Reader comments
My view: Gay marriage is essential to equal civil rights for all
38 comments | Read story
Here we go again | 1:53 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
"Gay marriage will not have a negative impact on LDS families. It will not
suddenly make heterosexuals become gay."
- ANOTHER condescending, self-righteous leftie who seems to know the thoughts and motives of everyone he or she disagrees with.
I love these people who NEVER bother to ask an opponent what their true concerns are. Rather, they just shove words in their mouth, then point a bitter finger of ridicule.
"Gay marriage is not an attempt to undermine families. It's only purpose is to grant equal civil rights to all."
- Oh I see. So attempts to undermine free speech and freedom of religion is simply a way of granting civil rights for ALL? And save your "We aren't trying to force our lifestyle on anyone" CRAP, cause we've already heard the lies.
Gay rights groups in other countries, such as Canada, Sweden and Denmark, have SUCCESSFULLY lobbied to make any negative speech aimed at gays and lesbians, EVEN when it comes from the CHURCH, a "hate speech" crime, punishable by fines and imprisonment.
Go ahead and keeping spinning this into some "civil rights" issue, but the true motives of the gay rights movement WILL BE EXPOSED.
- ANOTHER condescending, self-righteous leftie who seems to know the thoughts and motives of everyone he or she disagrees with.
I love these people who NEVER bother to ask an opponent what their true concerns are. Rather, they just shove words in their mouth, then point a bitter finger of ridicule.
"Gay marriage is not an attempt to undermine families. It's only purpose is to grant equal civil rights to all."
- Oh I see. So attempts to undermine free speech and freedom of religion is simply a way of granting civil rights for ALL? And save your "We aren't trying to force our lifestyle on anyone" CRAP, cause we've already heard the lies.
Gay rights groups in other countries, such as Canada, Sweden and Denmark, have SUCCESSFULLY lobbied to make any negative speech aimed at gays and lesbians, EVEN when it comes from the CHURCH, a "hate speech" crime, punishable by fines and imprisonment.
Go ahead and keeping spinning this into some "civil rights" issue, but the true motives of the gay rights movement WILL BE EXPOSED.
Thank You. | 2:01 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
I found your appeal extremely well written and respectful of the LDS culture. I
know that you will receive much backlash on the comments. I hope the LDS
writers will be more Christlike in their comments. I oppose gay marriage, but I
do not oppose other rights given to gay couples. I believe that the institution
of marriage should be limited to heterosexual couples. That doesn't mean
that I believe all heterosexual couples are perfect. Look at the divorce rate.
I think you should be able to file joint income tax for example. I see the
financial rights and marriage rights as two different topics. Of course you
should be able to visit in a hospital. Some hospitals allow it. Some
don't. I would vote for other rights for gay couples that would allow the
same financial benefits as married couples. I would oppose the definition of
marriage changing. Thank you for your bravery in opening yourself up for
comments. I hope I don't see any hateful ones on this post for or against
gay marriage.
Comments continue below
Two Questions | 2:08 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
Two questions in regards to this column.
1. What scientist, theologian or politician ever said that heterosexuals would turn gay if same-sex marriage became legal?
ANSWER - NONE! This straw man point has been made up by gay supporters as a smoke screen to hide behind their true reasons for legalizing same-sex marriage. Oh, and constantly screaming "HOMOPHOBIC" to anyone who disagrees with them works the same way.
2. Why was nothing mentioned in this letter about the numerous individuals in countries like Canada, who face possible jail time for simply expression and opposing opinion about the gay lifestyle?
ANSWER - Because it's only a matter of time before the emperor's new clothes will be revealed.
I invite everyone to Google the name Stephen Boisson sometime. It's only a matter of time before what happened to him will happen to anyone in the U.S. who dares to oppose the gay rights movement.
All these years, all this talk about "hate crimes" and "fairness doctrine" and "equality" is nothing but a way of controlling speech and thought.
If you think I'm just being paranoid, WAIT AND SEE!
1. What scientist, theologian or politician ever said that heterosexuals would turn gay if same-sex marriage became legal?
ANSWER - NONE! This straw man point has been made up by gay supporters as a smoke screen to hide behind their true reasons for legalizing same-sex marriage. Oh, and constantly screaming "HOMOPHOBIC" to anyone who disagrees with them works the same way.
2. Why was nothing mentioned in this letter about the numerous individuals in countries like Canada, who face possible jail time for simply expression and opposing opinion about the gay lifestyle?
ANSWER - Because it's only a matter of time before the emperor's new clothes will be revealed.
I invite everyone to Google the name Stephen Boisson sometime. It's only a matter of time before what happened to him will happen to anyone in the U.S. who dares to oppose the gay rights movement.
All these years, all this talk about "hate crimes" and "fairness doctrine" and "equality" is nothing but a way of controlling speech and thought.
If you think I'm just being paranoid, WAIT AND SEE!
You did what?! | 5:26 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
You ABANDONED your three CHILDREN (two natural and a step child)!?!? I LOVE my
partner but wouldn't dream of letting go of my number one priority as a
FATHER to my children.
