an organized religion - why do you get to choose what to personally follow? I mean, to be sooo strick as to not have coffee or masterbate or whatever else it is Mormons can't do, why do you get to selectively choose to ignore this one aspect. And if you do ignore this one aspect but still get to be Mormonriffic, why not rock a little 3rd base action and still be all mormon?

GayinKeyWest
25 June 2008 at 17:41

I'm a gay former Mormon. I agree with your article. People should have the right to marry without the church interfering. The church has the right to deny people to marry inside their church and people have the right to attend or not attend. Sending out a letter to the members to protest gay marriage is considered a narrow-minded discrimination issue and the members should have the right to oppose their leaders and should be able to decide for themselves what is right and wrong.

For the general public, a civil marriage has nothing to do with the church. It hurts nobody except the people who choose to suffer through the trials of marriage and I doubt the LDS Church is only trying to protect gays from that kind of suffering. The whole issue here is about having the freedom of choice and the LDS Church once again chooses to limit people's free agency and doesn't want to allow people the right to happiness. Quite sad. Gay married people are usually the ones that are the most productive in society and uphold the highest standards of life. As a couple they strengthen each other and keep each other in check. I've still never had the answer to the question, "why oppose it?"

rytchyunder
25 June 2008 at 18:10

I understand the writer's thoughts; however, as a Californian, I must clarify why I absolutely do not support so-called 'gay marriage' in my state.

It's interesting that the writer invoked one of the famous 20th century books that sought to warn us of a freedom-less future. The arguments for 'gay marriage' are really based entirely on a sort of double speak. The public at large, including the well-intentioned writer, have slowly bought into the idea that 'marriage' is defined as a committed sexual relationship between adult humans which might or might not involve children (who are not necessarily the biological progeny of either adult). This, I must point out, is a NEW definition. Why was there a need to change the meaning of an English word to accommodate 2% of the population?

The arguments pushed on most moderate Californians, of which group I considered myself a part, involved cries for equal rights in the realm of benefits, health, and wealth for all partnered folks. I support this idea. I absolutely believe that all consenting adults should be allowed to choose their lifestyle, whether or not it will bring them happiness, without state control. Also, I believe that same sex couples, should they so choose, should be able to enjoy all of the benefits of married couples. However, the gay lobby, rather than seeking for acceptance and equal rights, has sought to REDEFINE the meaning of 'marriage'. In doing so, they have usurped my rights.

Does the writer realize that as of this month the marriage documents in my state no longer say 'bride' and 'groom'? No they have party A and party B. I don't exist as a husband anymore. My wife is not a wife. Soon there will be no Mother's day or Father's day, just Parents' day. We have allowed 2% to dictate reality for the other 98%.

The hubris it takes to tread me under their feet on their desperate path to acceptance leaves me with less sympathy for same sex couples than I had 10 years ago. My rights and feelings don't matter. Their world view is all that can be countenanced, right?

No, marriage is a hallowed union between a man and a woman with the expectation that they will procreate and raise up children with their shared genes. There are, to be sure, couples who must adopt and couples without children (some not by choice). However, they are outliers. They do not define the institution. Foisting same-sex marriage upon the public not only redefines marriage as it has always been understood, but it so drastically changes that definition that the most basic words of our culture, 'mother' and 'father', will no longer be tied to 'husband' and 'wife'.

I am not 'Party A'. I was a groom. I am a husband. I am a father. Marriage is not a right?! It is an institution. It is a state.

In the end, I think a crude comparison summarizes it best. You might argue that @#$! in a bowl is really chocolate ice cream. You might legislate that ice cream is henceforth more inclusive and change the menu to read 'soft dark substance'. However, no matter what you say, it's still @#$! in a bowl. And you'll never get me to eat or buy it.

socketCA
25 June 2008 at 19:36

rytchyunder: boy, that takes some stones. This changing definition load makes is nonsense. In 1919 men could have argued that a voter was a man only and changing that definition to include women was a bad idea. Sometimes changing a definition is making a correction, pal. In this case, the need to do so was because the old law was discriminatory. These are legal, civil, contractual unions we're talking about. And how, pray tell, has this "usurped your rights" in any way? Hogwash. We of the heterosexual persuasion do not own the word "marriage." If you personally want a term to signify only man/woman relationships start calling them "spiritual unions" if that makes you happy. What a red herring. Your post is dripping with fear and prejudice. It's highly offensive because you don't even have any idea how disgustingly exclusionary your view is. You, sir, are the only "@#$! in a bowl" I see here.

dmrnj
25 June 2008 at 20:09

rytchyunder ,

Why do you think that including gays in the definition of "marriage" makes your marriage less meaningful? The removal of "husband" and "wife" from the contract doesn't mean you're not longer a "husband." You were, indeed, a party to your marriage as well. Husband is the role you take. Should two committed gays not be able to take husband or wife roles?

40 years ago, "marriage" also *traditionally* meant between two people of the same race. 100 years ago, "man" only meant white, land-owning men. But the implication changed. Textbooks do not go unwritten. The Oxford Dictionary rewrites definitions and adds new words all of the time. The times, sir, they are a-changin'.

I find it hypocritical that you are accepting of the "outlying" parties in traditional marriage, so long as they were straight. However, these parties are the ones who have really redefined marriage in the past several decades. Families without children, divorced couples with children, and adoptive parents and the like account for FAR greater than the 2% you claim. They are the ones who have altered the landscape. If you can't see this, then you have a very distorted view of the world. But they, they have not threatened your own personal marriage. Nor will gay marriage. Your rights are not being trampled upon. You are twisting your language to restrict rights from others.

You rights and feelings do matter. You get to keep all you had. Nothing has changed for you. I repeat, nothing has changed for you. Why are you throwing a hissy fit? Do you think if you had met your wife in this decade instead of the last, your marriage would be any less meaningful, your roles any less traditional? I doubt it. These are choices you made, this is the love you share. If it is truly strong enough for a lasting committment as marriage, then it is all the stronger, and you should be happy that this decision is reinforced.

JD
25 June 2008 at 20:20

Without commenting on this particular article, which I don't entirely agree with and which I don't think accurately reflects Mormon practice, I think it's interesting how rytchyunder expressed a differing opinion in a calm, non-bigoted way (he is, after all, in favor of gay equality, though he doesn't want to call gay unions "marriages"), and socketCA quickly condemned him as a bigot, without addressing any of his points. This happens all too often; people with differing views are automatically labeled "bigots" in order to silence them. There are many bigots in the world, friends. By using that word so loosely, it becomes meaningless.

conservative
25 June 2008 at 20:45

Let me just say that this post is in response to the main article. That being said, you can deduce for yourself what my personal beliefs are, because I feel no need to plaster them about the internet.

