Welcome to the Newest Gay Marriage State in the Country

Mars wrote:


Expect the Church to pull out of adoption services within the next 3 months. This has been in the works for a while now in preparation of a change like this happening. That process just got sped up even further.



No gay adoption cakes in this church, thank you very much.

Very sad stuff. Adoption services helped so many people and children.

hypercoug wrote:
It's not tyranny, it's equal treatment under the law.



Think Brown v. Board of Education.

Think Loving v. Virginia.



Bill O'Reilly says it well:

The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals...That's where the compelling argument is. We're Americans, we just want to be treated like everyone else. That's a compelling argument. And to deny that, you've got to have a compelling argument on the other side. And the other side hasn't been able to do anything but thump the bible."



And it's true. Sorry, but "My religion says it's a sin so it should be illegal for you to do that" simply goes nowhere in the courtroom.



This morning, one of my former mission companions got married to a guy he met while going to school in Provo. They have been together for 8 years, and I couldn't be happier for them.



I realize I am in the minority here, but as a cougar fan, and a utahn, and a mormon, I am thrilled at the events going on in Utah this week.



Merry Christmas to all!

Sorry but this is just lame. They have absolutely zero compelling argument. Remember our rights are God given not government given. God has never given homosexuals extra rights to marry each other. If you deny this fact then you must deny God and all rights.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

tww wrote:

It's not tyranny, it's equal treatment under the law.



Think Brown v. Board of Education.

Think Loving v. Virginia.



Bill O'Reilly says it well:

The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals...That's where the compelling argument is. We're Americans, we just want to be treated like everyone else. That's a compelling argument. And to deny that, you've got to have a compelling argument on the other side. And the other side hasn't been able to do anything but thump the bible."



And it's true. Sorry, but "My religion says it's a sin so it should be illegal for you to do that" simply goes nowhere in the courtroom.



This morning, one of my former mission companions got married to a guy he met while going to school in Provo. They have been together for 8 years, and I couldn't be happier for them.



I realize I am in the minority here, but as a cougar fan, and a utahn, and a mormon, I am thrilled at the events going on in Utah this week.



Merry Christmas to all!

Sorry but this is just lame. They have absolutely zero compelling argument. Remember our rights are God given not government given. God has never given homosexuals extra rights to marry each other. If you deny this fact then you must deny God and all rights.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Try telling that to people that don't believe in God. Or that believe in a different god than you.



"Allah" doesn't mind if you beat your wife, and sometimes recommends it. Does that mean that we should allow domestic abuse? Is it okay for them to domestically abuse their wives in countries where the majority believes in allah and this type of religion?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Its times like this that I'm glad I'm not a Libertarian so I can follow the council of the prophet of God and not feel it goes against my political beliefs.

BlueIsBetter wrote:

hypercoug wrote:
It's not tyranny, it's equal treatment under the law.



Think Brown v. Board of Education.

Think Loving v. Virginia.



Bill O'Reilly says it well:

The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals...That's where the compelling argument is. We're Americans, we just want to be treated like everyone else. That's a compelling argument. And to deny that, you've got to have a compelling argument on the other side. And the other side hasn't been able to do anything but thump the bible."



And it's true. Sorry, but "My religion says it's a sin so it should be illegal for you to do that" simply goes nowhere in the courtroom.



This morning, one of my former mission companions got married to a guy he met while going to school in Provo. They have been together for 8 years, and I couldn't be happier for them.



I realize I am in the minority here, but as a cougar fan, and a utahn, and a mormon, I am thrilled at the events going on in Utah this week.



Merry Christmas to all!

Sorry but this is just lame. They have absolutely zero compelling argument. Remember our rights are God given not government given. God has never given homosexuals extra rights to marry each other. If you deny this fact then you must deny God and all rights.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Try telling that to people that don't believe in God. Or that believe in a different god than you.



