Quantcast
Utah

With Prop. 8 reversed, some want reconciliation for LGBT, LDS

Comments

Return To Article
  • bigv56
    Aug. 13, 2010 8:48 p.m.

    What does it say about being in the middle? There is not gray area here.

  • JANADELE
    Aug. 14, 2010 12:26 a.m.

    Worldly opinions do not influence the decrees of God. Legality does not dictate morality. The position of the Lord is clear, and is not negotiable. Sin remains sin regardless of it's disguises.

  • lindasdf
    Aug. 14, 2010 12:35 a.m.

    I don't live in Utah or California anymore, but I would imagine that if there is any animosity felt by Mormons for the GLBT community, it's because of the temper tantrums they threw, all the fear they caused Mormons wanting to use the temples in California and Salt Lake. It's all sour grapes, since the people against prop 8 raised several million dollars more than those for prop 8, and yet still couldn't get out the vote.

  • Esquire
    Aug. 14, 2010 6:34 a.m.

    My problem is that homosexuality and gender identity issues do, in fact, seem to be based in nature, and as such were thus created by God. Religions claiming to be Christian need to somehow address this issue rather than issue a blanket condemnation. I've observed some situations that mandate that the churches deal with it rather than close their eyes and push away people dealing with this. It most cases, it is not a choice, from my observations, like deciding to smoke a joint or rob a bank. There should, at minimum, be dialogue.

  • Flashback
    Aug. 14, 2010 8:00 a.m.

    The homosexual community is responsible for any animosity that they feel. They know what the church stand is on homosexual behaviour. Gordon B. Hinckley outlined it in clear terms. If they choose not the follow the standards and practices of the church, it is not the fault of the church. Their hissy fits and moaning about it won't change what is happening. I for one get sick and tired of them constantly whining that they want to be "accepted" by the church for who and what they are. That's fine, but they need to commit to live the standards of the church and not participate in behaviour that is deemed as against church teachings.

  • samhill
    Aug. 14, 2010 9:14 a.m.

    Hurray for FREEDOM of thought and expression.

    If the LDS church has a doctrine that prohibits homosexual behavior, then let them freely assemble and promote that ideas as they wish.

    If homosexual people believe the doctrines of the LDS church are wrong, then let them freely assemble and promote their ideas as they wish. Even the idea that marriage should include homosexual couples despite centuries of contrary precedent.

    If citizens (repeatedly) VOTE to preserve their traditional definition of marriage despite vigorous and, in many cases, offensive political maneuvering by the opposition, including several attempts to overturn the voter's decision, then LET THEIR DECISION STAND!

    What we are losing in this battle is not only the sanctity of traditional marriage but the sanctity of DEMOCRACY.

  • lindasdf
    Aug. 14, 2010 10:23 a.m.

    I don't live in Utah or California anymore, but I would imagine that if there is any animosity felt by Mormons for the GLBT community, it's because of the temper tantrums they threw, all the fear they caused Mormons wanting to use the temples in California and Salt Lake. It's all sour grapes, since the people against prop 8 raised several million dollars more than those for prop 8, and yet still couldn't get out the vote.

  • Doctor
    Aug. 14, 2010 11:10 a.m.

    I wonder what the feasibility is of the federal government taking over utah state government on the basis of undue influence of Mormon doctrine in state lawmaking?

  • texlds
    Aug. 14, 2010 11:41 a.m.

    Our Mormon ancestors told the government that they had a constitutional right to determine their own marriage pattern, and that the government had no right to stop them.

    To me it seems that's pretty much the same argument that gays are making now.

    So I really feel that if we agreed with our ancestors making that argument then, we shouldn't be so outraged and emotional, or offended, that gays would make it now.

    That doesn't mean that we don't clearly declare that we understand things about the true nature of men and women that were revealed, and that will bring greater joy if adhered to, than if not.

    And we should certainly vote for laws that align with our moral view (as all law is morality.)

    But I feel we shouldn't be so surprised that others would make a similar argument to what our own ancestors forcefully made.

  • Californian#1@94131
    Aug. 14, 2010 3:46 p.m.

    Doctor 11:10 a.m.: "I wonder what the feasibility is of the federal government taking over utah state government on the basis of undue influence of Mormon doctrine in state lawmaking?"

    How about the Feds taking over California on the grounds that the governor and attorney general are unable and especially unwilling to do their jobs? (Not to mention the undue influence of a special interest lifestyle-based agenda that most people do not favor but are terrified to oppose for fear of being slandered as bigots).

    California's officials failed and betrayed the people. They had a sworn duty to defend the law and they refuse to. Both Schwarzenegger and Brown have been actively fighting against the people on this.

