LDS Church issues statement about Prop. 8 result ....

[_Roger Morrison]

See link below for full statement:

http://newsroom.LDS.org/ldsnewsroom/eng ... iage-votes

Thanks Rollo. From the article:

Such an emotionally charged issue concerning the most personal and cherished aspects of life — family, identity, intimacy and equality — stirs fervent and deep feelings.

This being profoundly true, who or what gives the LDS Church, or anyone/anything else the right to deprive those "...cherished aspects of life..." from another?

My "fervent and deep feelings" are aroused by the denial of those "cherished aspects" to others, that are universally enjoyed in a free and democratic society!

How dare LDSism, and its companions in this travesty of justice, spew forth such self deceptive denial of prejudice, discrimination and persecution!? Enjoyment of "... (personal) identity, intimacy and equality," is what Democracy is meant to assure its minorities. Is it not? (Assuming yes.)

Then, is this a case of theocratic edicts trumping democratic principles? Have that question in mind the next time other countries come under American contempt for their cultural practices. Maybe the newly elected government might come closer to truer democracy, eh? (Or, is that what its detractors were/are afraid of? :-)

Roger :-)

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Russell Nelson made it very clear recently that any other form of "marriage" is essentially a man-made waste of time, which is exactly what gay couples wanted under the CA constitution.

Thanks for proving that there is no compelling reason for the state to recognize gay marriages.

Again you are confusing the Mormon religious marriage with civil marriage. Mormons can discriminate all they want (which they often do); the government cannot.

[_Ray A]

The Church has also issued a Statement about the protests:

SALT LAKE CITY 7 November 2008 The Church issued the following statement today:

It is disturbing that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is being singled out for speaking up as part of its democratic right in a free election.

Members of the Church in California and millions of others from every faith, ethnicity and political affiliation who voted for Proposition 8 exercised the most sacrosanct and individual rights in the United States — that of free expression and voting.

While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process.

Once again, we call on those involved in the debate over same-sex marriage to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other. No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information.

[_Jason Bourne]

Allegations of bigotry or persecution made against the Church were and are simply wrong. The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians.

They can say it till they're blue in the face, but it still doesn't make it so.

I'm not racist, i just don't want n%ggers using the same drinking fountain as me.

Really? Where is the hostility? I see it against Mormons and their religion for exercising their constitutional rights. I do not see them denying any basic rights. Gay couples can obtain aoll those in civil unions or domestic partnerships where the law allows and CA was one state that had that already. Are you as equally outraged by what happened to the LDS Church when they practiced polygamy? The Church simply does not want the definition of what marriage is to be changed and this definition has been well established in our culture over thousands of years.

[_asbestosman]

The Church simply does not want the definition of what marriage is to be changed and this definition has been well established in our culture over thousands of years.

You mean the one where women were treated as property for the majority of the time?

[_Sethbag]

The Church simply does not want the definition of what marriage is to be changed and this definition has been well established in our culture over thousands of years.

You mean the one where women were treated as property for the majority of the time?

I think he meant that marriage was defined as one man and one woman by the same homophobic heterosexuals who were arresting, imprisoning, and killing gays over much of the past few thousand years. And we shouldn't change this definition now that we no longer kill gay people, because, you know, we respect the judgment of our Old Testament forbears in moral matters such as this too much.

[_Jason Bourne]

I think he meant that marriage was defined as one man and one woman by the same homophobic heterosexuals who were arresting, imprisoning, and killing gays over much of the past few thousand years. And we shouldn't change this definition now that we no longer kill gay people, because, you know, we respect the judgment of our Old Testament forbears in moral matters such as this too much.

Hardley.


I sure love the rational, kind, reasonable, understanding and non flammatory dialogue coming from those who think that those who supported Prop 8 are bigots.

Oh and by the way, I am not sure I would have supported it. I know I would not have given money for it.

[_asbestosman]

Oh and by the way, I am not sure I would have supported it. I know I would not have given money for it.

I too like challenging both sides of this argument. I just have a hard time believing traditional marriage has been very admirable. That's not to say that I think marriage doesn't have any admirable qualities from history--I think it has many.

I think the church was well within its rights. If that bothers people, then perhaps they should start a proposition to make what the church did illegal. I don't necessarily like such an idea, but I think well within the bounds of democracy to debate where to redraw the line for tax-exemption. I just don't want the church to be judged for doing something illegal today by tomorrow's standards.

[_Who Knows]

I do not see them denying any basic rights.

Take off the blinders then.

Gay couples can obtain aoll those in civil unions or domestic partnerships where the law allows and CA was one state that had that already.

Like i said - the n#ggers can have their own water fountains. We just don't want them drinking from ours!

Are you as equally outraged by what happened to the LDS Church when they practiced polygamy?

I don't really have a problem with consenting adults tieing the knot - be it 2, or 3, gay or straight.

The Church simply does not want the definition of what marriage is to be changed

Uh, no, actually, they wanted to institute their own discriminatory definition.

and this definition has been well established in our culture over thousands of years.

I call b***s***. CFR.

[_Brackite]

I do not see them denying any basic rights.

Take off the blinders then.

Jason is about the most Reasonable and about the most NON-Partisan Poster (Person), That I have seen on this Message Board.