Let me set a foundation for you all. I do not hate homosexual people and I do not believe that they should have any fewer rights than other individuals. That being said, I do believe that their rights cannot extend beyond their rights as individuals.

In response to the article: I think you, and all of the homosexual constituants in the Great State of California, will find that, though the state as a whole is and has been very liberal for some years, many individuals in the state oppose same-sex marriage, and are willing to instate ammendments to the state's constitution to disallow gay and lesbian couples from getting married. As far as the Church is concerned, I think that it is wonderful that people with homosexual tendencies are able to remain in good standing with the Church, provided they don't act on their impulses. The very same thing can be said for any sinner, however, homosexuality is quite a bit more difficult to hide than some other sins.

Also, you can receive disciplinary action from your employer if you look at pornography on the internet while at work, but many would argue that that should still be their choice, and it is. However, you would surely receive disciplinary action from your employer, maybe you might even get fired. Anyone in the Church that sins openly or is caught sinning would surely receive disciplinary action. You might say that smoking and drinking aren't religious issues either, but true believers would say different. Things become religious issues in the Church when those in authority deem them so. And the issue of homosexuality has been a religious issue up to this point, it just hasn't received as much attention because something like the gay marriage ammendment has not been brought to light.

As far as whether the Church has a "say" in homosexual relations between consenting adults goes, they don't. The Church cannot MAKE anybody do anything, that's the beauty of agency, isn't it. But, those homosexuals that are practicing members of the Church and abstain from homosexual tendencies obviously have good reason to do so. I applaud their faith.

I cannot speak for the Church, or its membership, but I do believe that only a small number of them are "homophobic" by nature. We fear what we do not understand. They may think that orgies are on the way, but I happen to have known several homosexual individuals throughout my life, and I have loved them all as my own. One of the said individuals IS "my own" in fact. And though it may not seem that their "right" to be married does not encroach upon any of my own "rights," it encroaches upon the very fibre that this great country was built upon.

I have heard foolish things like, "The Law is dynamic." Few things have I heard that were more foolish than that statement. True enough, new laws are made to support the changing world, but when it comes to moral, personal issues, the Law always has been, and always will remain absolute. I for one don't believe that an ammendment has to be made for gay marriage to be prohibited, but the world we live in makes it a necessity.

Finally, as far as that "express train" goes, I know there will be plenty of people, including practicing members of the LDS church, that will be aboard that one. But, not in the ways you might think. I don't feel the need to explain that one because you would have to understand my beliefs to understand my position, and it just doesn't seem like many people that practice immoral activities are very interested in understanding such things. They are far too busy trying to force others to understand what it is that they believe.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...

conservative
25 June 2008 at 21:08

One thing that I forgot to mention. It must be understood that the LDS membership believe that the U.S. Constitution was inspired by God. Keeping that in mind, one of the main issues here is that the California State Supreme Court over turned 2 Legislative moves that had previously defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Proposition 22 being the most recent in 2000. That kind of flagrant misuse of power in circumventing the system to bring about a political adgenda is inexcuseable. I would hope that those in the homosexual community would agree with this and refuse to be wed under such circumstances, and wait until the day when the law is changed legally, not because some corrupt judge thinks it should. The people make the laws, not the judges, OR the government. The people.

micah-n-Nashville
25 June 2008 at 22:02

Hilarious article, thanks. Less interesting anti responses. I pity gay Mormons in the same way I pity gay Muslims, gay Orthodox Jews, and to some extent gay Catholics. When family and religion are so fundamentally tied, it's really wrenching for those who deviate from the norm in terms of family choice and composition.

After 8 years of Bush, perhaps the next administration will even the playing field for everyone once and for all and save all the money being funneled into "marriage protection" for, I dunno, cancer research and education. Then the conservatives can call their unions whatever they like and stop trying to yoke the nation with their bigotry -- the really bad kind or the "kinder, gentler" variety.

God, the LDS Church's theocratic BS scares me. What it YOUR rights were limited to the individual?

dmrnj
25 June 2008 at 22:03

JD,

While I certainly don't agree with name-calling, rytchyunder's post still comes with unfair bias. He may not be a lunatic right-winger spewing filth on TV, but that doesn't mean that he's not preaching an opinion and - yes, I believe - attempting to impede an negatively affect someone else's life simply out of his discomfort with a new idea that does not affect him. He is certainly entitled to his opinon, and I admit my view is only an opinion as well. But the tactic of acting tolerant of homosexual activity while being intolerant of "marriage" is just another mechanism to avoid the bigotry label while remaining wholly intolerant. He has no good reason to accept one and not the other, except, of course, devotion to an idea with no regard for those on the other side of the fence.

In the 1960s, my grandparents thought that people of different races were certainly entitled to all of the civil liberties white people were. They didn't, however, agree with interracial marriage. But they grew up with the former idea - the struggle for civil rights for racial minorities was nothing new at this point. Interracial marriage was a different struggle. Just because they were tolerant of the idea but afraid of the change that would come with it didn't mean they weren't bigoted. They certainly has some unfair bias stored up, simply because this was not the way things were when they grew up. I'm not sure of their voting record, but they almost definitely would have voted against any laws that made interracial marriage legal. It doesn't mean they were inherently bad people, but their generation's inability to accept change meant that many presently married couples wouldn't have the option today if the vote had gone through.

The civil rights struggle for gay marriage is undoutedly going to be a long one as well, but it is one that will inevitably be won. Our children are already growing up with the idea that romantic love can and does happen between members of the sex. The voting generation may still be getting used to this idea and many may not be ready for the change, but a large part of the population has accepted that they can't actually outlaw and enforce homosexual relations, nor can they cure it. Cue the friendly "I don't mind if they do it" response. But the population certainly has the voting power to restrain gay marriage, and a polling machine won't call them bigots when they vote for an amendment banning it. Our children, though, will overwhelmingly be more comfortable and exposed to an idea of homosexual couples, and therefore have fewer objections to a new idea. Their only reason for wanting a ban would be out of sheer bigotry. Even if a ban passes - which it won't - California historically has represented change to come in the political landscape of America - change that has not always been welcome by a current, conservative generation, but change that only makes sense to a new generation.

