Mormon Church Working With LGBT Leade...

Mormon Church Working With LGBT Leaders on Utah Anti-Discrimination Bill

There are 136 comments on the EDGE story from Feb 11, 2013, titled Mormon Church Working With LGBT Leaders on Utah Anti-Discrimination Bill. In it, EDGE reports that:

Officials from the Mormon Church have apparently been working with Utah's LGBT community in order to create a bill that would protect gays from housing and employment discrimination in Utah, Salt Lake Tribune reports.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

Since: Apr 08

Cleveland, OH

#25 Apr 26, 2013
Sneaky Pete wrote:
Wtf is "LGBT"? Is that some stupid acronym for being queer? Political correctness can kiss my white ass.
What century are you living in? You might want to join the rest of us in the 21st century.

Here are some other newfangled words for you: television, computer, WiFi, and Internet.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#27 Apr 26, 2013
Gay And Proud wrote:
<quoted text>
What century are you living in? You might want to join the rest of us in the 21st century.
Here are some other newfangled words for you: television, computer, WiFi, and Internet.
Some more new words:

USA
America
Gun
Car
Truck
Semi-truck
Tire (as in the wheel)
Corn

Just off the top of my head.

“Come and get it! ”

Since: Jan 09

Traverse City

#28 Apr 26, 2013
Gay And Proud wrote:
<quoted text>
What century are you living in? You might want to join the rest of us in the 21st century.
Here are some other newfangled words for you: television, computer, WiFi, and Internet.
I reckon that I'm going to have to learn your acronyms when you libs start lobbying for farm animal marriage and sibling marriage too, eh?

Just because you and your ilk try to bully others with your sexual perversion agenda, doesn't mean that we have to accept it.

Since: Apr 08

Cleveland, OH

#29 Apr 26, 2013
Those tired old logic-free arguments didn't work back in the 1960s when they were trotted out to try and stop interracial marriages, and they're not working now either to stop same-sex marriages.

If you don't like it you can always move to a country where they base their law on homophobic "holy scripture." Try a middle eastern country for instance.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#30 Apr 26, 2013
Sneaky Pete wrote:
<quoted text>
I reckon that I'm going to have to learn your acronyms when you libs start lobbying for farm animal marriage and sibling marriage too, eh?
Just because you and your ilk try to bully others with your sexual perversion agenda, doesn't mean that we have to accept it.
Well, since homosexuality isn't a perversion, meh.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#31 Apr 26, 2013
Gay And Proud wrote:
Those tired old logic-free arguments didn't work back in the 1960s when they were trotted out to try and stop interracial marriages, and they're not working now either to stop same-sex marriages.
In the 60's the point of the argument against same sex marriage was other forms of marriage would later follow like homosexual marriages and animal marriages if interracial marriage was allowed.
In the 60's the pro interracial marriage crowd said that argument was extreme and those marriages would never happen and or be accepted by US societies.
Same sex marriage has been passed in 9 states. Care to admit which argument was correct from the 1960's hmm? Care to admit what was said as what would come to pass did come to pass?
And now you claim(as did the pro interracial crowd proclaimed)other forms of marriage won't happen later. Seems you lack evidence for your statement.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#32 Apr 26, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
In the 60's the point of the argument against same sex marriage was other forms of marriage would later follow like homosexual marriages and animal marriages if interracial marriage was allowed.
In the 60's the pro interracial marriage crowd said that argument was extreme and those marriages would never happen and or be accepted by US societies.
Same sex marriage has been passed in 9 states. Care to admit which argument was correct from the 1960's hmm? Care to admit what was said as what would come to pass did come to pass?
And now you claim(as did the pro interracial crowd proclaimed)other forms of marriage won't happen later. Seems you lack evidence for your statement.
Um, so we decided that all consenting adults should be allowed the right to legally enter into the secular contract instead of a specific subset. I fail to see what purpose your point here makes, thus far, none.

Since: Apr 08

Cleveland, OH

#33 Apr 26, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
And now you claim(as did the pro interracial crowd proclaimed)other forms of marriage won't happen later. Seems you lack evidence for your statement.
It's not surprising that you're also against interracial marriage which comes across loud and clear in your posts.

It's not surprising either that you don't understand the difference between marriages between consenting unrelated adults and marriages where one party is not capable of giving consent (marrying animals or children for instance.)

I personally don't like marriages between closely related individuals but then there are lots of states that already permit first-cousin marriages. In fact, there are more states that allow first-cousin marriages than there are states that have legal same-sex marriage. That has been the case since well before even interracial marriages were legalized.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#34 Apr 26, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, so we decided that all consenting adults should be allowed the right to legally enter into the secular contract instead of a specific subset. I fail to see what purpose your point here makes, thus far, none.
You apparently didn't read the post I responded to so here it is...

Gay And Proud

Since: Apr 08
2,165
Chagrin Falls, OH
#294

Those tired old logic-free arguments didn't work back in the 1960s when they were trotted out to try and stop interracial marriages, and they're not working now either to stop same-sex marriages.