Wow. | 7:10 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
Your even, calm, and respectful letter has touched quite a nerve it seems. I
have never seen such venomous responses from any pro-gay letter to Deseret News
or SL Trib.
Both the writer and the people who've responded thus far want the same thing (I assume). And that was enough to churn up a firestorm of negativity from the anti-gay marriage side.
Both the writer and the people who've responded thus far want the same thing (I assume). And that was enough to churn up a firestorm of negativity from the anti-gay marriage side.
To Wow: | 8:01 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
What? You think these first five responses are the most venomous you have seen?
Are you upset because the responses aren't pro gay marriage? This
wasn't a letter from someone just expressing his opinion; it was a
political appeal. I hardly call these responses a firestorm.
Equality | 8:16 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
The DN only printed the letter because it wants the knee-jerk reaction this type
of letter will generate, a bunch of hate from a bunch of self rightous so called
Christians.
There should be no special rights to those that can reproduce- government shouldn't discriminate. Benefits should be given to partners of the same sex, or taken away from everyone!
There should be no special rights to those that can reproduce- government shouldn't discriminate. Benefits should be given to partners of the same sex, or taken away from everyone!
Sorry Charlie | 8:19 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
That you admit you forsook your own family to pursue a relationship demonstrates
a clear difference between an actual marriage and any other pairing. The
current push to redefine marriage to suit the whims of a tiny minority is
selfishness writ large.
Why so afraid? | 8:52 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
Here it comes again, more comments from people who seem to be utterly terrified
of gay people. And again, more people who fear that giving their gay neighbors
equal CIVIL protections will suddenly make their "hate speech"
illegal. "I don't want you to have equal rights because then I
won't be able to call you ugly names." Wow, great argument.
JenM | 8:50 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
I still haven't heard a good reason to deny homosexuals a civil marriage.
The fear that people won't be able to speak negatively about gays
doesn't seem valid to me. For starters, unless the speech is threatening,
I highly doubt it will be denied. Secondly, you are free to teach your children
in your home what your values are. I cannot understand why people are making
such a big deal about a group of people who simply want to make a formal
commitment to each other and to be protected like other couples are. I think it
is sad when there are so many problems in our country and the world right now
that we should be focusing on.
Kevin | 9:14 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
It's so clear from reading these comments that there are strong forces at
work against freedom. The hard part about freedom is that you can't
enforce your will against people. Some people confuse that with not being
free.
Our Constitution prevents dictatorships, dictatorships of an individual, and dictatorships of a majority. It's the second kind a lot of people don't recognize. They don't recognize it because they think we are a pure democracy. We're a liberal democracy, one that guarantees equal civil rights, not just what the majority dictates.
Rant all you want. It's your right. But ultimately, things like homosexual marriage will work themselves out, one state at a time. That's the way it should work itself out. That's our system of governance by design.
Unfortunately for the letter writer, results don't come in realtime. But it's better overall for these things to work out slowly.
Our Constitution prevents dictatorships, dictatorships of an individual, and dictatorships of a majority. It's the second kind a lot of people don't recognize. They don't recognize it because they think we are a pure democracy. We're a liberal democracy, one that guarantees equal civil rights, not just what the majority dictates.
Rant all you want. It's your right. But ultimately, things like homosexual marriage will work themselves out, one state at a time. That's the way it should work itself out. That's our system of governance by design.
Unfortunately for the letter writer, results don't come in realtime. But it's better overall for these things to work out slowly.
To Wilkey & others | 9:31 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
Just exactly how far do you think "trying to convince people
democratically" would've gone? Do you realize how many times
hate-crime legislation has failed in this state simply because it included
sexual orientation? Tell me something - who were the kids most likely to get
picked on in your school? How many were targeted because of their religion,
gender or disability - all of which are covered in hate crimes legisltion. And
how about those perceived as geing gay? - I'd bet every single one. Gay
people are targeted from the get-go and it may fade a bit, but NEVER goes away -
we are constantly aware of it. So if a State won't extend hate crimes
protection to a group who is undeniably targeted because of who they are (for
gay men and women Utah legislators considered it a "special
right")then please don't expect us to believe "convincing someone
democratically" will ever work - believe me we've tried.
Enough of this bickering! | 9:48 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
Instead of warring over gay marriage and getting nowhere, let's do something we can all agree on:
simplify the tax system so that nobody receives special perks and everyone pays a uniform fair share. TAKE MARRIAGE OUT OF POLITICS AND VICE VERSA!
Make marriage a personal matter between consenting parties, regardless of relationship configuration.
Does anyone agree, or are we all content to stay at each others' throats and sling mud? If the same amount of energy had been put into the tax crusade as has been put forth by the opposing camps in the gay marriage war, we'd have abolished the IRS by now.
We obsess over other people's personal lives and ignore the lunacy that governs us all. The only difference between us and so-called "less civilised countries split by warring parties" is that we rarely shed blood over this kind of stuff, we just waste a lot of ink and oxygen. It's time to grow up and work on fixing things for EVERYONE. That isn't good advice exclusively for the Middle East, folks.