    I'd be thrilled to see US Marshals, FBI agents, the National Guard, National Park rangers, even armed postal inspectors and IRS invetigators march into the corrupt Capitol and corrupt city halls of San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, and a few other cities and throw the tyrants out.

    Bring on the Feds! :)

  • Christy
    Aug. 14, 2010 4:17 p.m.

    Flashback lamented, "I for one get sick and tired of them constantly whining that they want to be "accepted" by the church for who and what they are."


    Wow, that's funny because I haven't heard a single gay person say that. What I've heard them say, many, many times, is that they'd sure appreciate it
    if the Church BUTT OUT of their Constitutional rights and mind it's own business.

  • ClarkHippo
    Aug. 14, 2010 4:40 p.m.

    @Doctor 11:10 - Okay, let's just sit back for a moment and imagine your scenario taking place.

    Let's say federal troops march into Utah and begin issuing edicts against the LDS Church in order to stop, as you say the "...undue influence of Mormon doctrine in state lawmaking."

    How exactly would they go about doing this? Should LDS people no longer be allowed to serve in elected office or even vote? Would anyone who supports the LDS Church be arrested for treason? Would LDS people be forced to live in segregated neighborhoods? Perhaps LDS people would be forced to wear tags that separate themselves from everyone else.

    Come on folks! Let’s hear some specific, concrete ideas on this subject. And while you’re at it, explain how this scenario could be accomplished using the U.S. Constitution. I mean, don’t you hate those parts that talk about freedom of religion and freedom of expression?

    Is this what some people have in mind when they talk about “reconciliation?”

  • the truth
    Aug. 14, 2010 5:38 p.m.

    RE: Esquire

    YOu can any OPINION of the cause homosexualtiy that you want to have ,

    but there is no hard scientific evidence that it is "natural",

    there is NO KNOWN "gay" gene or genome.


    There is more evidence that is a life style choice, or envirnomental or "nurture"

    (not being attacted normally to the opposite does NOT equate to being gay)

    Funny how those whio talk about the "middle"
    never define what the middle is.

    The "middle" for gay activists here it total acceptance of ther lifestyle choice.

    They do NOT want reconciliation, but demand acceptance and full capitulation their lifestyle choice.

    and they will fight with venom and meanness and even violence, any who will not capitulate and accept their lifestyle choice,


    even God and religion.


    IN europe and canada, the have been priests and preachers, pastors, etc.

    who have bee narrested for "hate" speech for speaking out against homosexuality.

    That is where we are headed, loss of free speech and freedom of religion.

    and shackled under LEFTEST political correctness.

    When comes to immorality there is no "middle ground",

    you are either moral or you are not.

    How can one expect the_church to move toward acceptance of immorality?




  • county mom
    Aug. 14, 2010 6:33 p.m.

    I remember in Utah history class that the federal government did try to take the LDS Church out of politics in Utah. We did not vote for our first governer he was appointed. NO American should have to live like our ancestors did. They were arrested and jailed for marriages that had occured years earlier. They chose to follow the law. And the law in Utah is very clear, forced on our ancestors to become a state by the federal government. It states one man and one woman as a marriage. Federal law! in Utahs Constiution.

  • Doctor
    Aug. 14, 2010 6:58 p.m.

    I was thinking of how the fed enforced desegregation. And I don't think CA officials have done anything wrong. The people of CA can vote them out if they're unhappy. Remember, over 6.5M people voted against prop 8. If you used the process to amend the federal constitution prop 8 wouldn't have passed. (I may be backwards on prop 8) I think the state has spoken and now its a federal issue. There are lots of precedent for feds overruling states and enforcing with force or at least implied force. And utah was basically in rebellion. Utah history books aren't that accurate.

  • Gulf Vet
    Aug. 14, 2010 8:39 p.m.

    Why is "marriage" so important to the gay and lesbian community? I believe it is that this group of people desire their lifestyle to be seen as normal. Civil unions will offer the same benefits without the current conflict.

    If gay/lesbian marriage is legalized will polygamy also be made legal? I have heard members of the gay community comment that a polygamous lifestyle is just not right. Where is the line to be drawn?

    There is opportunity for abuse and violence in all relationships. Clearly any situation of child or spouse abuse should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, whether in a heterosexual, homosexual, or polygamus relationship. Many people argue against polygamy becsue they say it promotes child abuse. Is the gay community any different (for example NAMBLA)?

    Where will it end? I cannot support bigotry or other forms of discrimination. I also cannot support taking centuries of tradition and religious teaching (based on the Holy Bible) and turning it upside down.

    We can learn to coexist without stepping on each others beliefs, lifestyles, traditions, etc.