socketCA
25 June 2008 at 23:03

JD, I didn't call rytchyunder a bigot. Read my words. I'll admit I get emotional and upset about this issue. My youngest brother is gay and I've seen more disparaging treatment toward gays and veiled relegation to the back of the bus than I care to think about. Honestly, it sickens me because I can't stop it, yet I see how he suffers for it. In some strange way it's worse coming from people like rytchyunder who claim they favor equality in one breath then in the very next breath talk like gays are pariahs. "dmrnj" explained my view very well in the post just above this (thank you!). I don't think people like this rytchyunder are inherently bad. But they are being essentially as harmful and have no idea. It's very upsetting to me, frustrating, that my brother even has to think about whether or not people grant him equality, as if equality as a human being is some privelege he may or may not be worthy of.

socketCA
25 June 2008 at 23:23

Oh, and to "conservative" you can get off your constitutional high horse. Since 2000 when Prop. 22 was passed by 61% of those who voted in that election, not once but TWICE (2003 and 2005) the California State Legislature (all people elected to representative office and accountable to their constituents) through their rigorous process passed legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in the state only to have it vetoed both times by a single man (Gov. Schwarzenegger). If that's not a more shameful example of circumventing the will of the people I don't know what would be. Oh, and the "corrupt judges" you rant about? Three of the four judges who comprise the majority opinion on that ruling are Republicans appointed by Republican governors. Is everyone corrupt who doesn't agree with you personally? You're as bad as rytchyunder. Equality is fine as long as you personally agree with who it's granted to. News flash for you: it is not illegal to be gay. Therefore gays deserve equal treatment and protection under civil law regardless of your personal or religious views. You are certainly entitled to your opinion and to live your own life by your beliefs, but when it comes to civil matters equality means everyone.

scvdiver
26 June 2008 at 01:46

The LDS church needs to keep its nose out of California politics. The church's argument against marriage equality on grounds of children's interests or morality are a sham. Nevada has a large LDS population and prostitution is very much legal. I was raised LDS and am not aware of any constitutional amendments that the church pushed for to outlaw that practice. Likewise, I don't see the church pushing to outlaw marriages of those who cannot bear children due to age or infertility.

The LDS church is an antigay institution. The leaders and church members do not like to be labeled as such because it makes them look bad and it goes against the public image that they wish to portray. Well, their actions speak loudly. If the church does not wish to be viewed as antigay, antifamily, or anti civil rights, then it should bow out gracefully before things turn ugly.

We will bury the amendment here in California. On November 5th, marriage equality will no longer be an issue in the Golden State. All citizens will be equal under the law for good.

Paul
26 June 2008 at 08:18

What is decent? What is indecent? What is right? What is wrong? Religious proponents will say God knows the answer to these questions. Some will say, “I am a religious person and God is accepting of homosexuality.” Others will say, “I am a religious person and God is NOT accepting of homosexuality.” And there are still others who are not religious at all and say they know the correct answer notwithstanding. So who knows, really? There is ONE person on this earth who does. He is a prophet of the living God. He knows the mind and the will of God. I sustain him as such and believe that he is indeed a true prophet who can inform me (as I am not THE prophet or spokesperson for God on the earth) as to what the truth of the matter truly is no matter what I think or reason (because I acknowledge that my reasoning can be faulty and lack wisdom from time to time and on certain issues).

So, no matter what I think, or anyone else thinks doesn’t matter. It’s what God thinks, decrees as right and expects that we all live in accordance to His laws and decrees. But this is where it all falls apart, because there are many, many people who do not believe in true living prophets. So in my limited wisdom this is what I think is going to happen: According to my study of the scriptures and it’s prophecies the world will become increasingly steeped in wrong doing (according to what the living prophets have taught us as being what God’s position is) like legalizing homosexual unions, etc. Then there will some event wherein the righteous will be gathered to stand in ‘holy places’ and the ‘wicked’ will be destroyed. Then a Millennial era will begin when all will be right. In the meantime I will do what I can to be an influence for good, a righteous person according to my thoughts, words, and deeds, and ‘follow the prophet.’ When I leave this earth I expect to live with God and his Saints because that’s where I think I will belong to be the happiest -- with my kind of people. I am sure that there are many, many other people who would not want to be there with ‘those (my) kind of people,’ and so they will go to a place in the eternities prepared for them where they will be most comfortable with their kind of people. And so it is: The three heavens, or divisions where everyone will eventually end up according to who and what they are and most suited for. Beyond this I don’t get my knickers too much into a knot. But it’s sad to see the world increasingly deteriorate wherein “ iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.”

gaymormon
26 June 2008 at 16:29

First of all, Tax-exempt status needs to be taken away from the LDS church--and any other church who tells their parishoners how to vote.

And for anyone who is so intent on using the Bible to prove their points, they should also know that the Bible also tells us that one of the evils the apostle Paul prophesied about for our "latter times" was "forbidding to marry" (see 1 Timothy 4:1, 3). Therefore it is obvious from this scripture in the Bible that anyone (including the LDS Church) opposing gay marriage is therefore contributing to this prophesied evil.

JimJimJim
26 June 2008 at 23:22

"Paul" - that would all be very nice if your supernatural god tale is actually true. Big if. As long as it keeps you being a good person, good for you. But it does sounds kind of elitist when your supernatural belief has you sounding like, "Those poor other folks who don't get it, well too bad for them they will eventually just burn in hell for eternity forever. Oh well." The gloom and doom prophecy doesn't ring true for me. I don't need to subscribe to supernatural tales to cope with my human existence or mortality. And I do not judge my fellow man as the ones who will eventually "be destroyed." And I really don't think the world is deteriorating. Gloom and doomers have been saying that for eons, and here we all still are. I think we are progressing and evolving beautifully. Some things get better and some get worse, but as a species we are smarter, more capable, and have a much better command of the world around us. (I'm an optimist; sue me.) I always do my best to show love, be kind and generous, treat others in a brotherly way, pay my taxes and follow the rules, and leave things better than I found them. Always, even when it's easier not to. If there actually is this "god" you speak of and that's not enough for him, then this god is a jerk.

