I've lived in Europe and I have friends in Europe. I can walk through a park at midnight in Europe. I would try this in too many cities in my native country.

In Europe, I saw higher moral standards. Maybe, this is why American has the largest percentage of its population behind bars.

The writer of this letter has to climb back into his hole and keep his judgmental bigotry to himself.

I wish I had the language skills to move to Europe. I miss living there. To walk through a city at night and feel safe. Great public transportation, culture, art and amazing foods.

Hmmm... I seem to recall that a document called the Constitution and something labeled the Bill of Rights extends freedom to all equally in this country. And, those documents don't require a religious or even moral path as those things are left up to the free agency of the individual.

So, yes - the people don't have the right to expect the imposition of moral standards in our society or government. For, the problem with doing so is that those who would force such standards on us are exactly the type of people who should be kept from power. When people start to believe that mandating acting “right” takes precedence over our freedom to choose what’s right, we begin to lose core principles our nation was founded upon.

Beware the self-appointed Moral Monitors of our society. They have an agenda and it entails forcing us to march lock-step with it. They are more dangerous to our freedom than most realize. Fortunately, our Founding Fathers were wise enough to put inalienable rights down on paper to protect us from such people.

It's time to end the endless letters to the editor with any subject line concerning homosexuality.

The homosexual activists have several well-known methods on their agenda to further their cause. One of those methods is to keep people talking about homosexuals. Some call it desensitizing. In other words, the more homosexuality is discussed, the more it is thought of as common and the more it is accepted.

The practice of homosexuality is vile and demeaning. The physical act is contemptable. Those who indulge themselves in homosexual acts degrade themselves and others whom they entice into participating.

Homosexually active participants are sexual deviates who prey on others for the purpose of sexual gratification.

Society suffers when homosexuality is accepted.

What happened in Europe?
I recently read a book that breaks the myth that somehow humans are losing morals. There were higher numbers of unwed mothers in the late 1800s. There were higher numbers of pregnant brides, humans were sexually active at ages similar to today. In WWI 80% of all conditions that required soldiers being pulled from the lines to seek medical treatment was to get treated for the STD, syphilis.
If you look at ancient history, Ghengis Khan, the Persians, ancient Greeks, etc....the humans today have higher morals than ever before.
Treating gays like humans will not change a thing, except be an IMPROVEMENT on society.

I look to europe and envy the fact that people there aren't constantly trying to shackle everyone in their on little religious world. They're not puritans trying to hide from their own humanity.

Leave it to wacko neocons like Mike Richards and the author of the letter to once again try to dictate their twisted version of "morality" on the world around them.

Homosexuality is as old as time itself and is not going away because Mike Richards doesn't like it.

How utterly stupid of these neocons to think they can trick people into thinking they are holier-than-thou on this subject.

Thanks Mike Richards. Once again a voice of clarity.

Utah Bill: No, it was actually put on paper to protect us from people like you and others that would allow a free for all sexual society that would ultimately destroy this nation and her peoples. God has appointed a Prophet as well and he does not agree with you and neither will he.

'It's time to end the endless letters to the editor with any subject line concerning Mormonism.

The Mormon activists have several well-known methods on their agenda to further their cause. One of those methods is to keep people talking about Mormons. Some call it desensitizing. In other words, the more Mormanism is discussed, the more it is thought of as common and the more it is accepted.

The practice of Mormonism is vile and demeaning. The physical act is contemptable. Those who indulge themselves in Mormon acts degrade themselves and others whom they entice into participating.

Mormonisms active participants are sexual deviates who prey on others for the purpose of sexual gratification.

Society suffers when Mormonism is accepted.'

How does it sound this way Mike. Let's make some more with Jews or blacks or Muslims filled in there. Why not just fill in everyone who is not white, heterosexual, Christian, and Republican.

This will go just as it has for weeks. Some will decry the downfall of society and others will clamor for their freedom. No one will be moved. You cant change the mind of someone who says they talk to god and my mind cant be changed by someone who thinks they do.
I will say the I hope it makes the "moralists" feel good that they are on the same side as the Taliban on this issue.