If you don't like it you can always move to a country where they base their law on homophobic "holy scripture." Try a middle eastern country for instance.

This is the statement made that I responded to...
"Those tired old logic-free arguments didn't work back in the 1960s when they were trotted out to try and stop interracial marriages, and they're not working now either to stop same-sex marriages."
...in the 1960s when interracial marriage was being debated among people, it was the anti-interracial side belief that if interracial marriage was equated with opposite sex marriage, other stranger forms of marriage would come forth wanting to also be equated with opposite sex marriage like same sex marriage and marriage to animals and kids and whatever.
The pro-interracial marriage side called them crazy and nuts and off base etc that the other strange forms of marriage would never be equated.
Well same sex marriage has taken place in nine states. The pro-crowd of the 60s was wrong. other forms would come forth to find equal footing. The first being Same sex marriage. So the pro-interracial crowd was wrong and the anti-interracial crowd was correct. That makes the poster wrong when they delusionally think their correct. What the anti-interracial crowd claimed would happen did in fact happen.
The poster now claims that the cases of polygamy and animal marriage and such will never come forth to the courts to have equality in marriage also.
Well his kind was wrong in the 60s and he will be proved wrong in the future.
The next form of marriage to fight for it's place will be polygamy. The US government no longer has any religious or legal reason to deny two or more people the right to be happy in marriage than a same sex couple or an opposite sex couple or an interracial couple.
That was my point.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#35 Apr 26, 2013
Gay And Proud wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not surprising that you're also against interracial marriage which comes across loud and clear in your posts.
It's not surprising either that you don't understand the difference between marriages between consenting unrelated adults and marriages where one party is not capable of giving consent (marrying animals or children for instance.)
I personally don't like marriages between closely related individuals but then there are lots of states that already permit first-cousin marriages. In fact, there are more states that allow first-cousin marriages than there are states that have legal same-sex marriage. That has been the case since well before even interracial marriages were legalized.
You begin this post with a lie for what reason? For what purpose? I never said I was against interracial marriage or any form of marriage. I said nothing of that regard.
You made an erroneous statement and you were wrong. You said..."Those tired old logic-free arguments didn't work back in the 1960s when they were trotted out to try and stop interracial marriages,"
The argument in the 60's by the anti-interracial crowd was that if interracial marriage was legalized, than polygamists would be back to fight for their cause and homosexuals would fight for their cause and people wanting to marry animals and such would want to fight for their cause.
People like you in the 60s supporting interracial marriage told the anti crowd they were delusional, loonies, extreme and grabbing for air that wasn't there to breath.
But those people like you in the 60's were wrong and the anti crowd's fears were correct. Since interracial marriages were legalized, homosexual marriages have came forth to find equality with opposite sex marriage and interracial marriage.
Polygamy was denied on religious and legal grounds.
Polygamy today could not be denied on the same religious and legal grounds as used 100 years ago.
Polygamists will come forth in their time when same sex marriage has found federal legal footing in all fifty states. It will take place and it will happen.
Even today their is no legal reason to deny two or more adults the right to a polygamist marriage.
pearl

Salt Lake City, UT

#36 Apr 27, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
In the 60's the point of the argument against same sex marriage was other forms of marriage would later follow like homosexual marriages and animal marriages if interracial marriage was allowed.
In the 60's the pro interracial marriage crowd said that argument was extreme and those marriages would never happen and or be accepted by US societies.
Same sex marriage has been passed in 9 states. Care to admit which argument was correct from the 1960's hmm? Care to admit what was said as what would come to pass did come to pass?
And now you claim(as did the pro interracial crowd proclaimed)other forms of marriage won't happen later. Seems you lack evidence for your statement.
"Care to admit which argument was correct from the 1960's hmm?" Yes, the argument that was correct, was the one that claimed interracial marriages should be allowed to exist. Are you claiming that because interracial marriage exists, that some farmer is going to be able to marry his cow?
Beauty Queen

London, UK

#37 Apr 27, 2013
Sneaky Pete wrote:
<quoted text>
we have to accept it.
Internet troll ...

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#38 Apr 27, 2013
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>"Care to admit which argument was correct from the 1960's hmm?" Yes, the argument that was correct, was the one that claimed interracial marriages should be allowed to exist. Are you claiming that because interracial marriage exists, that some farmer is going to be able to marry his cow?
Wrong. That is not what the other poster implied. Twist it all you want and be wrong or address the statement of that poster.
The poster stated the anti-interracial crowd of the 60's were wrong in claiming if interracial marriage was allowed to be equated with opposite sex marriage, other forms of marriages would soon be hitting the courts for their day to be heard also. The pro-interracial crowd called that thinking by the anti-interracial crowd extreme and sheer lunacy.
Well one of those 'other forms' has came forth and has found equality in nine states. The prediction of the anti-interracial crowd came true. Not tough to accept, really.
And No. I am not claiming that because interracial marriage exists, that some farmer is going to be able to marry his cow? I am stating as additional types of marriage broaden the definition of marriage, anything becomes possible, that is what is happening.
And consider this about human-animal relationships. This site declares it's just for fun. But the fact it even exists say's something about the pet lovers that use it...just saying...
http://www.marryyourpet.com/
And also take into consideration that at the other end of marriage that happens between humans called wills/trusts, they're now being used for the dearly beloved animals in an owners life.
Fifty years ago a will/trust for an animal was an absurdity and you were defined mental if you left an animal and not humans a trust.
Ten years ago a 'pretend' animal-human marriage web site was an absurdity.
Times are obviously changing :)