Instead of warring over gay marriage and getting nowhere, let's do something we can all agree on:
simplify the tax system so that nobody receives special perks and everyone pays a uniform fair share. TAKE MARRIAGE OUT OF POLITICS AND VICE VERSA!
Make marriage a personal matter between consenting parties, regardless of relationship configuration.
Does anyone agree, or are we all content to stay at each others' throats and sling mud? If the same amount of energy had been put into the tax crusade as has been put forth by the opposing camps in the gay marriage war, we'd have abolished the IRS by now.
We obsess over other people's personal lives and ignore the lunacy that governs us all. The only difference between us and so-called "less civilised countries split by warring parties" is that we rarely shed blood over this kind of stuff, we just waste a lot of ink and oxygen. It's time to grow up and work on fixing things for EVERYONE. That isn't good advice exclusively for the Middle East, folks.
CB | 10:00 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
Perhaps you have failed in your credits to the LDS faith to realize that to
them, marriage is ordained of God and your homosexual behavior is not. Come to
the church believing and practicing the standards and laws of morality expected
of all members and you will be welcomed, if not by all bias members (for they
are not perfected) but by the Lord. It the Lord to whom you must plead your
cause, not the church which strives to uphold the standards and laws He has set.
Fairness will prevail | 10:12 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
Gay people will eventually be accepted as full-fledged card-carrying members of
society. Increasingly people are being introduced to REAL gay people - people
who are healthy, happy and make many positive contributions to their community.
We no longer have to rely on ugly old stereotypes to tell us who and what gay
people are. As people begin to realize that there is no need to be afraid or
feel threatened their attitudes change - you can already see it in the youth
today. Even deep-rooted religious-based attitudes can evolve as evidenced by
the acceptance of Blacks into the Priesthood. There is no doubt a bumpy road
ahead - but in the end what's fair for ALL will win out.
Karl | 11:01 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
God has nothing to do with getting a marriage license.
If you want to keep gays from marriage inside the Temple, that's fine.
Using 12th century logic inside your house is fine.
Go ahead and use it in your churchs also.
Nobody cares.
Try to trample on the "God" given rights to all American citizens and use out-dated religious text to change laws, and you will never win.
If you want to keep gays from marriage inside the Temple, that's fine.
Using 12th century logic inside your house is fine.
Go ahead and use it in your churchs also.
Nobody cares.
Try to trample on the "God" given rights to all American citizens and use out-dated religious text to change laws, and you will never win.
re: "YOU DID WHAT?" | 11:56 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
Apparently you didn't catch the part where he mentioned his grandchild -
indicating his children are most likely fully grown adults. Just how old does a
child have to be before mommy and daddy can pursue their own happiness? Or
should parents just be expected to put the rest of their lives on hold. I know I
wouldn't want my parents to do that - I want them to lead happy fulfilling
lives of their own.
Gus Talwynd | 12:03 p.m. Aug. 10, 2008
This issue figures so prominantly in Utah because it is the best way to rally
the troops and keep them from seeing much more important issues before them. It
is a wedge issue to divide people which has seen its day.
It is heartening to read that more people are begining to see the non-issue of gay marriage for what it really is in their lives: irrelevant. People come up with all sorts of ludicrous reasons to remain opposed to granting full equality to gay people from the erroneous "they can't have children" to absurdities that "God forbids it."
And the idea that giving gay people society's acknowledgement in their relationships somehow unleashing a Gay Agenda to turn everyone gay is the silliest thing printed in this forum since the drive to legitimize creationism in the form of "intelligent design".
Only in the Deseret News do you find these issues being kept alive with week after week of people writing how opposed they are to these non-issues and giving the same tired refrain of worn-out talking points that have long since been discarded by many others.
The religious argument is the weakest of all, yet it will fall eventually.
It is heartening to read that more people are begining to see the non-issue of gay marriage for what it really is in their lives: irrelevant. People come up with all sorts of ludicrous reasons to remain opposed to granting full equality to gay people from the erroneous "they can't have children" to absurdities that "God forbids it."
And the idea that giving gay people society's acknowledgement in their relationships somehow unleashing a Gay Agenda to turn everyone gay is the silliest thing printed in this forum since the drive to legitimize creationism in the form of "intelligent design".
Only in the Deseret News do you find these issues being kept alive with week after week of people writing how opposed they are to these non-issues and giving the same tired refrain of worn-out talking points that have long since been discarded by many others.
The religious argument is the weakest of all, yet it will fall eventually.
Mike Richards | 2:14 p.m. Aug. 10, 2008
@12:03,
The religious argument is the strongest argument of all.
In a godless world, nothing matters. Might makes right. Loud voices triumph over reason. Clever advertising and packaging hide sub-standard goods foisted on the public.
Only religion gives a valid reason for conduct. That is not surprising when the author of good and honorable conduct is considered.