NZLNK
27 June 2008 at 07:03

Scvdiver, the LDS church is as much antigay as it is anti-adultery, anti-fornication, and anti-sin altogether. It's not a sin to be tempted, just to give in to temptation. The fornicators and the adulterers should repent, and so should people who participate in homosexual activites. All three of these sins are wrong for the same reasons, so why don't you defend the fornicators or the adulterers? People like you always seem to argue that "they're both consenting adults and it doesn't hurt anyone." But by that logic fornication would not be wrong, and neither would adultery as long as the cheated spouse never finds out. Well guess what, it IS wrong because God said so, just like Paul wrote. Notice that when someone speaks the simple truth that God doesn't condone homosexual activities we get stupid comebacks like "if there actually is this god you speak of and that's not enough for him, then this god is a jerk." Well, JimJimJim, there is a God, and he is not a jerk just because being kind and generous and paying your taxes are not enough. He gave us His commandments for a reason, and small everyday acts of goodness cannot cover huge sexual sins. SocketCA, sure it's not illegal to be gay, niether is it illegal to commit adultery, but it should be. As for you, gaymormon, when the scripture about "forbidding to marry" was written, guess what, it was talking about marriage as defined between a man and a woman. If we're going to let marriage mean two men or two women, then why not three men, or four. In fact why don't we let marriage mean as many people of any gender who want to. We could have a marriage of 50 people, or 500, then the illegal immigrants might all get greencards -- sorry, another can of worms. The point is that rytchyunder is right. If we keep changing what fundamental words mean, pretty soon we're left with "uh, that depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." So let's just avoid the confusion of man and do what the true and all-knowing God says is right.

gaymormon
27 June 2008 at 07:46

It is amazing to me that of all the 10 Commandments that God gave to Moses, not one of them has anything to do with gay people.

Robert Powell
27 June 2008 at 09:45

It's not a sin to be tempted, just to give in to temptation, writes NZLink. I think you should read the sermon on the mount old boy.

gaymormon
27 June 2008 at 17:08

Well NZLNK, it amazes me how you know (according to your your statement) that “when the scripture about ‘forbidding to marry’ was written…it was talking about marriage as defined between a man and a woman.” I guess you know that because you were living back then since I didn’t read that anywhere in that scripture. I DID however, read in that scripture that Paul was talking about “the latter times”—referring to our day. And where did your reasoning about letting multiple people marry come from?? That certainly isn’t in that scripture in 1st Timothy either. You must be thinking about that “traditional marriage” I keep hearing about that everyone wants so desperately to preserve that has been around for thousands of years where so many of God’s men in the Bible such as Solomon, David, Jacob (and others) had many wives AND concubines—that certainly is a “traditional” marriage talked about in the Bible. That would fit your “multiple” marriages that you’re trying so hard to make it sound like gay people will cause to happen. Sounds more like a heterosexual thing that HAS happened rather than a “gay” thing. You can “interpret” the scripture in 1 Timothy any way you want to help you to justify your non-involvement in the prophesied evil of “forbidding to marry”. But to me it speaks clearly of what is truly happening today in our time and in these latter-days!

NZLNK
27 June 2008 at 18:25

gaymormon, "Honor thy father and thy mother." not, "Honor thy father and thine other father."

NZLNK
27 June 2008 at 18:39

as for your other comment, gaymormon, the Bible absolutely was talking about the wickedness in these latter days in 2 Timothy 3:3 "without natural affection"

JimJimJim
27 June 2008 at 19:11

NZLNK, this is precisely why to me the bible is a load of bull: otherwise reasonale, fair-minded, upstanding people such as yourself are blinded into saying it's not enough to be secularly good in the world. That, purely that, on its face, defies logic. Any "religion" that has people defying logic in this basic way, and doing things like barring civil equality to fellow human beings, and worse yet doing it with a clean conscience, is an impure religion laced with hypocrisy. It reeks. You are welcome to subscribe to that (in fact I'd personally fight for your right to do so in our great country) but you do not have the right to infuse such personal beliefs into civil authorities that govern not only yourself but atheists, secular humanists, and any number of other people who do not share your religious beliefs. That's the difference between me and you; what I'm trying to achieve is civil equality for all people, but what you're trying to achieve includes forcing your religious morality on me when when I do not subscribe to those same religious beliefs. I don't understand how you can do that with a clean conscience.

Jann
27 June 2008 at 19:14

it is about the kids. Kids deserve a mom and a dad. Just because a gay guy wants to have kids, doesn't mean that he has the right to mess up another human beings life by depriving the child of having 2 parents, one of each gender.

gaymormon
27 June 2008 at 19:21

NZLNK, the LDS Church does believe in continual revelation. They even changed the wording in the Temple ceremony to make it "fit" for today. So why not a “revelation” that says "Honor thy parents." I do not have children but for those gay couples that do, it would work. I know many gay Mormons that married because the church told them to and were told that it would "cure" them. But it NEVER does, and now they are divorced and even have children from those marriages. Many of the men I know are now in committed same-sex relationships as I am also. I have now been with my partner for over 19-years—longer than a lot of man/woman marriages today. Thankfully I never fell into the trap of getting married but instead lived with my parents to help them in their old age, and unlike my straight siblings, after I met my partner he and I were at my parent’s home every day helping them until they passed on. There are so many things that the LDS Church and its members don't know about gay people—and the gay members of their own church. They have no idea of what they are doing to us and their parents. I truly think that one day it will be a huge embarrassment for the church and that they will have a hard time trying to explain what they have done to so many people. Right now the church seems to be busy trying to “fit in” with all the other churches—they want to “blend in”. But I don’t think the church will have any revelation about gay people until society changes and it becomes socially unacceptable not to accept them—just like it was for them in 1978 when they began to receive persecution for not accepting black people into full fellowship, and then “Walla”, they had a revelation.

gaymormon
27 June 2008 at 19:46

As for your comment NZLNK regarding “without natural affection”. I can truly say that my affection for my partner is EXTREMELY natural. What is completely un-natural to me is being with a woman. But I wouldn’t expect you to understand that. I find a lot of heterosexual men cannot even begin to fathom that—especially men in the LDS church. The LDS church leaders have told them how to think and therefore the thinking has been done.

CaliforniaMan
27 June 2008 at 21:01

Gay marriage is about equal rights. Separate rights are not equal rights. This was established when women gained the right to vote and when African Americans could no longer be excluded based on skin color and heritage.

It's sad that people have to mix religion into things. Myself being a gay Christian feel that too many of the Christian denominations focus on teaching what they feel is "right" or "wrong" by judging others they do not agree with. For all those who follow the teachings of Christ, remember we are all subject to God's judgement. NONE of us are perfect or better than each other. If you fail to remember this, please revert to scripture " Let he who is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone upon her."

I will be celebrating this weekend with friends that legally committed relationships "marriage" is no longer exclusive in California. Celebrate the love in those relationships whether they are between men and women, men and men, or women and women.

rytchyunder
27 June 2008 at 23:07

I want to make sure my stance is understood. I do not shy away from being labeled a bigot. Call me what you will. But I want to be clear that I am not qualified to judge anyone, including men and women with some type of attraction to people of their same sex.