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#39 Apr 27, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. That is not what the other poster implied. Twist it all you want and be wrong or address the statement of that poster.
The poster stated the anti-interracial crowd of the 60's were wrong in claiming if interracial marriage was allowed to be equated with opposite sex marriage, other forms of marriages would soon be hitting the courts for their day to be heard also. The pro-interracial crowd called that thinking by the anti-interracial crowd extreme and sheer lunacy.
Well one of those 'other forms' has came forth and has found equality in nine states. The prediction of the anti-interracial crowd came true. Not tough to accept, really.
And No. I am not claiming that because interracial marriage exists, that some farmer is going to be able to marry his cow? I am stating as additional types of marriage broaden the definition of marriage, anything becomes possible, that is what is happening.
And consider this about human-animal relationships. This site declares it's just for fun. But the fact it even exists say's something about the pet lovers that use it...just saying...
http://www.marryyourpet.com/
And also take into consideration that at the other end of marriage that happens between humans called wills/trusts, they're now being used for the dearly beloved animals in an owners life.
Fifty years ago a will/trust for an animal was an absurdity and you were defined mental if you left an animal and not humans a trust.
Ten years ago a 'pretend' animal-human marriage web site was an absurdity.
Times are obviously changing :)
So you're a conspiracy nut.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#40 Apr 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're a conspiracy nut.
If considering actual evidence is being a conspiracy nut, yeah I suppose by your logic.
The base of the conspiracy theory began in the early 60s.
Most people were against interracial marriages.
Those who weren't tried to convince those that were that nothing evil or diabolical would happen if interracial marriages were allowed. They tried to show that allowing interracial marriage wouldn't change opposite sex marriage.
Those against interracial marriage made the same premise that is being made today. If the definition of marriage is expanded to allow in other forms of relations for marriage, everyone will want a piece of the pie sooner or later.
On that point they were correct. It did in fact happen. That's no conspiracy.
The definition of marriage isn't being changed. It was changed in 1967 when interracial marriages were legalize.
A different form of marriage is now being added to who can legally be married in the US. It's called same sex marriage.
It was a tradition that marriage was between opposite sex couples of the same colour/race for a long long time.
Then it changed too became a tradition that marriage was between an opposite sex couple.
Now legally in 9 states marriage is no longer legally defined by race, gender or colour.
That widening/undefining of the law of what marriage isn't any more has left a new door open for anyone to approach and challenge the law of marriage.
That is no conspiracy.
In 9 states marriage has lost it's limited definition.
That fact is no conspiracy.

“Come and get it! ”

Since: Jan 09

Traverse City

#41 Apr 28, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, since homosexuality isn't a perversion, meh.
Yes it is. Look it up, meh.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#42 Apr 29, 2013
Sneaky Pete wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it is. Look it up, meh.
So then pretty much all of nature is perverse. See, science has this thing about not listening to the common opinion on, pretty much everything really, instead it deals in facts, something you don't know much about.

Since: Apr 08

Cleveland, OH

#43 Apr 29, 2013
Sneaky Pete wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it is. Look it up, meh.
Look it up? Where? On an anti-gay hate site? In a dictionary published in 1954?

The American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association, who are the official mental health authorities in the US (and accepted in many other countries around the world) determined back in the 1970s that homosexuality was not a mental disorder.

“Come and get it! ”

Since: Jan 09

Traverse City

#44 Apr 29, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
So then pretty much all of nature is perverse.
No, pretty much all of nature is normal. This sexual perversion called homosexuality is pretty much limited to a handful of outspoken human beings. The medical dictionary describes a sexual perversion as being something unusual within a culture, and dudes liking other dudes fits the bill.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#45 Apr 29, 2013
Sneaky Pete wrote:
<quoted text>
No, pretty much all of nature is normal. This sexual perversion called homosexuality is pretty much limited to a handful of outspoken human beings. The medical dictionary describes a sexual perversion as being something unusual within a culture, and dudes liking other dudes fits the bill.
You are about as educated as a two year old, if you really believe what you just posted.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Almost one year since gay marriage ruling, LGBT... 16 hr Pietro Armando 46
News Kerryann Taylor Weds Matthew French (Mar '13) Wed Honest truth 4
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) Wed Tre H 4,336
News The Latest: Trump says canceling Chicago rally ... Tue Anonymous 1,729
News Nicole Kidman's priest says actress hopes one d... Jun 28 Anne Russell 1
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) Jun 28 Levy Hater 31,925
News Bollywood in Taipei Jun 28 TW_sugar_daddio 6
More from around the web