Saturday, August 16, 2008

Gays Speak Out, Spout Intolerance, Misunderstanding

I came across this article on a gay website called the Lavender Newswire. The following is the response I submitted to the comments on this article. They were submitted, but "awaiting moderation," so who knows if they will actually appear on the page. I just thought I would post them here so that at least SOMEONE would see them :)

RE: Comments by the Editors:

1. "It’s too bad they don’t believe in the Bible. If they did, they would have to follow the admonishment, “Judge not that ye be not judged.”

Mormons DO believe in the Bible, which is why they believe in the declarations of God that define homosexuality as a sin, as well as the other passages you guys forget to quote, that say that we should "judge righteous judgment (John 7:24)."

2. "I really do not understand why some people, and now the Mormon Church officially, want to impose their perception of civil marriage onto all of society. I understood the history of this country was based on..."

Well, if you actually ever read a history book, you will find that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, which for thousands of years have considered homosexuality a sin. It is GAYS that are seeking to "impose their perception of civil marriage onto all of society" by virtue of activist judges, since clearly the voice of the people was against it from the beginning.

3. "The court is not directing any faith to change or amend its practice or belief in marriage."

No, but it IS seeking to redefine an institution that has been in existence for thousands of years.

RE: Miscellaneous commenters:

1. "Bigots."

The Wikipedia entry for bigotry says:
"A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own." That also makes YOU a bigot, smart guy. I have said elsewhere that intolerance is shouting "Diversity!" in a crowded theater, but denying entrance to Christians and heterosexuals.

2. "Whatever you folks want to do in Zion (Utah) is your business. California is off limits."

Yeah, like the activists that would have forced this on California would think it prudent to stop there.

3. "terrorists in our own backyard that want to take away our freedoms"

No, gays DO NOT HAVE the freedom to marry, so nothing would be taken away.

4. "the LDS (Mormons)... are NOT non-profit"

Well, since no one in the leadership gets paid, who exactly profits? It couldn't be the millions of people the church helps with humanitarian efforts each year. (, (,5232,23-1-851-18,00.html)

5. "Institutionalized racism until 1978."

Y'know, there is just as much mistrust and misinformation about Mormons from you folks as you tend to believe exists about gays amongst Mormons. You might want to read up on the issue of Blacks and the LDS Priesthood before you go spouting off. Here is a good place to start:

6. "They are always alarmed when it comes to being criticized about their “cult like ways” "

Yeah, probably because we ARE a cult. Be sure to visit to find out more!

7. "Most people do not trust the Mormons."

Nothing like a little bit of "virtual fact" (ie, opinion) to prove a point! Sure, we're human. But, I also know several organizations that are not owned by Mormons that PREFER Mormon employees because they know they CAN trust them.

8. "the greatest hipocrisy is thier interests in Las Vegas."

Right, because a city is either ALL evil, or not at all, right? No good people can exist in a city that has so much bad in it.

9. "marrying their 13 year girls to a 50 year old man is ok even without her consent in certain sects."

Those "certain sects" are not affiliated with the Mormon church in any way. Please see

10. "The descendants of Brigham Young’s 55 wives will now lecture on the subject of marriage morality."

Because all 13 million-plus Mormons on the earth today are descendants of Brigham Young.

11. "Religious organizations have no right to foist their dogma onto others or into law. Period. This is not a theocracy."

Counter-point: NON-Religious organizations have no right to foist their dogma onto to others or into law. Period. This is not a Godless political system. Our country was FOUNDED on principles of Judeo-Christianity.

12. "Jefferson had things right centuries ago when he penned a religious freedom statute that kept church and state separate."

The separation of church and state was intended to keep Americans free from compulsory church attendance, such as that which the former-Brits-turned-Americans had been subjected to under the Church of England. It had nothing to do with voters being denied the right to vote according to their religious belief.

13. "I remember the strong and organized opposition the Mormon church had in the ’70s to the equal rights amendment to the US Constitution. Their arguments against it were reactionary and unfounded, e.g., “if it passes, people will be forced to use unisex public restrooms.” (The horror!) That amendment did not pass, and historians usually site the Mormon church’s highly organized efforts as a large factor in its defeat"

To begin with, the church has always strongly been in favor of women's rights. Utah was the FIRST state to allow women to vote, long before the ERA was proposed. Your "unisex bathroom" accusation is simply ungrounded. If you want to know what the church's stance was on the ERA, visit this webpage: (


    Marriage is the legal, social, economic and spiritual union of a man and a woman. One man and one woman are necessary for a valid marriage. If that definition is radically altered then anything is possible. There is no logical reason for not letting several people marry, or for eliminating other requirements, such as minimum age, blood relative status or even the limitation of the relationship to human beings. Those who are trying to radically redefine California's marriage laws for their own purposes are the ones who are trying to impose their values on the rest of the population. Those citizens opposed to any change in California's marriage statutes are merely defending the basic morality that has sustained the culture for everyone against a radical attack.
    When same-sex couples seek California's approval and all the benefits that the state reserves for married couples, they impose the law on everyone. According non-marital relationships the same status as marriage would mean that millions of people would be disenfranchised by their own governments. The state would be telling them that their beliefs are no longer valid, and would turn the civil rights laws into a battering ram against them.
    Law is not a suggestion, as George Washington observed, "it is force". An official state sanction of same-sex relationships as "marriage" would bring the full apparatus of the state against those who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. The California Protect Marriage Coalition views this as outlawing traditional morality.
    Eliminating one entire sex from an institution defined as the union of the two sexes is a quantum leap from eliminating racial discrimination, which did not alter the fundamental character of marriage. Marriage reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over. As the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called "expansive energy," which might best be summarized as society's will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived.
    Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of homosexuality.
    When marriage loses its unique status, women and children most frequently are the direct victims. Giving same-sex relationships or out-of-wedlock heterosexual couples the same special status and benefits as the marital bond would not be the expansion of a right but the destruction of a principle. . If the one-man/one-woman definition of marriage is broken, there is no logical stopping point for continuing the assault on marriage.
    If feelings are the key requirement, then why not let three people marry, or two adults and a child, or consenting blood relatives of any age? . Marriage-based kinship is essential to stability and continuity in our state. Child abuse is much more prevalent when a living arrangement is not based on kinship. Kinship imparts family names, heritage, and property, secures the identity and commitment of fathers for the sake of the children, and entails mutual obligations to the community.
    The US Supreme Court declared in 1885 that states' marriage laws must be based on "the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization, the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.''

  2. Thank you for responding to that article and telling them the truth about Mormons and about rights and freedoms in America.

    There is no denying that God meant for men to be men and women to be women and that marriage is between a man and a woman.

    It is a moral issue, not a religious issue. Our religion just has good morals.