The idea that any group of people, anywhere in the world, for any reason, would announce that their viewpoint is all that matters and that anyone who disagrees had better learn to like it, is prone to fail. There is no group on this entire earth who has the ability to determine, with their own little finite abilities, what is right and what is wrong. Sure they can look at the obvious, but only an infinite mind that understands all law, not just the laws recognized by mankind, can determine whether one course of action will lead to happiness or whether that course of action will lead to destruction.
That infinite mind has already spoken on the subject of homosexual activity. His voice is being shouted down by the homosexual activists. His is the only voice that matters.
The religious argument is the strongest argument of all.
In a godless world, nothing matters. Might makes right. Loud voices triumph over reason. Clever advertising and packaging hide sub-standard goods foisted on the public.
Only religion gives a valid reason for conduct. That is not surprising when the author of good and honorable conduct is considered.
The idea that any group of people, anywhere in the world, for any reason, would announce that their viewpoint is all that matters and that anyone who disagrees had better learn to like it, is prone to fail. There is no group on this entire earth who has the ability to determine, with their own little finite abilities, what is right and what is wrong. Sure they can look at the obvious, but only an infinite mind that understands all law, not just the laws recognized by mankind, can determine whether one course of action will lead to happiness or whether that course of action will lead to destruction.
That infinite mind has already spoken on the subject of homosexual activity. His voice is being shouted down by the homosexual activists. His is the only voice that matters.
RE: Mike Richards | 2:22 p.m. Aug. 10, 2008
Mike, we do not live in a Theocracy. We live in a country that was based on
religous freedom - freedom to accept it or freedom to deny it. Your God may
have the final word for you, but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to
accept it.
Mike Richards | 2:57 p.m. Aug. 10, 2008
@ 2:22,
What is religious freedom? Freedom FROM religion or freedom OF religion?
For that matter, what is religion? Is it a belief in a set of rules that some claim comes from a god, or is it adherence to eternal and absolute law? If religion is based on absolute and eternal law, then to say that one has freedom to deny religion means that one loses freedom when he limits the scope of absolute law he accepts.
Only those who follow absolute and eternal laws have the continued agency to make choices. Everyone else, who limits themselves to a small subset of absolute and eternal law, automatically limit their possible choices.
What does this have to do with a tread based on homosexual "marriage", only this: Until we truly understand all factors (laws) that influence happiness, we cannot arbitrarily restrict any factor (law) that is required for happiness, just because we may see it as a religious factor (law) or a factor (law) with which we do not agree.
We need to judge religion by the author of religion, not by the messenger who carries the author's books.
Natural and absolute law govern all of us, including homosexuals.
What is religious freedom? Freedom FROM religion or freedom OF religion?
For that matter, what is religion? Is it a belief in a set of rules that some claim comes from a god, or is it adherence to eternal and absolute law? If religion is based on absolute and eternal law, then to say that one has freedom to deny religion means that one loses freedom when he limits the scope of absolute law he accepts.
Only those who follow absolute and eternal laws have the continued agency to make choices. Everyone else, who limits themselves to a small subset of absolute and eternal law, automatically limit their possible choices.
What does this have to do with a tread based on homosexual "marriage", only this: Until we truly understand all factors (laws) that influence happiness, we cannot arbitrarily restrict any factor (law) that is required for happiness, just because we may see it as a religious factor (law) or a factor (law) with which we do not agree.
We need to judge religion by the author of religion, not by the messenger who carries the author's books.
Natural and absolute law govern all of us, including homosexuals.
Mike Mansfield | 3:26 p.m. Aug. 10, 2008
First, I know that the "civil rights" spoken of by the author are
available under the law, whether by incorporation, written document or other
legal manipulation.
The civil purpose behind recognizing marriage is for the promulgation of the species and the teaching the "values of strong character, dedication" and a strong moral belief system, thereby insuring that there is a civil anything. Extending this civil acknowledgment to s does not meet this central purpose.
To say that the Church is "wrong" for advocating a constitutional amendment in California is to make a moral judgment concerning an organization who is in the "moral" field. Either the Church speaks with authority or it doesn't. If it does, maybe it should be listened to.
Society does not gain from treating unions the same as traditional marriage. Individuals who try to make those who oppose marriage feel politically self-conscious should continue to reap the results of their choice to live the way they do. ("choices," otherwise those who live this chosen lifestyle would need to blame it on God that they live in a relationship and would be required to acknowledge that God might have an opinion on the matter).
The civil purpose behind recognizing marriage is for the promulgation of the species and the teaching the "values of strong character, dedication" and a strong moral belief system, thereby insuring that there is a civil anything. Extending this civil acknowledgment to s does not meet this central purpose.
To say that the Church is "wrong" for advocating a constitutional amendment in California is to make a moral judgment concerning an organization who is in the "moral" field. Either the Church speaks with authority or it doesn't. If it does, maybe it should be listened to.
Society does not gain from treating unions the same as traditional marriage. Individuals who try to make those who oppose marriage feel politically self-conscious should continue to reap the results of their choice to live the way they do. ("choices," otherwise those who live this chosen lifestyle would need to blame it on God that they live in a relationship and would be required to acknowledge that God might have an opinion on the matter).