  • Bebyebe
    Aug. 14, 2010 10:30 p.m.


    The LGBT community is not campaigning to outlaw Mormon marriage. Mormons should mind their own marriages (50% divorce) and keep out of other people's personal lives.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan
    Aug. 16, 2010 3:29 p.m.

    Judge Walker said in his ruling that the view that homosexual relationships are sinful is "harmful to gays and lesbians". This wording enshrined as a "statement of fact" is scary for basic freedom.

    I really hope that the 9th Circuit stays Judge Walker's ruling until it can be properly appealed. There is something inherently wrong with our system if one man can overturn the will of over 7 million voters.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan
    Aug. 16, 2010 3:44 p.m.

    What reconciliation? Next month an excommunicated person is going to mock the temple on stage in Salt Lake City and the local paper aimed at readers who practice homosexuality has advertised this.

    Somehow I do not get the sense they are trying to build any sorts of bridges. I do not get the sense that they have even tried to understand why people care so much about keeping man/woman marriage.

    I also have a strong sense that they have failed to read Monte N. Stewart's papers on the topic. I reccomend to all who really want an understanding of this issue that they read Stewart's papers.

  • Lane Myer
    Aug. 16, 2010 3:48 p.m.

    samhill: "If citizens (repeatedly) VOTE to preserve their traditional definition of marriage despite vigorous and, in many cases, offensive political maneuvering by the opposition, including several attempts to overturn the voter's decision, then LET THEIR DECISION STAND!

    What we are losing in this battle is not only the sanctity of traditional marriage but the sanctity of DEMOCRACY. "

    --------------

    We do not live in a democracy where a person's rights may be voted upon by the majority. We have a constitution that protects individuals and the minority.

    Read it. You will change your tune.

  • Lane Myer
    Aug. 16, 2010 3:52 p.m.

    ClarkHippo: "How exactly would they go about doing this?"


    Get rid of the breakfast with the legislature before every session starts.

    Get rid of the full time lobbist that the church has in our legislature

    Do not allow legislators to discuss legislation with key church members before they vote on issues.

    Teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves.

  • Lane Myer
    Aug. 16, 2010 3:57 p.m.

    the truth: "There is more evidence that is a life style choice, or envirnomental or "nurture" "


    Sorry, that is not the truth. Where did you get that information?



    the truth: "IN europe and canada, the have been priests and preachers, pastors, etc.

    who have bee narrested for "hate" speech for speaking out against homosexuality.

    This is where we are headed."


    That is because they do not have freedom of speech or of religion like we do. This is a falsehood too. Unless we repeal the 1st amendment, churches can speak their beliefs with impunity.

  • Lane Myer
    Aug. 16, 2010 4:03 p.m.

    Gulf Vet | 8:39 p.m. Aug. 14, 2010
    Why is "marriage" so important to the gay and lesbian community? I believe it is that this group of people desire their lifestyle to be seen as normal. Civil unions will offer the same benefits without the current conflict.

    If gay/lesbian marriage is legalized will polygamy also be made legal? I have heard members of the gay community comment that a polygamous lifestyle is just not right. Where is the line to be drawn?


    ----------------

    Why is the word "marriage" so important to you? Can you not share the meaning with your fellow law-abiding, tax paying citizens?

    I have NEVER heard a gay person say that polygamy is not "right." They have made legal questions about it (how many, ss, inheritance) and questions of it practice (under age marriages), but the only people on these boards that cry about it becoming legal are those against ssm.

    These problems that you are so fearful of are NOT happening in countries that have had gay marriage for over ten years. The slippery slope you talk about has never been built.

  • Lane Myer
    Aug. 16, 2010 4:06 p.m.

    gulf vet: "Is the gay community any different (for example NAMBLA)? "


    NAMBLA was expelled by gay activists decades ago. They are pedophiles. There is a big difference between two loving gay people who want to marry and pedophiles who want to abuse.

    Do not equate them. Gays see them for who they are and reject them as you do.

  • charlie91342
    Aug. 16, 2010 4:22 p.m.

    re -- John Pack Lambert of Michigan | 3:29 p.m

    "There is something inherently wrong with our system if one man can overturn the will of over 7 million voters"

    one man didn't overturn the will of 7 million voters. he overturned the will of 500,000 voters (or did you forget that 6.5 million voted against it?)


    "I do not get the sense that they have even tried to understand why people care so much about keeping man/woman marriage"

    why does that surprise you? no one has been able to explain it so that it makes sense. all anyone hears is "it's always been that way" and "it's a sin".

    once you figure out that gays are a natural occurence, maybe you will stop thinking like you do.