I'm not going to offer an elaborate 'hate the sin, love the sinner' piece of discourse. Too many of these are floating around the internet. I want to be clear that my position is simple: The majority should be allowed to keep their definition of marriage. The minority should be allowed full rights to do whatever thy want to do, unless it impacts people outside their adult relationships.

I do not claim that words cannot change meaning. However, comparing the extension of the meaning of 'marriage' to the extension of the right to vote to women is a fallacy of logic. And, I must say, it's a ridiculous bit of argumentation. Women are half the population. They were allowed to vote in many territories before the good people of NY and Boston allowed them the right at the federal level. (I did a little poking around and found that the mountain west, including the Mormons of what is now Utah, allowed women the right to vote before the ostensibly forward thinking Yankees that ran the government in the late 1800s did).

I have many people in my family, my wife's family, at my work, and in my friendship circle who are in various stages of the homosexual world. Both my family and my in-laws have at least one man who has been convicted of molesting a teenage boy in addition to relationships with men. I have a gay relative who was in a committed relationship for longer than I've been married. His partner dumped him and he was left with nothing because his state did not provide any kind of marriage-like protection to him financially. My wife and I have gay family who whore around and seem desperate to cultivate the so-called 'AIDS look'. My wife has a relative who lead a gay lifestyle and died of AIDS. My friends and acquaintances include bisexual women who don't appreciate the concomitant trappings of American gay life and lesbian women so obsessed with their gay identity that they openly acknowledge the pseudo-religious role their sexuality plays in their lives. My daily circle of acquaintances and friends includes gay men who drool over underage boys, a gay man who said that being gay was his religion, and a gay man who is so devoted to his partner than he commutes 100 miles rather than damage his relationship. It also includes men who have not yet come out to me or their families and who have not acted on their feelings.

I am not their judge. I am not better than they are. But no matter how hard they or any of you might try to pretend otherwise, theirs is not a path of happiness. I don't hate them. I sorrow for them. I don't claim to know all the reasons why such a small percentage of Americans end up with such strong feelings for members of the same sex. But I do know that it is not a kind community. It's a community that hopes ot hide behind a big government in order to force a place in society. It's a community that looks down on other gay folks who don't buy into the hype. The men in committed relationships where I work are derided by the other gay folks as leading a straight life, as though promiscuity was not found among mainstream society.

You who have forced the idea of gay marriage on me and my family have lost a possible ally. The cruel words that folks from your camp used as a response to my post leave me with no doubt about the final solution you all would impose.

Honor your parents, not mother and father, right? I can be a husband in my own mind, right?

Why can't you be married in your own mind? Because it's a counterfeit marriage and you know it. I can't stop the hands of time. I can't force anyone to agree with me. However, that doesn't mean that I am wrong to try.

If the vocal, powerful minority who base their entire world on what helps them achieve an orgasm want to pretend that my opinions are based on ignorance or a myopic religious view, I cannot stop them. But I can sure as hell try. And if that makes me a bigot, then I'll wear that epithet as proudly as any vindicated rebel ever has.

JimJimJim
27 June 2008 at 23:13

Jann, think about this just for a minute: do you mean to say that two parents of the opposite gender, no matter what their parenting skills are, no matter how abusive or neglectful they are, create a better life for a child than two loving, supporting, nurturing parents who happen to be of the same gender? Do you really believe that? Come on, good parents are good parents.

CaliforniaMan
27 June 2008 at 23:29

rytchyunder

My goodness what harsh words and you say. And how generous of you to mention bad things when you mention the gay people you do know,

"I have many people in my family, my wife's family, at my work, and in my friendship circle who are in various stages of the homosexual world. Both my family and my in-laws have at least one man who has been convicted of molesting a teenage boy in addition to relationships with men."

People who have a mental illness and feel the need to molest and violate children are ill no matter what their sexual orientation. Gay does not equal molester.

As far as your comment to

"The minority should be allowed full rights to do whatever thy want to do, unless it impacts people outside their adult relationships."

Domestic Partners, Committed Unions or whatever alternate terms used in the past for gay marriages, they were never given "full rights" as you mention, not even in the states that recognized them.

Also interesting how you so neutrally mention your bisexual female friends (because that's not threatening to you) and then go on to bash gay men.

You've been a good chuckle!

JimJimJim
28 June 2008 at 00:14

rytchyunder, nice speech dripping with martyrdom and feigned humility. You can't even see how cruel you are. I don't believe you when you claim to know all these many sad homosexual people. It's inconsistent with what I've known my whole life. I think you are lying. But it doesn't matter. Believe what you will, my friend, for I do not need your understanding (though it would be nice) nor do I need your approval. You have a heinously distorted view of human sexuality. I pity you. But that doesn't matter either. Soon all gays in this great country of ours will be able to legally marry the person they fall in love with, which is beautiful, and you can go on fixating on their sex lives and how uncomfortable that makes you if you must (though I can't understand why you do) and they will be perfectly happy without the likes of you.

socketCA
28 June 2008 at 02:01

"rytchyunder " - I am curious, do you have the same feelings toward gay couples that do not have sex? That is, if two homosexuals are in a loving, committed, relationship together but do not have sex at all would you assess them the same way as you do homosexuals who do have sex? I think it's a fair question.

A loud trumpet
28 June 2008 at 02:02

To those of you who know nothing of Mormonism, please forgive me. I am asking Mormon to do something scary and difficult--think for theirselfA father of a gay son who does not accept what the Church is doing to some of God's children I would like to direct this to those who have chosen to follow that doctrine, I would just like to add some things that I would ask all those Mormoms who hear the letter from the First Presidency this weekend to ponder in their hearts and then actually do as Joseph Smith did--pray and ask God for themself if it is true --do just take your leader's view (Under Mormon doctrine, Prophets are not infallible--read title page of the Book of Mormon) First and foremost, the war in heaven was fought over only one issue--the plans of Christ & Lucifer were the same but for this point and who got the glory. Free Agency "won" out. When to attempt to take away inidividuals right to choose for anyone you are following Satan's plan--reguardless of how "right" you think what you are doing is of "good report." (Lucifer would compell everyone to be perfect)

alwaysamazed
28 June 2008 at 22:40

I'm so sick of flag-wavers and bible thumpers who are always carrying on with their ignorance and hatred and who spend the majority of their time in everyone else's business. These types have a pile of their own skeletons in the closet (pardon the pun) Mormons are notorious for having numerous "partners" and even underage partners. What right do they have to tell other people how to live? Get off the cross and worry about your own indiscretions. Stop using God and the Bible as an excuse to act like the stereotypical gossipy neighbor next door.

kbg
02 July 2008 at 21:37

To rytchyunder:

I want to praise you for your faulty logic and reasoning. You say that changing the definition of the word "marriage" usurps your rights somehow. I would like to know how someone else's marriage affects your life in even the slightest way. I'd also like to suggest that if it does affect your life, you probably need to get over yourself. You are one of about 6.6 billion people in the world and I highly doubt that the rest of the world population is concerned about you being "offended."