Sid143 | 6:17 p.m. Aug. 10, 2008
God Hates shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, mussels; All these foods are an
abomination before the Lord. The bible says so!
Leviticus 11: 9-10 (King James Version)
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
I am calling all Christians to meet for a protest at Red Lobster every Friday (fish day) at noon. We must rid our community of these sinners who go against nature and God's will. It is clear, He Has Spoken! Don't believe me? Look what happened to the shrimp gumbo capital of the world a few years ago - New Orleans. We called it Katrina. What city will feel His wrath next?
Leviticus 11: 9-10 (King James Version)
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
I am calling all Christians to meet for a protest at Red Lobster every Friday (fish day) at noon. We must rid our community of these sinners who go against nature and God's will. It is clear, He Has Spoken! Don't believe me? Look what happened to the shrimp gumbo capital of the world a few years ago - New Orleans. We called it Katrina. What city will feel His wrath next?
You can marry - gay or straight | 6:18 p.m. Aug. 10, 2008
Here we go again,
"I love these people who NEVER bother to ask an opponent what their true concerns are. Rather, they just shove words in their mouth, then point a bitter finger of ridicule."
They have to build a straw man argument to tear down because they have no serious argument so it becomes necessary to mock the opinions of others.
"Oh I see. So attempts to undermine free speech and freedom of religion is simply a way of granting civil rights for ALL? And save your "We aren't trying to force our lifestyle on anyone" CRAP, cause we've already heard the lies."
That's exactly what they are trying to do.
"Go ahead and keeping spinning this into some "civil rights" issue, but the true motives of the gay rights movement WILL BE EXPOSED."
It has noting to do with civil rights since marriage isn't a right. It's a social institution created by the majority to promote a certain lifestyle just like Democracy is a social institution created by the majority to promote a certain lifestyle. Both are frameworks in which we work and its unfair to arbitrarily deny others civil rights but this isn't arbitrary.
"I love these people who NEVER bother to ask an opponent what their true concerns are. Rather, they just shove words in their mouth, then point a bitter finger of ridicule."
They have to build a straw man argument to tear down because they have no serious argument so it becomes necessary to mock the opinions of others.
"Oh I see. So attempts to undermine free speech and freedom of religion is simply a way of granting civil rights for ALL? And save your "We aren't trying to force our lifestyle on anyone" CRAP, cause we've already heard the lies."
That's exactly what they are trying to do.
"Go ahead and keeping spinning this into some "civil rights" issue, but the true motives of the gay rights movement WILL BE EXPOSED."
It has noting to do with civil rights since marriage isn't a right. It's a social institution created by the majority to promote a certain lifestyle just like Democracy is a social institution created by the majority to promote a certain lifestyle. Both are frameworks in which we work and its unfair to arbitrarily deny others civil rights but this isn't arbitrary.
If Canada then our 1st amendment | 6:28 p.m. Aug. 10, 2008
Two Questions,
"1. What scientist, theologian or politician ever said that heterosexuals would turn gay if same-sex marriage became legal?"
No one is worried that heterosexuals will turn gay if same-sex marriage becomes legal. That's contrary to reason.
"2. Why was nothing mentioned in this letter about the numerous individuals in countries like Canada, who face possible jail time for simply expression and opposing opinion about the gay lifestyle?"
Sweden and Canada where religious leaders can face jail time for condemning homosexuality have stronger freedom of speech, press and assembly provisions then the U.S. so we can expect something similar to happen here.
"All these years, all this talk about "hate crimes" and "fairness doctrine" and "equality" is nothing but a way of controlling speech and thought."
They don't care about freedom, equality or civil rights or they wouldn't seek to violate the most important civil right of all which is the right of the majority to enact POSITIVE law promoting certain things so long as they don't enact NEGATIVE laws preventing another from acting according to their
own consciences.
"If you think I'm just being paranoid, WAIT AND SEE!"
I don't since Canada's free speech provisions are stronger.
"1. What scientist, theologian or politician ever said that heterosexuals would turn gay if same-sex marriage became legal?"
No one is worried that heterosexuals will turn gay if same-sex marriage becomes legal. That's contrary to reason.
"2. Why was nothing mentioned in this letter about the numerous individuals in countries like Canada, who face possible jail time for simply expression and opposing opinion about the gay lifestyle?"
Sweden and Canada where religious leaders can face jail time for condemning homosexuality have stronger freedom of speech, press and assembly provisions then the U.S. so we can expect something similar to happen here.
"All these years, all this talk about "hate crimes" and "fairness doctrine" and "equality" is nothing but a way of controlling speech and thought."
They don't care about freedom, equality or civil rights or they wouldn't seek to violate the most important civil right of all which is the right of the majority to enact POSITIVE law promoting certain things so long as they don't enact NEGATIVE laws preventing another from acting according to their
own consciences.
"If you think I'm just being paranoid, WAIT AND SEE!"
I don't since Canada's free speech provisions are stronger.
