Comments on: LDS Elder: “Central Doctrine of Eternal Marriage” At Heart of Political Activities

By: Sheri

Sheri — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:15:56 +0000

Just a quick question: if ethnic genocide were a religion, would that make it OK? You know, religious freedom of speech and such. Mmm, just a minute … it was a religion in 3rd Reich Germany and other places like Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

By: Walter Ellsworth

Walter Ellsworth — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 04:06:17 +0000

The gays in reaching for the skies ended up in the basement to much to soon. I’m glad they made this mistake
it looks like this is going to end up
before the United States Supreme court
there they will finally lose. Let the Mormans have there belief in what they
want if you don’t like it chose some other religon don’t confuse imorality
with civil rights.If gays relationship
is normal then they would be able to
bring children into the world by it.

By: Ben in Oakland

Ben in Oakland — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:11:34 +0000

No one’s religious beliefs are even threatened anymore and perhaps some of those “conjoined” couples can go bowling with some of their married couple friends someday, and maybe they would find out that it wasn’t the fact that someone was gay that bothered them but the fact that someone tried to change something they believed was sacred just the way they had it. You can respond and refute my post all you want.”

Actually, mediation, it doesn’t work that way. No one’s religious beliefs are threatened by my marriage at all. Any more than someone’s religious beliefs are threatened by someone believing something totally different.They can still believe whatever they want to believe.

I’m a jew. I don’t buy any of the christian story at all. does that threaten their beliefs?

what they really want is reality to conform to their rleigious beliefs. guess what? It isn’t going ot happen.

you are also assuming that this is actually aobut marriage. It is not. It is about what it has always been about– how much the very existence of gay people bothers some straight people, and some gay-people-who-wanna-be-straight-but-aint.

Here is the compromise. i won’t get married in your church. you stay the hell out of my civil marirage. we’re obth happy.

By: cowboy

cowboy — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:19:24 +0000

No…Mediation, I’m not flexible. The word marriage is not owned by the Mormons. In fact, some Mormons think “marriage” is inferior to the word: “sealed”. That’s their term for being married in their Temples. They use the term to designate from (and denigrate) the more worldly connotation of being married in the County Courthouse or City Hall.

Get over the ownership of the word marriage. You’re in denial if you think a separate (but equal) term is going to work in our system.

Things will NOT stay the same. Then, are you saying this Proposition is frivolous? Not so. It discriminates. Which means it thrusts the California government into a course directly at the U.S. Supreme Court and then a Federal Marriage Amendment.

And all for what?

The crux of it all is that the Mormons are anti-gay. That’s their only rationale for this Proposition. The word marriage is not harmed if two men decide they want to make the same promises to their life partner as would a Mormon and his wife.

By: Mediation

Mediation — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:09:44 +0000

I am pretty sure neither side in this argument is even trying to see this issue from the other’s point of view. If either side would just do that there would be understanding and perhaps even a win-win compromise could be met. The Mormons, and Christians in general for that matter, have no intention of telling anyone who they can and cannot love. And the gay community has the right to live and receive the same benefits and rights that straight people in partnerships have. Is it a fundamental belief of Mormons that marriage is between a man and a woman? Yes! So what happens when a man and a man are married? it messes with their beliefs. How do homosexuals feel when they can’t exchange vows and be “Married”? Sad.
Solution: we keep the word marriage to mean between a man and a woman. and we make up a new name and issue licenses just like the first one. We will call this legal and lawful partnership that is equal to the first in any government or bill of rights sense…I don’t know… “conjoinment!” (I don’t know I just made that up I think). Issuers of marriage licenses will not be required to issue “Conjoinment” licenses and vise versa. No government agency will be allowed to deny someone rights or privileges because they are conjoined rather than married. No religion will be required to conjoin anyone if it goes against their beliefs. Oddly enough conjoined partners can exchange rings and vows and do everything that happens at a wedding. (notice that no one cares if there is a wedding or not) the only difference is that on their window on the way to the honeymoon the groomsmen and bridesmaids will have written “Just Conjoined” instead of “Just Married.” Homosexuals can still get married, they just need to find someone of the opposite sex willing to take that step with them. And any straight person who wishes to conjoin themselves is free to do so if they find someone of the same sex to conjoin to. And turns out we ALL have more freedom after we reach a compromise WIN-WIN-WIN!
Now all arguments are settled and do you know what? No one’s religious beliefs are even threatened anymore and perhaps some of those “conjoined” couples can go bowling with some of their married couple friends someday, and maybe they would find out that it wasn’t the fact that someone was gay that bothered them but the fact that someone tried to change something they believed was sacred just the way they had it. You can respond and refute my post all you want. The fact is that if neither side is able to budge then there is going to have to be compromise. If Proposition 8 does not pass then a new president is set forever. One side loses and one side wins. If it passes things stay exactly the way they are and there is room for compromise and talks about a real solution that does not change others fundamental beliefs. We don’t even have to call it “conjoinment.” I am open to any other ideas… something completely new perhaps? I am flexible. Are you?