Furthermore, I really love your "slippery slope" agrument that states that soon there will be only "Parent's Day" rather than mother's and father's day. Apparently you don't realize that those two "holidays" were invented in the 20th century, likely for the purpose of promoting consumerism.

You just seem to fear change and you want to pretend that you're tolerant of people's differences so long as it doesn't change what you are comfortable with. Well, that is not tolerance!

You say that we're "changing" things for 2% of the population, but probably have no problem with all the holidays that are for christians! What about those of us who are smart enough to not believe in "god?" Aren't we forced to endure "Christmas" and "Easter" for christians? How is that so different from you having to be "party A" instead of "husband?"

Newsflash, rytchyunder: EVERYONE DESERVES EQUAL RIGHTS. If you don't believe me, take a gander at a little document called "The Constitution." Otherwise, let people live their lives without comments from the peanut gallery.

kbg
02 July 2008 at 21:58

Conservative:

Here's a constitutional law lesson for you: Pursuant to Marbury vs. Madison, The US Supreme Court is the sole body charged with determining the constitutionality of a law. The "people" do not make the laws, the legislature does, and regardless of what those laws say, the supreme court has the authority to overturn laws which they deem unconstitutional.

In this case, we are dealing with state law, so the state supreme court overturned what they believe to be a law which does not comport with the constitution of California. With that being said, if, as you purport, the people made the laws, there would likely still be slavery in the south. Fortunately for us, our governmental system is set up in such a way that the most educated among us, e.g., the judiciary, have the power to protect the population from the less educated and tolerant.

It's not "judicial activism," its American jurisprudence. It might help you to actually read the Constitution before thinking yourself an authority, lest you make yourself look ignorant.

tsepiso
03 July 2008 at 19:19

You've almost persuaded me to become a Mormon. The point is that just about all male human being are homosexual to one degree or another, (crede perito), and to create a social category out of the phenomenon is to do violence to human reality. Such sexual activity may lead to Hell, but usually doesn't. It's the heterosexual that creates most of the problems - divorce, what to do with the choldren and the monsy etc.

You talk about Mormons, but the Anglicans are currently tearing themselves to pieces about this non-issue. They even bring the Bible into it, but God knows how.

Paulo

rogerdpack
09 July 2008 at 08:23

though as a Mormon I can say that I have friends who "have homosexual inclinations," changing the definition of marriage to be 'more open'...seems to barely tug at the fabric of its meaning. No more is it sacred and holy. Now it is open and casual. Like "free love" hurting what love really really can mean.

But that's just me :)

mormon.org is the church's website

LFARKNAGEL
10 July 2008 at 16:48

kbg,

You have it partially correct. What Justice Marshall said was: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Nothing in that case suggests that the Court (or the California Supreme Court) may rewrite the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that suggests that homosexual people are a protected class or that they are entitled to special protections. What the California court did was to say that because the legislature has seen fit to extend rights to homosexuals in the form of civil union legislation and other similar legislation, the people of California (through their initiative process) dd not go far enough. Thus, the suggestion is that the legislature opened the door to gay rights and therefore the Court was required to go all the way and re-define marriage.

Here's the rub. It is a very dangerous thing to allow judges to legislate from the bench. Not only does such conduct violate the separation of powers doctrine, is allows judges to adopt legislation to fit with their own personal views of what they would like the law to be in any particular case. I do not think anyone wants either "conservative" judges or "liberal" judges to impose their personal views on the electorate --- particularly when the people have already expressly spoken on the topic.. We no more want Alabama judges imposing Christianity as the state religion any more than we want California courts imposing mandatory abortions for families with more than one child. Both liberals and conservatives really need to pick their poison. What should have happened is that the Court should have passed on striking down this voter created law and left it for the political process to proceed. One might say that that would lead to more prejudice. That may be true, but if we are to have any kind of checks and balances in government, we must insist that judges act within their constitutional spheres -- even when we do not like the immediate result.

i do not care whether the decision was to re-define Kool-aid as a controlled substance, This ruling was beyond the Court's constitutional mandate.

Journeyman
15 July 2008 at 16:11

I am a mormon and had an extended family member who "came out of the closet" and divorced his wife to live with his "lover". I had a hard time with that. I had a very good friend that was gay, and had no problem with him. I have been a bigot at times, but with maturity and age (and repentance) I feel I can honestly accept a person for who they are, despite religion, race, or sex orientation. Anyone who does harm or injure - both mentally and physically - to a person that is gay, or any other belief, is sinning themselves. That is what the mormon church teaches. Unfortunately, homosexuality is a lifestyle that is contrary to the will of God. It is a sexual relationship outside the law of marriage that God established. It is sin. Any church that accepts this type of relationship as acceptable of God is simply put - in error. It really does matter that marriage is defined as between a man and a wife. Why would I want to legalize something I know is wrong? Why would a church not have the right to ask it's members to defend the laws of God? You can twist the Bible however you want, but it clearly states homosexuallity is sin (sodom). I also fight gambling, pornography, drugs, and prostitution, or any other issue that is against the laws of God - why would I legalize pornography??? Because we all have Free agency does not mean that we do not defend the right principles. I'm sorry, but legalizing a marriage with two people of the same gender would mean that I support that lifestyle. You can be gay if you want - I don't agree with it - but you have that choice. But I can't support legalizing your relationship. Then I say it is ok. It isn't. That is why I am protecting marriage.

gnuneo
15 July 2008 at 21:08

why is *religion* in here? This is BUG ALL to do with religion - this is purely about extending common rights across all, which is entirely in accordance with the Spirit of the Constitution and the will of the Founding Fathers.

the LDS should be warned *in public* by the Bush Admin for the LDS's public statements about public policy and voting, with the openly stated threat that further such behaviour WILL end LDS tax-status, under american law.

the seperation of Church and State is far more important than this non-dispute about extension of rights.

" Paul

26 June 2008 at 08:18

What is decent? What is indecent? What is right? What is wrong? Religious proponents will say God knows the answer to these questions. Some will say, “I am a religious person and God is accepting of homosexuality.” Others will say, “I am a religious person and God is NOT accepting of homosexuality.” And there are still others who are not religious at all and say they know the correct answer notwithstanding. So who knows, really? There is ONE person on this earth who does. He is a prophet of the living God. He knows the mind and the will of God. I sustain him as such and believe that he is indeed a true prophet who can inform me (as I am not THE prophet or spokesperson for God on the earth) as to what the truth of the matter truly is no matter what I think or reason (because I acknowledge that my reasoning can be faulty and lack wisdom from time to time and on certain issues).