Freedom to believe what you want | 6:33 p.m. Aug. 10, 2008
RE: Mike Richards | 2:22 p.m. Aug. 10, 2008
"Mike, we do not live in a Theocracy. We live in a country that was based on religous freedom - freedom to accept it or freedom to deny it. Your God may have the final word for you, but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to accept it."
That's true but that also means that we don't have to accept your word as final either. You can believe whatever you want and come to that belief however you choose but that doesn't negate the right of others to do the same.
No one is suggesting that we live in a theocracy but in a democracy no belief however formed is excluded from the public square rather religious, scientific, or just plain stupid. If you don't like that then move to a country where freedom doesn't exist since you would be more at home.
We worship God Karl the voter | 6:40 p.m. Aug. 10, 2008
Karl,
"God has nothing to do with getting a marriage license."
No one has suggested that God has anything to do with getting a marriage license instead we are saying that the MAJORITY has to do with it since THEY CREATED IT as a SOCIAL INSTITUTION.
"If you want to keep gays from marriage inside the Temple, that's fine."
I agree and if the LDS Church wants to have gay marriages in its Temples its the business of the Church. Civil marriages and religious marriages aren't the same.
"Using 12th century logic inside your house is fine.
Go ahead and use it in your churchs also.
Nobody cares."
But I guess you care when we dare to speak out mind and vote because that isn't allowed in your country. My opinion has nothing to do with religion or God.
"Try to trample on the "God" given rights to all American citizens and use out-dated religious text to change laws, and you will never win."
Leave your God in your Church or your Temple or your home HYPOCRITE. I guess you can talk about God when it suits you but when others do it how dare they. We bow before you!
"God has nothing to do with getting a marriage license."
No one has suggested that God has anything to do with getting a marriage license instead we are saying that the MAJORITY has to do with it since THEY CREATED IT as a SOCIAL INSTITUTION.
"If you want to keep gays from marriage inside the Temple, that's fine."
I agree and if the LDS Church wants to have gay marriages in its Temples its the business of the Church. Civil marriages and religious marriages aren't the same.
"Using 12th century logic inside your house is fine.
Go ahead and use it in your churchs also.
Nobody cares."
But I guess you care when we dare to speak out mind and vote because that isn't allowed in your country. My opinion has nothing to do with religion or God.
"Try to trample on the "God" given rights to all American citizens and use out-dated religious text to change laws, and you will never win."
Leave your God in your Church or your Temple or your home HYPOCRITE. I guess you can talk about God when it suits you but when others do it how dare they. We bow before you!
Your hateful opinion won't stand | 6:46 p.m. Aug. 10, 2008
Fairness will prevail,
"Gay people will eventually be accepted as full-fledged card-carrying members of society."
They already are. Gays aren't denied their rights based on their sexuality nor are they denied the privileges others enjoy based on their sexuality.
"As people begin to realize that there is no need to be afraid or feel threatened their attitudes change - you can already see it in the youth today."
No one is afraid of gay people. This is just another straw man argument. Apparently you think that every one who opposes same sex marriage have come to their opinions based on the same feelings.
"Even deep-rooted religious-based attitudes can evolve as evidenced by the acceptance of Blacks into the Priesthood."
The reason blacks were accepted into the Priesthood was because they FINALLY could FULLY exercise it and not have to worry about rather they would be beaten to death if they were assigned to be Home Teachers to a single white woman.
"There is no doubt a bumpy road ahead - but in the end what's fair for ALL will win out."
I just love it how you speak in noble terms as you violate the rights of others.
"Gay people will eventually be accepted as full-fledged card-carrying members of society."
They already are. Gays aren't denied their rights based on their sexuality nor are they denied the privileges others enjoy based on their sexuality.
"As people begin to realize that there is no need to be afraid or feel threatened their attitudes change - you can already see it in the youth today."
No one is afraid of gay people. This is just another straw man argument. Apparently you think that every one who opposes same sex marriage have come to their opinions based on the same feelings.
"Even deep-rooted religious-based attitudes can evolve as evidenced by the acceptance of Blacks into the Priesthood."
The reason blacks were accepted into the Priesthood was because they FINALLY could FULLY exercise it and not have to worry about rather they would be beaten to death if they were assigned to be Home Teachers to a single white woman.
"There is no doubt a bumpy road ahead - but in the end what's fair for ALL will win out."
I just love it how you speak in noble terms as you violate the rights of others.
Thank you God for allowing rants | 7:01 p.m. Aug. 10, 2008
Kevin,
"It's so clear from reading these comments that there are strong forces at work against freedom."
You got that right and you are one of those who are working against freedom.
"It's the second kind a lot of people don't recognize. They don't recognize it because they think we are a pure democracy."
No one's suggesting we are a pure democracy since we are a Republic yet minorities don't get to legislate but the Constitution protects the rights of minority groups from a majority making negative laws which violate their rights.
In other words the majority gets to define marriage but don't get to tell you that you don't get to have sex if that's your choice.