"Allah" doesn't mind if you beat your wife, and sometimes recommends it. Does that mean that we should allow domestic abuse? Is it okay for them to domestically abuse their wives in countries where the majority believes in allah and this type of religion?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Your example, and most examples given as counterpoints, do not make sense in that the church hasn't pushed for homosexual actions to be against the law. They have, however, pushed to define marriage for what it always has been, the union between a man and a woman.

hawkwing wrote:
Its times like this that I'm glad I'm not a Libertarian so I can follow the council of the prophet of God and not feel it goes against my political beliefs.

This is a pretty uninformed comment. It isn't one or the other. I can both support the churches stance that marriage according to God is between a man and a woman, and also that people have the right to choose what they feel is best for them (as long as they don't harm anyone in the process).



Just because I am pro Spurs or Jazz basketball it doesn't mean the other NBA teams shouldn't exist. Just because two things are opposite of each other it doesnt mean one has to "win" the other.



Do you really want the government to be picking winners and losers? Good luck with that when they go with popular opinion and come after (us) the Mormons - again - in a few years.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

BlueIsBetter wrote:

Its times like this that I'm glad I'm not a Libertarian so I can follow the council of the prophet of God and not feel it goes against my political beliefs.

This is a pretty uninformed comment. It isn't one or the other. I can both support the churches stance that marriage according to God is between a man and a woman, and also that people have the right to choose what they feel is best for them (as long as they don't harm anyone in the process).



Just because I am pro Spurs or Jazz basketball it doesn't mean the other NBA teams shouldn't exist. Just because two things are opposite of each other it doesnt mean one has to "win" the other.



Do you really want the government to be picking winners and losers? Good luck with that when they go with popular opinion and come after (us) the Mormons - again - in a few years.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Where would you come out Blue if you were persuaded that defining marriage as being between not only a man and a woman but men and men or women and women is harmful to the family and children and society? Doesn't/shouldn't governement step in then? I have seen research that the traditional family is the best chance for raising children and perpetuating our society. If it truly matters not one whit whether two men or two women can raise children (and this is in the collective sense, not pointing fingers at any one couple) and can do so the same as a traditional husband and wife, maybe your point gains strength. But we appear to making the change without knowing the consequences, at least it seems that way to me.

BlueIsBetter wrote:

Its times like this that I'm glad I'm not a Libertarian so I can follow the council of the prophet of God and not feel it goes against my political beliefs.

This is a pretty uninformed comment. It isn't one or the other. I can both support the churches stance that marriage according to God is between a man and a woman, and also that people have the right to choose what they feel is best for them (as long as they don't harm anyone in the process).



Just because I am pro Spurs or Jazz basketball it doesn't mean the other NBA teams shouldn't exist. Just because two things are opposite of each other it doesnt mean one has to "win" the other.



Do you really want the government to be picking winners and losers? Good luck with that when they go with popular opinion and come after (us) the Mormons - again - in a few years.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I want the people picking winners. If the state of Utah decides to follow the Prophet's council and outlaw gay marriage then the state of Utah ought to be free of the tyranny of the minority and not allow gay Marriage.



The answer to allow everything, or evil things, is as bad if it's by a communist regime or a Libertarian (or Republican or Democrat for that matter).

BoiseBYU wrote:

hawkwing wrote:
Its times like this that I'm glad I'm not a Libertarian so I can follow the council of the prophet of God and not feel it goes against my political beliefs.

This is a pretty uninformed comment. It isn't one or the other. I can both support the churches stance that marriage according to God is between a man and a woman, and also that people have the right to choose what they feel is best for them (as long as they don't harm anyone in the process).



Just because I am pro Spurs or Jazz basketball it doesn't mean the other NBA teams shouldn't exist. Just because two things are opposite of each other it doesnt mean one has to "win" the other.



Do you really want the government to be picking winners and losers? Good luck with that when they go with popular opinion and come after (us) the Mormons - again - in a few years.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Where would you come out Blue if you were persuaded that defining marriage as being between not only a man and a woman but men and men or women and women is harmful to the family and children and society? Doesn't/shouldn't governement step in then? I have seen research that the traditional family is the best chance for raising children and perpetuating our society. If it truly matters not one whit whether two men or two women can raise children (and this is in the collective sense, not pointing fingers at any one couple) and can do so the same as a traditional husband and wife, maybe your point gains strength. But we appear to making the change without knowing the consequences, at least it seems that way to me.