So, no matter what I think, or anyone else thinks doesn’t matter. It’s what God thinks, decrees as right and expects that we all live in accordance to His laws and decrees. But this is where it all falls apart, because there are many, many people who do not believe in true living prophets. So in my limited wisdom this is what I think is going to happen: According to my study of the scriptures and it’s prophecies the world will become increasingly steeped in wrong doing (according to what the living prophets have taught us as being what God’s position is) like legalizing homosexual unions, etc. Then there will some event wherein the righteous will be gathered to stand in ‘holy places’ and the ‘wicked’ will be destroyed. Then a Millennial era will begin when all will be right."

it is your very intolerance that may bring on the Apocalypse, you are not behaving in the Loving Son, you are not forgiving and accepting, you are not turning the other cheek, seeking freedom from hatred, violence and anger. It is your very behaviour that is causing the uprest, that will turn away the younger generations from you, you no longer offer any hope for the future, no bright dream of freedom and equality for all, instead you rely so much on images of fear, death and destruction.

your books have been edited - first comes the Hope, the answers, the joy and Love, then if that messenger is turned away, THEN God sends the fire to cleanse the stiff-necked, arrogant people.

the 'rapture' you are so looking forward to, will not be the work of Christ coming to redeem you, but the fires of Hell for your gorgetting that God loves ALL, no matter what your books and priests say.

Peace be onto you, i hope one day you truly find it, and learn to love others as YourSelf. xx

Journeyman
16 July 2008 at 04:45

The idea of seperation of church and state has become twisted from the original intent... The idea is that there would be no state religion. The framers were mostly religious people. They provided provisions for religion to prosper. If you do not believe in God, it is your choice, and you are protected under the same law. But the country was founded on a belief in God, and those moral principles. Today the emphasis is on legislating religion out of government vs the framers who 1) Established the basis of our government on a belief in God and 2) Provided that the government should protect religious freedom. Why would a church not be able to ask it's members to defend the principles they believe in? Seperation of church and state is so we do not have a state religion, not to regulate churches on what legislation they recommend to it's people to support. If you have the Church of the Same Gender, and you gather to vote for gay marriage, you have that right in my book. Call us what you will, but we are not bigots because we do not believe in gay marriage. Read the LDS Church "Proclaimation on the Family" and you will understand why I can't support this. Asking me to vote for gay marrige is asking me to say I support homosexuallity. Won't do it.

Journeyman
16 July 2008 at 19:05

I took a look at the tax code on church political involvement - for all mormons out there who may be questioning our involvement, and those opposed to us as well, the IRS Federal code states that a church "may expend funds for religious, charitable and educational purposes and an insubstantial amount on lobbying and to promote legislation." The law is very specific - a church can not promote or lobby against a candidate for public office, but it can lobby for or against issue legislation. Based on the law in place, the LDS and Catholic churches are fully within their rights on this issue. The threatening with removal of tax exempt status is unfounded. It is more of a revenge and fear tactic not founded in fact. As for the article, the info presented on our viewpoint of homosexuality is accurate, which I appreciate.

gnuneo
18 July 2008 at 04:25

hmm, you may be correct on that ruling. The Church should still not do this, all they are doing is defending intolerance and bigotry, to deny this entire group's right to marry, with no loss of anything from the mainstream heterosexual communities, is an appalling injustice.

Journeyman
21 July 2008 at 16:59

The loss is taking what I term to be a sacred relationship, and part of our purpose in life, and confusing my children, and future generations, as to what a family is. You can be gay, it is your choice, but I can't support saying you can be married.

This is our church's statement on the Family:

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny.

Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.

Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

gnuneo
21 July 2008 at 18:08

what a pile of shit.

marriage is between two or more loving partners, who DO NOT NEED the sanction of priesthoods to be declared married, people were busy making families and children for eons before any notions of "churches" was created - BY MAN.

as for 'women's and men's roles' - true, women have a tendency to be more capable in child-care, but it is ONLY a tendency, and many men are better than many women at performing this duty, just as in the workplace many women are more capable than many men. There is no "Divine Plan" about forced role-playing, this was a bad joke created by the various Priesthoods to justify keeping the sacred knowledge and wisdom of Women under their patriarchal control, which anyone with half a brain-CELL would realise can have nothing whatsoever to do with a Loving God.

the Age of Christianity is ending, and with the frankly retarded and ignorant views such as most 'christian' organisations espouse and enforce (your's are a good example above), then there will be few tears about its demise - in fact, apart from the notable exceptions, such as the Quakers, 'Christianity' in the form Jesus would have recognised, died out soon after his death - certainly the rise of Imperial Rome Catholicism is a major watershed in the destruction of the basic values taught by Jesus.

by the by, just to illustrate the absolute bankruptcy of both the LDS, and its brother Organisations, there is currently a war going on, an illegal invasion and occupation that has massacred well over 1 million innocent souls, even ignoring the sanctions beforehand that killed just under another million BABIES AND CHILDEN, yet the LDS chooses a mere extension of civil rights to go apeshit about.

do you TRULY imagine this would gain you the Love of Jesus? You ignore the ongoing and illegal murderous war of Imperialism, yet you go ballistic at the thought of personal relationships YOU don't approve of?

with that much hypocrisy against you, no wonder you are all DIEING for the 'rapture', when you will all be destroyed by the fires of Hell. I wonder if there were Jewish Organisations at the time of Noah, who believed they would be 'saved' when the waters came down - indeed, worked assiduously to create the Flood through intolerance and hatred!

truly, truly, truly, sometimes the Human Race and its weird beliefs, can boggle the mind beyond anything fiction could ever dream up.

Journeyman
27 July 2008 at 02:55

God created Adam and Eve for a reason. Gender has meaning and purpose. These are the principles that God established. It is what it is. You can chose which way you want to live-you have that right. We are not "dying' as you indicate, the church is actually growing.

gnuneo
30 July 2008 at 01:53

yes, that purpose is to diversify genetic material, by making it necessary to have two parents providing their genetic material, which combined with random mutations (and *everyone* has that), ensures rapid evolutionary change/adaptation.