Our Constitution DOES have laws that impose moral values on us. Murder is considered immoral. Child, sex-abuse is "way-immoral." Rape, theft, assault and battery . . . All of the laws that prohibit these acts impose, and are based upon moral principles. Just remember the words of Alexander Pope:
"Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As, to be hated, needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace."

Why are people on the Deseret News complaining about not feeling safe at night. I have walked around downtown Salt Lake City at night and always felt safe.

I now go to Wayne State University in mid-town Detroit. I have never felt unsafe there, least of all at night.

When was the last time we had Americans burning cars in the street as has happened on several occasions of late in France. I knew someone who spent the night in a Paris subway station and was molested while doing so.

Do not try to convince me that Europe is crime free. France has many areas that are chalk full of crime.

Whether the United States or France is better is partly determined by whether you think people should be fired from teaching jobs for the crime of being Jehovah's Witnesses.

I do not envy Europe and their pornographic billboards.

To Anonymous at 7:20,

Europe is probably too broad to make a comparison. However I will take America and our allowing females to wear head scarves and veils to school over France's esclusion of such any day.

France's system serves to marginalize and ostracize religious elements. This only increases the perception of persecution and leads to more violence.

The American system has issues, however I think these have more to do with people's unwillingness to allow others to express their religion than with people's expression of religion.

The most vitriolic and hateful comments I have seen come from those who feel that their ideas should hold a monopoly in public and religious people should be bared from participating in political discussions.

This is not France. We do not have state supported and increased secularism, we have religious freedom not state organized marginalization of religion.

If you want to speak against religious people participating in politics, first began with an attack on the whole civil rights movement. After you have explained why Martin Luther King Jr. should not have used his pulpit in Montgomery to organize breaking the law, move on to more recent events.

Mr Richards:

Until you can tell me that you actually know and have included some who is homosexual into your circle of friends, I cannot read what you have to say on this subject. You can sit up in your ivory tower and type away, but you have no idea what my life is like. Don't think that watching the news or TV will show you. You need to get out and educate yourself. When you are personally relating to those of us that do not fit your ideal, then let me know and I will start to read what you have to say again.

Thank you.

I will make it a point to say that I think the civil rights movement is a good thing.

Unjust laws should be resisted. The whole theory is inappropriately applied to same gender marriage.

The problem stems back to the fact that race is an inappropriate way to distinguish people in the eyes of the law. Sex however is an inate biological situation that reflects on peoples ability to produce children. Beyond this there are different but complimentary roles of men and women and both father and mother are needed for proper development.

To Gopherous,

You ignore the fact that homosexuality is innately different than race or religion. To began with, I am not sure on what leg you denounce Conservatives for disliking Muslims. Richard Wilkins, one of the may defenders of traditional marriage, has been denounced because he actually does cooperate with Muslims to achieve his goals.

If you want to find people who hate Muslims, go to France. If you want to find a place where Muslims are discriminated against, reviled and marginalized, go to France.

That said, to many of us this is a debate that centers around the fact that homosexual acts are sinful.

Once again the detractor's refuse to put forth any justification for the denial of rights other than "it's immoral."

I've said this countless times, but on the chance you guys might actually get it this time, here goes:

It DOES NOT MATTER if you think it is morally wrong. You DO NOT have the right to force your morals on anybody else or on society as a whole. Your beliefs are just that: YOUR beliefs. Not mine, and not a whole lot of other people's.

If you believe swearing is wrong does that give you the right to ban it? If you believe drinking is wrong does that give you the right to ban it? The latter was tried, and we all know how that turned out. Sarcastically speaking, I, for one, am so grateful for the creation of organized crime.

If you want to keep something from becoming law you need to debate it on non-religious grounds, and I, for one, will even listen to well-thought out and reasonable arguments.

But you can rant up and down about how "immoral" and "evil" something is, but it will hold zero validity when determining an individual's rights.

It is folly to compare our country to any in Europe, good or bad. Every country is going to have some things they excel and fail at compared to us.

To compare us would be like looking at a neighbor who makes more money than us and deciding that they are living a far better life than us based on that one fact alone. There is often FAR more to the story.