If we were to define marriage solely based on one's capacity to nurture and raise children, than do we solely limit the definition of marriage to people that can biologically have children?



Also, what is to stop a future government under the above definitions to start taking away children or revoking marriages based on their expectations of the way children should be raised, if we were to define a marriage solely based on the output of children and the furthering of progeny.



If two people want to get "married" but do not want to have children, is that then permissable or allowable under a definition of marriage like the above? Also, there are studies of children that have been raised by gay and lesbian couples. There is enough "data" or "source material" out there. These children behave normally and as far as them being raised "gay", their statistics of identifying as gay or lesbian don't trend higher than the normal statistics, from what I have read.

hawkwing wrote:

hawkwing wrote:
Its times like this that I'm glad I'm not a Libertarian so I can follow the council of the prophet of God and not feel it goes against my political beliefs.

This is a pretty uninformed comment. It isn't one or the other. I can both support the churches stance that marriage according to God is between a man and a woman, and also that people have the right to choose what they feel is best for them (as long as they don't harm anyone in the process).



Just because I am pro Spurs or Jazz basketball it doesn't mean the other NBA teams shouldn't exist. Just because two things are opposite of each other it doesnt mean one has to "win" the other.



Do you really want the government to be picking winners and losers? Good luck with that when they go with popular opinion and come after (us) the Mormons - again - in a few years.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I want the people picking winners. If the state of Utah decides to follow the Prophet's council and outlaw gay marriage then the state of Utah ought to be free of the tyranny of the minority and not allow gay Marriage.



The answer to allow everything, or evil things, is as bad if it's by a communist regime or a Libertarian (or Republican or Democrat for that matter).

The people don't get to pick winners either. At least not by legislative purposes. And especially not when it comes to taking away individual rights from human beings. I would agree with you if the entire state - down to the person - agreed with the decision. But the people haven't and didn't decide down to the person. The majority decided against the minority. The constitution of the United States was put in place to protect individual rights and property, not the rights of the majority. The majority can always have what it wants to have, simply because they can raise their hands and have a vote count, and take whatever they want. If you haven't read the Constitution, I suggest you do it. Almost all of the ammendments have been done in name of the individual (free speech, right to bear arms, due process, no poll taxes, women voting, slave voting, etc). Once we let majority rule, we have become a mob and are none better than such. That is one of the reasons that our constitution was/is so AMAZING and GROUNDBREAKING. Because it respects and protects the individual AGAINST the majority. You can't take my money just because you want it. Even if my money would save everyone in the entire United States from working for a hundred years, by law you cannot take it. You can't take away my right to protect myself, even if you want to, because it is written in the constitution. You can't take away my religion (providing my religion doesn't physically hurt people) because it is written in the constitution that I can believe whatever I choose to believe, or not believe and the majority cannot take that away from me.





I suppose that you agree with the Mormons being driven out of the many cities they were driven out of, and don't feel that your ancestors were persecuted, because the majority (mobs, aka ordinary citizens that weren't mormon) felt threatened by the growing LDS minority and their practices and claims of God, even though they kept to themselves mostly, and didn't do anyone harm.

I'll jump in on this: I agree with the state being able to define marriage and telling the LDS there that polygamy was not allowed. It didn't give them the right to destroy their buildings, kill them, and issue extermination orders (and to compare that to what's happening today is ridiculous). The LDS at the time moved out of the state/country where they were not allowed to live the way that they wanted to, instead of trying to force acceptance of their lifestyle on everyone else.



Also, please show me where the "right" to redefine terms like marriage to fit your chosen lifestyle is found. I can't seem to locate it in the constitution.

Sorry, there is no excuse to advocate for changes to the laws to support an act that the Prophet and Apostles have advocated against in every general conference for several years.



If you are advocating for anything else, you're on the wrong side.