"We're a liberal democracy, one that guarantees equal civil rights, not just what the majority dictates."
Legal marriage WOULDN'T EXIST if it wasn't created by the majority but you believe a MINORITY defines it. That proves you are a totalitarian.
"Rant all you want. It's your right. But ultimately, things like homosexual marriage will work themselves out, one state at a time."
You are a master manipulator who decides that you will twist the Constitution to mean the minority makes laws.
"It's so clear from reading these comments that there are strong forces at work against freedom."
You got that right and you are one of those who are working against freedom.
"It's the second kind a lot of people don't recognize. They don't recognize it because they think we are a pure democracy."
No one's suggesting we are a pure democracy since we are a Republic yet minorities don't get to legislate but the Constitution protects the rights of minority groups from a majority making negative laws which violate their rights.
In other words the majority gets to define marriage but don't get to tell you that you don't get to have sex if that's your choice.
"We're a liberal democracy, one that guarantees equal civil rights, not just what the majority dictates."
Legal marriage WOULDN'T EXIST if it wasn't created by the majority but you believe a MINORITY defines it. That proves you are a totalitarian.
"Rant all you want. It's your right. But ultimately, things like homosexual marriage will work themselves out, one state at a time."
You are a master manipulator who decides that you will twist the Constitution to mean the minority makes laws.
to mike richards | 9:04 p.m. Aug. 10, 2008
You speak as if your god has some significance for others. Who is your god?
Thor, Zeus, Hera, Ra, Minos? You should identify your god so we know which myth
you are trying to propose that the Government of the United States of America
should follow. Aren't you being presumptuous to assert that we citizens of
the U.S.A. should follow your mythology and makes laws based on your god? We
citizens seek civil rights from our Government and have no interest in the myths
that someone concocted in the past. We seek freedom, justice, and equality, not
patriarchal lies.
Mike Richards | 7:30 a.m. Aug. 11, 2008
@ 9:04,
You'll get to meet Him someday, face to face, then you can ask Him personally how He would like to be addressed.
In the meantime, follow the path that your own superior intelligence leads you so that when He shows you what you could have become, you'll be able to show Him how you settled for so much less.
Because He is God, he will let you keep the memory of your petty experiences for all eternity. He'll let you live far, far beneath your possibilities. He'll let you squander your life, if that is what you want to do.
It's your choice. It's your agency. You get one shot at life; don't waste it.
You'll get to meet Him someday, face to face, then you can ask Him personally how He would like to be addressed.
In the meantime, follow the path that your own superior intelligence leads you so that when He shows you what you could have become, you'll be able to show Him how you settled for so much less.
Because He is God, he will let you keep the memory of your petty experiences for all eternity. He'll let you live far, far beneath your possibilities. He'll let you squander your life, if that is what you want to do.
It's your choice. It's your agency. You get one shot at life; don't waste it.
Bryan Kingsford | 8:40 a.m. Aug. 11, 2008
Thousands of years and many studies show that traditional marriage is essential
for a thriving society. Because of this, some legislation has been enacted over
the years in recognition of this fundamental unit of society. Now a few people
want to redefine the long-standing definition of marriage.
It's not about equal rights. People can call their relationships anything they want. It's about redefining legislation that has been around for many years without going through the appropriate process.
Personally I'd vote against added government support for an institution I believe is very harmful to society (e.g., same-sex marriage).
It's not about equal rights. People can call their relationships anything they want. It's about redefining legislation that has been around for many years without going through the appropriate process.
Personally I'd vote against added government support for an institution I believe is very harmful to society (e.g., same-sex marriage).
Re: Bryan | 1:42 a.m. Aug. 14, 2008
Thousands of years of traditional marriage huh? Wasn't plural marriage the
traditional marriage in biblical times? Didn't a modern day prophet declare
that plural marriage was mandatory to gain the highest level of eternal glory?
Even though it hasn't been practiced for 100 years I think the
church's polygamous history marks its support of a constitutional amendment
defining marriage as one man one woman as particularly hypocritical.
Charles | 11:33 a.m. Aug. 23, 2008
I have a son who is gay and I pray he has a long and happy life, including that
of a monogamous and committed relationship with someone he loves and respects.
However, I cannot, in good conscience, call that relationship a marriage. I am
all for equal rights for monogomous and committed couples, so agree that we need
a societal method to assure those rights (licenseure). For heterosexuals, that
method is marriage, for homosexuals, that method should be a formalized civil
union. Marriage has been defined over thousands of years as the committed
relationship between one man and a woman or women. It has always historically
indicated a heterosexual relationship, not a homosexual one. We should not be
redefining well-established lexicon, but rather expand out lexicon with new
terminology to describe the relationship you seek, such as "Civil
Union" or any other term you feel describes your desired relationship. As
I do with my son, I wish you happiness in your relationship, but I don't
agree it should be called a "marriage".
killer | 10:01 p.m. Sept. 7, 2008
This argument is dumb.
Marriage should be a religious institution, a union should be the legal institution.
Any monogamous couple should reap the benefits of a union.
