After some consideration, we’ve opted to let the above comment pass despite the absurd claim that sexual orientation — or “sexual preference” as the commenter above puts it — is a “choice.”

We figured it’d put the commenter’s other remarks in context.

Please note that no more such comments will be approved.

On the one hand, they claim that 10% of the population are homosexual, and they seek “protected” status of this “persecuted” minority on the basis that “sexual preference” is as immutable as race. But it is not. Sexual behavior is a choice! If we are to follow this reasoning, adulterers and fornicators should also be given “protected” status. After all, they can’t help their actions, either, can they?

On the other hand, they then turn around and persecute members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who comprise less than 2% of the population.

But consider the following inconvenient facts:

Fact: The pro-gay marriage (no on 8) group raised $44,103,525, with $13,254,350 coming from out of state.
Fact: The pro-traditional marriage (yes on 8) group raised $37,766,260, with $11,224,394 coming from out of state.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-moneymap,0,2198220.htmlstory

The facts are indisputable: the pro-gay marriage group raised 17% more than their opponents and raised 18% more out of state than their opponents.

Whence, then, the persecution complex? Whence then all the talk about nefarious “outside” money used to pass Proposition 8? Is it really just confusion, or is it something more sinister?

Fact: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contributed $189,903.58. to the “yes on 8” campaign – less than one-half of one percent of the total raised.
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/church-clarifies-proposition-8-filing-corrects-erroneous-news-reports

Any other so-called “Mormon money” came from individual citizens who happened to be Latter-day Saints, who donated directly to the campaign. Most of them are residents of California. They were exercising their Constitutional right of political free speech. Did the Church encourage their individual donations? Of course! Is such advocacy by a church for a cause that it clearly sees as a moral issue illegal? Heaven forbid!

Because of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the law does not (yet!) require that individuals who donate to political causes disclose their religion. If indeed a sizable fraction of the money raised by “yes on 8” came from individual Mormons, it became known only because the homosexual lobby violated the privacy rights of thousands of individual donors to find out their religious affiliation and to “out” them as “Mormons.” This activity resulted in numerous acts of discrimination, boycotts, and even loss of employment by Latter-day Saints because they had dared to exercise their right of political free speech. Just this week a long-time member of the board of the Paramount Theater in Ogden was disqualified for re-appointment because he dared to donate to the “wrong” side of Proposition 8.

You won’t find these facts in the film, because the film makers belong to yet another immutable persecuted minority, which must also be given protected status – the tiny minority known as ex-Mormons!

Tracy Hall Jr
Provo Canyon, Utah

huh???

“all weaknesses can be overcome”

I hope that includes the incapacity to question religious tenets and the need that everybody else should conform to one’s religious views.

quote
all weaknesses can be overcome
end quote

sincerley thinking of you.

Leonard