BlueIsBetter wrote:

BlueIsBetter wrote:

Its times like this that I'm glad I'm not a Libertarian so I can follow the council of the prophet of God and not feel it goes against my political beliefs.

This is a pretty uninformed comment. It isn't one or the other. I can both support the churches stance that marriage according to God is between a man and a woman, and also that people have the right to choose what they feel is best for them (as long as they don't harm anyone in the process).



Just because I am pro Spurs or Jazz basketball it doesn't mean the other NBA teams shouldn't exist. Just because two things are opposite of each other it doesnt mean one has to "win" the other.



Do you really want the government to be picking winners and losers? Good luck with that when they go with popular opinion and come after (us) the Mormons - again - in a few years.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Where would you come out Blue if you were persuaded that defining marriage as being between not only a man and a woman but men and men or women and women is harmful to the family and children and society? Doesn't/shouldn't governement step in then? I have seen research that the traditional family is the best chance for raising children and perpetuating our society. If it truly matters not one whit whether two men or two women can raise children (and this is in the collective sense, not pointing fingers at any one couple) and can do so the same as a traditional husband and wife, maybe your point gains strength. But we appear to making the change without knowing the consequences, at least it seems that way to me.

If we were to define marriage solely based on one's capacity to nurture and raise children, than do we solely limit the definition of marriage to people that can biologically have children?



Also, what is to stop a future government under the above definitions to start taking away children or revoking marriages based on their expectations of the way children should be raised, if we were to define a marriage solely based on the output of children and the furthering of progeny.



If two people want to get "married" but do not want to have children, is that then permissable or allowable under a definition of marriage like the above? Also, there are studies of children that have been raised by gay and lesbian couples. There is enough "data" or "source material" out there. These children behave normally and as far as them being raised "gay", their statistics of identifying as gay or lesbian don't trend higher than the normal statistics, from what I have read.

You don't get to answer my question by asking other albeit related questions. The studies I'm referring to aren't that children raised by two gay people become gay, but it is as if the child is raised in a one parent home. Given that most gay claim they were born gay, gay parents should not affect whether a person will be gay or not, right? The studies I have seen then that concern me are of a different type. And to me we seem to rushing into this with very little understanding. Perhaps the prophets know of what they are warning us? I know there are single parents who do marvels. And I know that there are couples who do not want to have kids. I get that and I'm not trying to be some sanctimonious judgment type. But when we are experimenting with the only hope for keeping society together, the family, caution is the wise and governmentally sound decision in my book.

BlueIsBetter wrote:

hypercoug wrote:
It's not tyranny, it's equal treatment under the law.



Think Brown v. Board of Education.

Think Loving v. Virginia.



Bill O'Reilly says it well:

The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals...That's where the compelling argument is. We're Americans, we just want to be treated like everyone else. That's a compelling argument. And to deny that, you've got to have a compelling argument on the other side. And the other side hasn't been able to do anything but thump the bible."



And it's true. Sorry, but "My religion says it's a sin so it should be illegal for you to do that" simply goes nowhere in the courtroom.



This morning, one of my former mission companions got married to a guy he met while going to school in Provo. They have been together for 8 years, and I couldn't be happier for them.



I realize I am in the minority here, but as a cougar fan, and a utahn, and a mormon, I am thrilled at the events going on in Utah this week.



Merry Christmas to all!

Sorry but this is just lame. They have absolutely zero compelling argument. Remember our rights are God given not government given. God has never given homosexuals extra rights to marry each other. If you deny this fact then you must deny God and all rights.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Try telling that to people that don't believe in God. Or that believe in a different god than you.



"Allah" doesn't mind if you beat your wife, and sometimes recommends it. Does that mean that we should allow domestic abuse? Is it okay for them to domestically abuse their wives in countries where the majority believes in allah and this type of religion?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

This is a very strange statement. I am not sure what to make of it other than to suggest that you study American history. Allah had nothing to do with it.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Sorry, there is no excuse to advocate for changes to the laws to support an act that the Prophet and Apostles have advocated against in every general conference for several years.