We need to focus on what is best for OUR country, and it should be obvious that the United States of Corporate America is crumbling at the expense of American dollars and lives. It's time we did something about it, whatever the answer.

It isn't about morals.

Some lifestyles come with a higher risk factor than others, in general.

So, the bean counters are attempting to legislate lower risk into 'allowed behavior'. One way to lower the risks is to outlaw all other behavior; homosexuality is just a factor to them not a moral issue. Unfortunately, it is far easier to explain it to us common folk as a moral thingy, and to get us to fight WITH them on that basis.

People who can only judge gay people as evil, do so because their view of the world is so narrow and uneducated.

Morality you say?

Seems like many of the "moral" folk can't see the pain, hunger, war, religious persecution,the toll of overpopulation, etc. The things that have a real true effect of our lives, and the lives of future generations.

(The gays should be put down because they are hurting our families?)

You self righteous pompus fools need to go away.

Mike,

As long as ignorant, hateful bigotry founded on irrational superstition is given a voice on the pages of this newspaper, then I'll continue to exercise my conscience and constitutional right to point out that your comments are morally (I mean real-world morality, not "invisible super-friends fantasy" morality) indefensible.

NB

I like Europe! We have strip malls, they have beauty. We have McDonalds, they have buttery croissants. We have monster truck rallies, they have the Louvre.

Joy. Happiness. Contentment. Those are words that express feelings that everyone desires, but few ever fully experience.

Why do so few experience joy, happiness, and contentment? The answer is simple. Treasure is found where it exists. If we look in the wrong place, we'll never find that treasure.

Joy is not found in sexual impurity. Happiness is not a by-product of inticing others to abandon morality. Contentment does not come from mocking God.

Homosexual activists would lead the world away from anything good, noble, or praiseworthy to a place of deep, dark misery.

Those who venture there choose to live in darkness rather than in light.

For those who believe that God has a mouthpiece here on earth and is in direct communication with him, don’t you find it suspect that this moral issue is the one He (God) chooses declare his opinion and ask for political action on?

Since Karl and others are trying to claim that those who oppose homosexuality are "uneducated" I will share a few FACTS with all of you.

Scientific studies have concluded that homosexuals suffer greater mental/emotional issues and have a MUCH higher rate of suicide than do heterosexuals. The conclusion of these studies is that these serious disorders are based NOT on external factors, but on their homosexual behavior!

But, you say, it is only because they are not accepted in society. Actually it may surprise you to find out that these studies were actually conducted in Holland, the most gay affirming society in the world--the first to legalize gay marriage.

Homosexuality is a very unhealthy, pathetic lifestyle whether people like to hear it or not.

While I have a lot of sympathy for them as individuals, I have no sympathy for their agenda. Supporting people in their self-destructive behaviors isn't helping them.

The average life expectancy of a gay person with aids is approximately 38. The average life expectancy of a gay person WITHOUT aids is approximately 42.

Based on scientific study, this is a PATHETICALLY UNHEALTHY AND SELF-DESTRUCTIVE LIFESTYLE. Aiding and abetting them is NOT helping them.

@ 9:41

Keep your bigoted anti-Moster Truck views to yourself!

And just why would this be suspect? Has God ever wavered on this one?

And don't you think that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young could look to this day (being seers and all) and see the terrible clamity that homosexuals were going to cause and have a few prophesies regarding this threat to the family? Why nothing on homosexuality in the B of M, D&C, P of GP?

Relgion does NOT equal morality. I DO expect moral standards in society but I expect them to transcend religion. The ultimate moral standards in our country are personal liberty, freedom and equality.

Gay marriage does not impinge upon the personal liberty, freedom and equality of ANYONE. Gay marriage is not detrimental to society and will not detract from any person's ability to follow whatever religious standards they choose.

Legalizing gay marriage is the only choice for those whose moral standards exist above and independent of religion's irrationality. Legalizing gay marriage is the truly American thing to do.

Look to Europe to see the net results? What in the world is this man talking about? Has he ever left Murray?