THIS is the purpose of gender, as anyone with their nose not stuck in medieval philosophy will be well aware of, and the sheer diversity of gender relations across the world, many with far higher stability patterns than those shown by such intrinsically reactionary beliefs such as yours, indicate very much that 'gender roles' are by and large fixed by cultural patterns, NOT genetic ones. You can bleat about what YOU imagine "God" believes all you want, you can quote words from various books written by priests in your own cultural tradition all you want, but you will remain as nothing more than cultural Flat-Earthers.

In fact, even worse, as YOUR beliefs actually inhibit the progress to a better world that God built into the universe/system.

Kinder, Kirche, Kuche - Get thee back to the Dark Ages where you belong.

oh, and yes you most certainly ARE dying, with your opposition to any form of social progress, indeed your die-hard reactionary stance where you will not oppose warfare, widespread massacres and rape, and instead care only about "gay rights" (and don't bother bleating denials, your actions speak FAR louder than any of your words could do), then all you have done is turn Christianity from a doctrine of evolutionary change, from a message of love, from a message of Ahimsa, (non-violence), into an intolerant, hate-filled murderous sect, that institutionally abuses women and sexual minorities, that is interested only in maintaining the status-quo no matter how reactionary, bigoted and hellish that status-quo is, and that implicitly supports the Imperial plan of the New-Roman Authorities, based now in Washington instead of Rome itself.

dying? You're already dead, you just don't realise it yet.

Jesus detested the corrupt religious authorities, and the Imperial Roman occupiers - it doesn't take much study to realise what he would REALLY think of *YOU*.

you imagine your bigotry, intolerance, hatred, and reactionary sexism is going to give you ring-side seats come the 'Rapture'? Well, you're quite possibly right - but it won't be Jesus you'll be seated next to. Think about *that*, whilst you still have the chance to change the direction you are heading in, your future is still in your hands, if you have the courage to examine your moral beliefs, and realise that what you are doing is not following the 'Sermon on the Mount', but instead you are one of those who nailed him to a cross, and beat him up the hill, and laughed as he hung there in extraordinary pain.

can you change your ways and follow in the footsteps of Jesus? Or will you remain wedded to your Church's reactionary beliefs, ignoring and actively working against peace, love and tolerance?

it takes courage to change direction, and it is easy to follow the bigoted bunch and hating herd, i wonder if you value Jesus more than you do the power and social status you have 'achieved'? I really hope so, for your sake, and for your immortal Soul. I don't think you are a bad person, you have just been taught a lot of bad ideas and values.

let others marry whom they wish, it does not affect you. Denying others the right to marry, based upon gender, or race, or class, or (beyond the age of consent) age, puts you in the camp of intolerance and bigotry. Don't do that either to yourself, or so taint the message of Jesus, please. You do not have to vote *for* it, but at least remain neutral, you lose nothing, and its a small step towards gaining everything.

mystic
07 August 2008 at 16:56

well from what i can tell so far. it looks like many people have been affected by this sensitive issue. as much as gay people are fighting for their rights as a group, i strongly believe the LDS church is also standing up and promoting its core values. If you feel homosexuality is what you are comfortable with best the laws of the US land gives theme the right to push for recognition etc. I don't think the laws of the land bars other groups who also have differing opinons. I will always remember this statement i learnt as a young boy and its still stuck in my mind for the last 29 years. 'Your freedom ends, where someone else' begins'. The family has always been the most basic unit of society and for that matter the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. To them the family should endeavour create an atmosphere for the social and emotional development of a child. If the church like any other group feels that this fundamental believe is being threatened then I also strongly believe that they have every right as a body to protect what they believe to be true.

I don't know the dynamics of homosexuality, so I cannot comment on their intricacies of those homosexual feelings. However, what i do know is all human beings including homo/heterosexuals also have a right to air their views.

Remaining neutral will not help in knowing people's perceptions about certain concepts. People from both sides of the divide will hopefully learn something from each other once a more amicable debate is encouraged rather all the disgusting innuendos and horrible name calling.

As a latter-day saint, i believe i believe in the principles and doctrines taught by the church through divine revelation. And that is my choice. And i will stick by that choice because that is what i want to do as an individual. If ppeople (lds, non-lds, other religions, atheists etc) choose to follow whatever they feel is best for them, brilliant!! If you call me a bigot thats your choice. I will continue to believe in and follow what I know to be true and right for me.

commonsense
09 August 2008 at 05:19

Once given the legitimacy of marriage, the gay community will most like try to extent it further to increased adoption rights. This will interfere with the life style of innocent children. The gay fist does end and the nose of innocent and impressionable child. From my latest survey of the web there are approximately 100,000 gay households in California. California has a population of 38 million. This means that the gay community constitutes about .3% of the population. If they adopt there is a 99.7% change that the children they adopt will not share their orientation and they will being imposing their example and life style on some one who does not share it. The homosexual community does not want to have others impose their life style on them but they will most likely impose theirs on children they adopt, like a cousin I have who lives in California and who has three children, by their example and life style. Further more the activist mentality of .3% of the population exposing their life style to the other 99.7% is an unwelcome imposition on the vastly straight population. The unsavory discussion is cramping the life style of most of us. Finally a religion that does not discuss moral issues and values is not a religion and sodomy is a moral issue and religion definitely has a say and obligation to state what is moral and what it not.

Another point is how can something that does not perpetuate the human race claim to be natural? It does not make sense for any society to foster a life style that does not perpetual life. The whole idea is absurd and defies common sense. Absurd by the way means utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false. Another points equal right has its obvious limits. Men to not have the right to bear children and women to not have the right have the same muscle mass as men. Obviously equal rights does not extent to gays bearing child naturally or to many other things like marriage.

commonsense
09 August 2008 at 05:39

The idea of separate but equal applies to race, note sexual orientation. You are comparing apples to oranges in a false analogy. Secondly and man and a woman does not equal two men or two women. They are inherently unequal by definition. Thinking otherwise is strange, or should I say queer.

granddad
29 August 2008 at 22:01

As a practicing/believing member of the LDS church I can understand the neurosis its leaders have regarding the present state of "The Family" in our great country.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and beliefs but they're not entitled to their own facts.

COMMONSENSE says: "does not make sense for any society to foster a life style that does not perpetual life." Why not? my Father-in-law remarried a widow at the age of 67. They've been married for 22 years and still haven't had any children. Nothing about their lifestyle "perpetuates life" How can you call that natural?

It would seem to me that members of the LDS faith should support anything that encourages commitment and fidelity. Here we have a significant segment of the gay population that is saying "Hey, we think the Hetero monogamous model works better. Let's support and participate in this as much as we can." And we've got our panties in a wad over that?

sheeeeeesh!