By: cowboy

cowboy — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 18:10:46 +0000

You hit the nail on the head Mr. Blanco. It wasn’t THEM [The Prophet and 12 Apostles] who did the nasty political tactics. It was over-eager Saints who literally interpreted the letter to do all they could to enact this piece of legislation.

Pitiful.

By: Chino Blanco

Chino Blanco — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 08:15:44 +0000

My sense is that the next episode in this drama involves the LDS leadership throwing their own rank-and-file membership under the bus for being too zealous.

http://www.sltrib.com/lds/ci_10797630

“Latter-day Saints are free to disagree with their church on the issue without facing any sanction,” said L. Whitney Clayton of the LDS Quorum of the Seventy.

I expect to see more statements like this coming out of Mormon HQ in the days ahead.

Implicit in such statements is the idea that the rank-and-file LDS have been acting on their own.

We know better.

Does the media?

By: Ben in Oakland

Ben in Oakland — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:05:26 +0000

Your welcome!

Just doing my bit to piss of the christian Reich. I’ll be using that term for a while.

By: Sapphocrat

Sapphocrat — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 20:37:05 +0000

Ben — I didn’t think of that, but thanks to you, I phoned the No On 8 HQ, and they asked for an email, which I just this moment sent.

If I don’t hear anything back within 24 hours, I’ll phone them again.

If Peterson said this on tape, and No On 8 can use the quote…! Keep your fingers crossed.

Thanks, Ben!

By: toujoursdan

toujoursdan — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 20:33:55 +0000

In Canada where same sex marriage has already been legalized, a preacher was prosecuted for hate crimes when he preached against homsexuality because he was accused of hate speech.

This is a complete twisting of what happened.

1) The Hate Speech law and the Gay Marriage law have nothing to do with each other.

2) The Hate Speech law protects Christians from the same kind of hate speech that gays are protected against. If you demonize Mormons, Christians or other religious people using the public media, you can get into as much trouble as if you demonize gays.

2) The preacher didn’t preach against homosexuality, he used a newspaper column to publicly demonize homosexual people. You are allowed to criticise homosexuality all you want in Canada. You run afoul of the law when you start broadcasting statements that demonize people. There is a difference.

3) None of this has anything to do with the passage of the Civil Marriage Act of 2005, which legalized gay marriage. The Hate Speech law has been on the books in many provinces as early as the late 1940s and federally since the late 1970s. Sexual orientation has been protected since 2002. He isn’t the first person prosecuted under this law.

Free Speech is protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, however since newspapers, TVs, Radio, billboards etc., are considered part of the public domain, they are regulated. The FCC does the same in the TV when it comes to obscenity in the United States.

The speech itself isn’t regulated, but the medium in which it is conveyed is. The preacher could have said that he wanted all gays put to death without sanction, once he used the public media to broadcast it which is a form of incitement, then he got into trouble.