I just returned from an extended period working in Europe, and say whatever you might about the Euros and their often eccentric habits, but Europeans as a group are happier than Americans. This isn't simply a personal observation, this has been shown by studies and surveys, repeatedly. Even in Ireland, where I spent most of my time, the EU-leading suicide rate is still much lower per capita than the U.S. suicide rate.

Moreover, the standard of living in most EU countries is on average higher than the standard of living for average Americans. This no doubt contributes to the overall happiness.

So think as you will about the Euros (goodness knows they can be a strange lot), but to use their societies as the SCARY EXAMPLE of the consequences of immorality is just foolish.

Utah Bill reminds us of our "inalienable rights" and how religion has no place, but apparently forgot to read the rest of the founding documents, that explain clearly where those "inalienable rights" come from.

I'll save you the trouble of looking it up.

"They are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights" so if you don't accept the notion of a creator, your rights come from???????

If they come from man, man can take them away, that means they are NOT inalienable. Quite the paradox for those who hate religion.

Sorry, John, but that phrase is found in the Declaration of Independence; a document that, while noble, has zero bearing on the laws of this country.

But more than that, I don't see your point, as many of us who fight against religious oppression DO accept a creator, and my belief is in a God that has compassion for all people and expects us to do the same.

Just because I believe something is wrong, does not give me the right to force people to abide by my beliefs.

Does anyone have the courage to stand up for truth? Does anyone have the courage to identify error?

Just because the homosexual activists want you to believe and embrace their spiel, does not make that spiel truthful. Just because the homosexual activists want you to engage in their sexual perversions does not make those perversions acceptable.

There is ABSOLUTE right and there is ABSOLUTE wrong in society. The homosexual activists stand for absolute wrong in their quest to destroy families.

Is that what you stand for?

Is that what you want for you children and for your grandchildren? Do you accept sexual perversions as normal? Do you require moral depravity as the initiation into "enlightened" society?

Since you asked:

So, God has a mouthpiece here on earth and with all the social, economic, and political ills currently in the world God decides to make a statement about Gays.

People are dying horrible deaths all over the world because of political and economic oppression and God decides to rally his followers and tell them to vote against two people wanting the same thing as others.

Do you followers understand how silly that sounds?

It’s like ME telling someone who is suffering from physical abuse and cries every day to God to make it stop that god answered MY prayers and helped me find my keys.

This system of God’s for communicating his desires to us can’t be the best He could come up with. It’s just so silly.

And sorry to you, as well, as those crimes are not against the law because they are "wrong" or "immoral"!

They are against the law because they infringe on the rights of another human being. Murder is wrong, yes, but it is against the law because we do not have the right to take another's right to life. Stealing is wrong, yes, but it is against the law because we do not have the right to another's right to property. And so on, and so forth.

We can not and should not legislate morality. Our laws are, except for the fanatical ones that have been slipped in, based on the principle that my rights end where yours begin, not on any subjective opinion of morals.

If you want to believe something is wrong, that is your right, but you DO NOT have the right to force that belief on me, or anybody else.

It may seem a superficial difference, but I assure you it is not, and it is an extremely game you play with our liberties when you cross that line.

Leave it to the freaked-out neocons to try and convince everybody that their twisted and judgemental version of "morality" is the one, true ... (you know the rest).
You'd think these deluded chumps would have figured it all out after failing with:
Prayer in School
Roe v Wade
Liberal internationalism
Stem-cell research ...
and the list goes on and on.

I dislike the argument that you can't legislate morality as it is premised on the argument that to do so would be immoral.

No Cambridge, it is based on the premise that to do so would be UNJUST. A vast difference lies between those two.

Yes, Mike, there is absolute right and absolute wrong in our society. Invariably, religions do NOT have the answers to what is "right" and what is "wrong". The irrationality of religion, masquerading itself as "morality," is a plague upon humanity that we must not succumb to.

Notice for the comprehension challenged: I do not hate religion. I hate when religions use irrational conceptual models to impose a chosen morality upon those who do not adhere to the same particular faith.

This debate about homosexual activity did not start today, nor will it end today. Its roots antedate the earth. Its supporters chose agency, but when faced with the fact that agency includes consequences, they wanted agency without consequences.