If you are advocating for anything else, you're on the wrong side.

Sure there is an excuse. The prophets and apostles have consistantly advocated against pornography, alcohol, and smoking. It is not being on the "wrong side" to personally eschew those behaviors and encouraging friends and family to do likewise while recognizing that living in a democratic pluralistic society doesn't mandate working for societal bans

valleus wrote:

Sorry, there is no excuse to advocate for changes to the laws to support an act that the Prophet and Apostles have advocated against in every general conference for several years.



If you are advocating for anything else, you're on the wrong side.

Sure there is an excuse. The prophets and apostles have consistantly advocated against pornography, alcohol, and smoking. It is not being on the "wrong side" to personally eschew those behaviors and encouraging friends and family to do likewise while recognizing that living in a democratic pluralistic society doesn't mandate working for societal bans

Actually there are laws against those behaviors. Child pornography, no alcohol or tobacco prodcuts to minors for instance.

I'm not sure that everyone is understanding what I and a couple others are saying. President Monson has said, and it is official church doctrine that while we don't support same sex marriage, we support civil unions (which is essentially the same thing, though the partners don't get every protection that the federal law implies). If we are fighting over a word, I personally don't care whether or not they call it marriage or something else. Same sex marriages are happening all over the world and nation and pretty soon it Utah, and it isn't affecting my marriage one little bit. What I mostly care about is getting the government out of the business of picking winners and losers, and providing equal rights for the individual. I would hope that we would support the individual rights and freedoms of human beings regardless of religion, color, or sexual preference (again providing that these things are non-harming to others).



I am either for:



A) The changing of federal policy to unrecognize ALL marriages (straight or gay), because marriage is a private contract between two people and can be entered into with a contract lawyer. This provides the largest amount of freedom, and the least amount of government meddling and coercion/control.



or



B) Changing the federal definitions of a civil union to include all of the federal protections that a marriage entity provides (they are close currently for those states that have them, but it isn't all the way there).



Currently less than half of the states recognize civil unions or something equal. There are 1,138 rights afforded to marriage under federal law.

Tax Benefits



Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.

Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.



Estate Planning Benefits



Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.

Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.

Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.

Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.



Government Benefits



Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.

Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.

Receiving public assistance benefits.



Employment Benefits



Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.

Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.

Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.

Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.



Medical Benefits



Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.

Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.



Death Benefits



Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.

Making burial or other final arrangements.



Family Benefits



Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.

Applying for joint foster care rights.

Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.

Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorc e.



Housing Benefits



Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."

Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.



Consumer Benefits



Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.

Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.

Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.



Other Legal Benefits and Protections



Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).

Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).

Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.

Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.

Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.

Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.



http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is just a small portion of the things that people are being excluded from, all because they fall on the wrong side of the percentile, and are different.

SpiffCoug wrote:

Hawkwing wrote:
Sorry, there is no excuse to advocate for changes to the laws to support an act that the Prophet and Apostles have advocated against in every general conference for several years.



If you are advocating for anything else, you're on the wrong side.

Sure there is an excuse. The prophets and apostles have consistantly advocated against pornography, alcohol, and smoking. It is not being on the "wrong side" to personally eschew those behaviors and encouraging friends and family to do likewise while recognizing that living in a democratic pluralistic society doesn't mandate working for societal bans

Actually there are laws against those behaviors. Child pornography, no alcohol or tobacco prodcuts to minors for instance.

Because you are involving minors. You also can't get married until you are 18, even for a "straight marriage" (or 16 with parental signature). Valleus makes a good point. Joseph Smith when asked by V.P. Martin Van Buren of how he got such good obedience from the Saints said "You teach them correct principles and they govern themselves."

Totally agree that the government should just get the "heck" out of the marriage business.



2nd- I'm becoming more and more convinced that it is up to each individual family to teach their children what right and wrong is, because that line is constantly being blurred in today's world.



3rd. I'd like to see where all you "if you're against paying taxes, you shouldn't have a temple recommend" people sit on this. You guys OK with this law? Ready to protect and defend this one? Just wondering.