DiscussMormonism.com

See link below for his full response. Most of the response is a long quote from the Proclamation, but here are his words (I've highlighted the parts I will comment on):

There are many gay individuals that are members of our church. I know many of them. In fact, some of my best friends are gay. You ask how I react regarding their marriages. Well, I do support our Church leaders who say that we can accept those with gay tendencies in our church as long as they do not act upon their temptations. Everyone has tenancies to succumb to temptation, but we all have the same standard given to us by our Father in Heaven. Whether we may be tempted to be immoral with members of our own sex or of the opposite sex, we are expected to live chaste lives. This is very well explained not only in the Book of Mormon, but in the Bible as well.

You see, the whole beauty of God's plan is that we all have our free agency to live our lives the way we want to live them. Personally, I believe in the words stated above and that they came from a living prophet, so I abide by them.

We all determine for ourselves what is right and what is not right for our own lives and how we live God's commandments. I am not a judge and I will never judge anyone for the decisions they make unless they are causing harm to another individual. I love my friends, including my gay friends. We are all God's children. It is their choice, not mine on how they conduct their lives and choose to live the commandments according to the dictates of their own conscience.

So, Donny, what does any of this have to do with taking away a fundamental, legal constitutional right of gays in CA (which would allow them to exercise their "free agency" and "choice" to marry the person of their choosing)? And what the hell does "living the commandmants" have to do with a constitutional issue like this? Keep your damn religious dogma and "follow the prophet" mentality out of our constitutional rights! What a friggin' idiot. End of rant.

http://www.donny.com/question.pl/view/4 ... ughts.html

.

.

.

.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:Keep your damn religious dogma and "follow the prophet" mentality out of our constitutional rights!

Since when did Donny try to put a constitutional ban on tobacco, coffee, and tea? I wonder if there's more behind Donny's decision in this issue than imposing religious dogma on others. Could be. Maybe. Nah, we should just force or at least shame people to keep their morals out of politics if we don't agree with them.

asbestosman wrote:I wonder if there's more behind Donny's decision in this issue than imposing religious dogma on others.

Nah, sounds like he simply did as the prophet instructed.

Just as long as the Gay right to choose does not interfere with our right to block their choice, everything is hunky dory.
- Donny Osmond, Tigerbeat Magazine, Alternate Reality, Dimension X+1.

And the gays will listen to Donnies great advice just like his sister listened in living forever with her one true love she was sealed to in her first marriage.

Few things in life are sadder than a washed up teenie-bopper singer looking for new ways to generate publicity.

asbestosman wrote:

Rollo Tomasi wrote:Keep your damn religious dogma and "follow the prophet" mentality out of our constitutional rights!

Since when did Donny try to put a constitutional ban on tobacco, coffee, and tea? I wonder if there's more behind Donny's decision in this issue than imposing religious dogma on others. Could be. Maybe. Nah, we should just force or at least shame people to keep their morals out of politics if we don't agree with them.

Asbestoman, Osmond's entire argument for supporting denying gays their civil rights is entirely based on his religious views. Seriously, I still have yet to see an anti-gay rights argument that is not religiously motivated, and Osmond's opinion is just more of the same crap. I'm not saying "keep your religion out of my government" because I disagree with Osmond's opinion, I say it because his opinion is religiously based and his ideas have no place in or even merit consideration by our government.

Angus McAwesome wrote:I say it because his opinion is religiously based and his ideas have no place in or even merit consideration by our government.

Perhaps so, but if so I suspect that the government will correct by striking down the result as unconstitutional (e.g. Lawrence v Texas) rather than by forbidding citizens from basing their votes on their religiously based ideas. Actually I suspect it will happen in any case. The only question is when.

Having the government try to keep itself free from undue influence by any one group is normal. Complaining about the unfairness of the majority is normal. Thinking that people can or should leave their religious morals at home when voting is silly. Religion is a core part of a person. It's like expecting a homosexual to suddenly become a heterosexual.

I'm also saying that most religious people don't try to push all their religious ideals onto others in law. I believe there is some inherent difference which is seen between the question of marriage and, say, the question of what constitutes blasphemy. I know of no serious attempts pushing to ban the latter. I think, therefore, that it isn't a simple matter of pushing religion onto the minority--at least that's not how they see it.

In any case the solution isn't to complain to them about how unfair it is or how it's pushing their religious morals. That falls on deaf ears for the most part (although it works for the rising generation who views the world somewhat differently). The solution is to find a compromise that more people are willing to take (say, civil unions for all), or to see if the courts will overturn it perhaps by arguing their case to them (as indeed is happening).

If the courts overturn it, I suspect there will be the usual whining by the religious about legislating from the bench. And then life will go on. Indeed, I think abortion will remain a hotter topic in the long run than gay marriage because many of the religious see abortion as murder (what's worse than murder? Besides furries I mean).

So, Donny, what does any of this have to do with taking away a fundamental, legal constitutional right of gays in CA (which would allow them to exercise their "free agency" and "choice" to marry the person of their choosing)?

No fundamental right has been taken away from gays. State recognition is not needed for them to marry and there is no compelling reason for such marriages to be recognized by the state.

some of my best friends are gay.

The funny thing about this is it is such a cliché. We all roll our eyes when someone begins their anti-gay rights comments with this sentence. However, in the case of Donny Osmand, it's probably true. I wonder what his friends in Hollywood think. I like Donny Osmand, and I hope he doesn't get blacklisted for this.

"Donny Osmond explains......"

That's where I lost interest.