That does not exist.

The consequences of homosexual activity are sorrow, despair, and regret.

Thev tone of the posts prove the validity of that statement. Those who promote homosexual activity speak against God. They slander those who speak against their sexual perversions. They demand to be free to engage in immorality - without consequence.

It's a shame to see adults act like infants.

Jeffrey, why would the question of justice matter unless you considered injustice to be immoral and justice to be moral?

Cambridge,
You misunderstand the argument. The argument is that we should not legislate any particular religious "morality".

Granted, your misunderstanding could be alleviated if the argument were always presented with the "religious" qualifier. But in a discussion such as this it can easily be assumed that the "morality" in question that should not be "legislated" is religious in nature. Restricting gay marriage is not based on any sort of moral "truth" such as personal liberty, freedom or equality. It is based on the petty need of bigots to control the behavior of others for their own self-righteous aggrandizement.

From Merriam-Webster: Justice - "the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity"

I don't see the word "moral" mentioned anywhere in that definition.

Justice is not about being moral or immoral, it is about maintaining equity under the law for ALL people.

Morals are subjective because they change from person to person. What one person considers wrong another person may not.

Justice is blind, it is not and should be not based on the subjective whims of those who claim to control it.

In that case, they will someday have to answer to God. But they do not have to answer to us.

What you, and it seems many, many others, need to keep in mind is that although God may have declared something to be wrong, he did NOT give us the power or authority to pass judgment or inflict consequences on those who do not keep it.

God gave us free agency, and it is up to each of us to exercise that according to what we think is right. None of us have the right condemn others nor attempt to control their lives through our laws.

"Judgment is mine, saith the Lord."

Mike,
It's telling that you have resorted to almost exclusively an ad hominem approach to this issue.

"The consequences of homosexual activity are sorrow, despair, and regret."

What absolute garbage!

Mike - how many gay people do you know? I know and work with several. They're regular folks. They laugh, love, cry, dream, plan, worry and basically go about their days exactly the same way you or I do.

You'd previously pontificated about ABSOLUTE right and ABSOLUTE wrong. What "absolute" rights and wrongs are you talking about? What's your source? A personal religious belief? Why is your personal religious belief more valid than the next guy's? Do you think that because you enjoy majority status with your religious beliefs that you have the right to force them on the rest of us?

More to the point, how in the world have you been harmed by gay people marrying?

Mike Richards:

You remind me so much of people I knew 50 years ago with their "absolutist" mentality. I realize that for people who think as you appear to do, you try to stay with the "standards", however they might be defined by your religious training, that have been with you all you life. This makes it very difficult for you and others to adjust to change. So you put your feet in concrete and judge all about you by your "standard".

There is no acknowledgement that one religious belief may not be the sole repository of "truth" and "right". Many Christians may think they are superior to other non-Christian religious groups. Christians of a particular denomination may think they are better than another denomination and have a direct pipeline to God. But it's all relative and comes back to how you live your life. You are responsible only for your own "standard" and do not have the right to judge others and infer that they are somehow inferior and do not have any "standards".

That is stupid, religious-based bigotry. You have the right to set your path, but to use that measure against others is simply wrong.

Fine, jackhp, we cannot legislate adherance to a particular religious crede. No argument here.

But we have to legislate morality. Jeffrey, where did those laws come from in the first place? "We the People" chose to ratify the Bill of Rights because we considered them moral not because we considered them legal. How could they have been considered legal before they were law? They became law because they were considered moral. Justice, then, is the execution of this codified morality.

To say that homosexuals have an agenda to keep the discussion of homosexuality and gay marriage on the pages of the Deseret News Opinion Section is ludricrous.

The anti-homosexual crowd can't get off the topic since they apparently believe they have a mission to convince everyone that homosexuality is a sin and is immoral. If it wasn't for the persistent clammoring about the "immorality" of homosexuality, these pages would have moved on and allowed the bigots to stew in their own hate.

What people fail to recognize is how neocons like Mike Richards get off on all the attention.
Richards, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter ... they're all the same.
To the twisted mind of the sanctimonious and judgemental neocon, negative attention is better than no attention at all.