A religious ceremony should cement a "marriage."
No on is denied rights. No special privileges.
The argument that heterosexual marriages should benefit more because they have children is dumb. Barren women, under that logic, should be denied tax benefits because they cannot conceive. Also, the many couples that choose not to have children should also be denied rights.
No one should have special privileges, and getting rid of marriage as a legal institution would do the trick. That way your judge hands out the unions and your bishop/pastor/etc. hands out marriages.
Problem solved. The only arguments against this are based in discrimination and conservative rhetoric.
Marriage should be a religious institution, a union should be the legal institution.
Any monogamous couple should reap the benefits of a union.
A religious ceremony should cement a "marriage."
No on is denied rights. No special privileges.
The argument that heterosexual marriages should benefit more because they have children is dumb. Barren women, under that logic, should be denied tax benefits because they cannot conceive. Also, the many couples that choose not to have children should also be denied rights.
No one should have special privileges, and getting rid of marriage as a legal institution would do the trick. That way your judge hands out the unions and your bishop/pastor/etc. hands out marriages.
Problem solved. The only arguments against this are based in discrimination and conservative rhetoric.
Kyle | 7:53 a.m. Sept. 8, 2008
If Prop 8 passes, it would deny gay people the opportunity of having a family
and would sentence them to a life of loneliness and solidarity without the joy
and happiness that only a family unit can provide. This is apart from the
"civil rights" that they would not enjoy. The church is
pro-traditional family but not pro-non-traditional family. This means that they
don't recognize any gay marriage or family (two parents of the same gender
with adopted or foster children) othen then the "traditional" marriage
and family. There are many kinds of families...single parent families, couples
who can't have children, and single individuals (who the church says are a
family unit in and of themselves, which I've never understood!)... I just
don't get it.
Marilyn | 4:16 p.m. Sept. 22, 2008
Dear "Here We Go Again"
Apparently you believe that your right to discriminate and practice bigotry is more important than seeing that all Americans have equal rights under the law.
Please reconsider.
Apparently you believe that your right to discriminate and practice bigotry is more important than seeing that all Americans have equal rights under the law.
Please reconsider.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Bamboo not an instant nightmare 2:40 p.m.
- Yardsmart: Delectable winter greens 2:37 p.m.
- Flowers in a beautiful setting 2:35 p.m.
- Dealing with pet ear injuries 2:34 p.m.
- Smooth talk wrinkles mall walk 2:32 p.m.
- School treasures discovered in attic 2:26 p.m.
- BYU leads UNM 17-7 at half 1:50 p.m.
- Snowstorm hits Utah; 1 dead 1:11 p.m.
- GameDay in Fort Worth 1:10 p.m.
- NASA sets Monday shuttle launch 11:53 a.m.
- Apostle's wife felt comfort in attack
- Short-handed Jazz fly past Sixers
- Can BYU root for (ick) Utah Utes?
- D-Will home for daughter
- Bench proves fruitful for Y.
- Man killed during 3rd I-15 crash
- Utes excited for 'dream' game
- Born of water and the spirit
- Williams leaves, won't play tonight
- Woods Cross refinery to shut down
- SLC council OKs gay rights policies
352 - Editorial: Mormons and gay rights199
- Senators want food tax restored164
- Will state consider gay rights law?146
- Letters: Strange breed in Utah129
- Utes remain silent about BCS120
- Can BYU root for (ick) Utah Utes?118
- S.L. vote pending on gay protections113
- Pratt pleads not guilty to sex charges104
- Celtics crush Jazz104
Maybe someone out there can help me understand how raising the state...
Advertisement
Latest comments
BYU is not the good
I have always found it interesting...that so many who profess to be followers...
Al Gore is laughing all the way to the bank!
they got their game back against wyoming, and maybe feel they can rest on...
Spend money like a drunken sailor and when that backfires, pretend you are...
17-13 in the 3rd Qtr. Wow!! Way to show your dominance Koogs!!
No One Cares. Just like the UFL No One Cares.
Half of our debt is from Bush's tax cuts for the rich that we couldn't...
Looks twice as slower then in normal. According to BYU fans (including...
So you say that the Founding Fathers were good, God-fearing people...who...
Advertisements
First, to start with, all the benefits which you mention, Aaron, are given to married couples for a reason, that reason being that the vast majority of married couples will at some point bear the responsibilities of raising children. The vast majority of gay couples (a few like yourself excepted) will never bear such burdens.
Second, as for gay marriage and immigration: Marriage immigration and family reunification already is fraught with enough fraud without making gay couples eligible, too. (And does anyone ever wonder why the vast majority of international married couples always seem to want to settle in Spouse #1's country of the US, rather than in Spouse #2's country of India or Pakistan?)
Third, second, you and various gay organizations seem to have a knack for going about things backwards. Normally you try to convince people to do something democratically before you resort to legal strongarm tactics. Having failed to impose gay marriage via judical tyranny, only now do you resort to the court of public sympathy.
Fourth, how many gay couples are actually denied hospital visitation? I mean, really?