Published: Tuesday, May 10 2011 6:00 p.m. MDT
"Just because you take a position against gay marriage does not mean you're
anti-gay."How do you figure that?If you take a
position against the equal protection of civil rights based on a person's sexual
orientation how can you possibly claim you're not anti-gay?Would
anyone take you seriously if you said that you took a position against Jewish
marriage but that you're not anti-Jewish?
Even as a catholic I applaud mormons like peter. Well done! Wrong is wrong
This is unfortunate. As a missionary, I served in Bishop Vidmar's ward. He is
indeed the nicest guy you could ever meet. He was, and presumably still is,
extremely passionate about the U.S. olympic team. He was proud and honored to
have been an olympian. There could not possibly be a better person for the
position. So it is a shame that things turned out this way. Even still, he
will no doubt continue to be the single biggest supporter of the United States
olympic team.To the many people who will say he is anti-gay, my
response is this: marriage is not a right. Marriage is a privilege. You can be
against gay marriage, but not against gay rights.
By definition, a family is "a basic social unit consisting of parents and
their children"Offspring cannot be created with two men or two
women. Therefore, even if the two men or two women live under the same roof,
they do not constitute a family.So, if it's not possible for a gay
couple to create a family, there's no possible way these relationships are
I oppose gay marriage. For that, do I deserve to be slapped with the label
"bigot" and equated with a racist? To be relegated to the status of
despised social outcast for holding views that are seen as intolerable?If the answer is yes, then consider: Advocates of gay marriage say that unless
they can marry, they'll be seen as second-class citizens. They don't want to be
despised as perverts or misfits. They want to be accepted, not judged.Attention, GLBT activists: Convince me that once gay marriage is legal,
religious conservatives will not be persecuted for their moral beliefs. Convince
me that gay people will say, "That guy thinks homosexual relations are
immoral, but he keeps it to himself, and he treats me no differently just
because we disagree. I respect his right to think that, just like he respects my
right to disagree." Convince me of that, and I will not oppose gay
marriage.So why do I oppose gay marriage? For the same reason that
others support it: Because I don't want to be a second-class citizen.
I REEEALLLLlllly wish he had NOT stepped down.He had ABSOLUTELY NO
reason to be ashamed or apologetic for expressing and supporting his view that
marriage is and should remain a joining of, expressly, a man and woman.Likewise, those who clamor for his withdrawal have ABSOLUTELY every right to
do so. They can also shamelessly and unapologetically express their view that
the institution of marriage should be changed from its thousands of year-old
tradition to include people of the same sex.In fact, they had and
exercised that right, along with those who thought oppositely, during the
opposing campaigns before the Prop. 8 elections. So, after all the votes were
counted and everyone who chose to vote had their choice represented, Prop. 8
PASSED.But, like corrupt judges who seek to overturn the will of the
people in attempting to overrule the outcome and the law, these immature and
hypocritical critics seek to ostracize this person for exercising the same
rights of expression that they also exercised.I say, shame on them.
He didn't have an issue with gays being on the team. So why, exactly, did gays
have a problem with him being where he was?
Blue - you CAN be anti-gay marriage and not anti-gay. When I was
younger the Equal Rights Amendment movement was in full swing. Women were
demanding to be treated exactly as men - by law - in all regards. My mother
fought hard against it because of the possible ramification to mothers and
families. She was not anti-woman or anti-woman's rights, just
anti-ERA amendment because of all it included that would become law.If a person is anti-gay marriage it is because they see the possible negative
ramification to the traditional family, not because they hate gay people. I am sorry for Peter. This was not fair.
Plee: "Marriage is not a right. Marriage is a privilege."No, the _right_ to marry has been affirmed by the US Supreme Court in multiple
cases, most importantly a unanimous ruling in Loving vs. Virginia, 1967.What Yeah: "So, if it's not possible for a gay couple to create a
family, there's no possible way these relationships are 'marriages.'"That's quite a stretch. Are post-menopausal women and impotent men thus
prohibited from marriage? Do you know how many gay couples already have
children? Chachi: "I oppose gay marriage."Fine - don't have one. Others, however, disagree with you. Are their opinions
less valid than yours?"For that, do I deserve to be slapped
with the label "bigot" and equated with a racist?"When you support denying people a civil right that you claim for yourself,
based on irrational prejudice and ignorance, that's bigotry. samhill: "...corrupt judges who seek to overturn the will of the
people"It is the obligation of a federal court to rule on the
constitutionality of a law, regardless of how popular that law is. That's not
corruption, it's duty.Civil rights are not subject to popularity
We live in a world anymore that 'slowly' seems to be slipping away.I
believe that a union between two people of the same gender sends a message that
will eventually lead to the downfall of society. Peter Vidmar voiced his belief
and the left voiced its displeasure. I wish he could/would have held firm in
his belief. Sometmes the right thing to do isn't always the most popular. It's
the vocal minority that seems to shout louder than the majority anymore. Maybe
he just didn't want to subject his family to the adversity thrust upon him by
the left.I watched as a young family walked through a movie theatre
the other day, mom and dad, with yougsters in tow. I marveled at how much the
children resembeled their parents. I senced that this family was a product of
everything that's good in society. Man and woman were commanded to procreate
and to continue on with the species. This family had done a wonderful job in
fullfilling Heaven's expectation of them.
Chachi | 8:32 p.m. May 10, 2011No one can convince you of anything
is your mind is already made up, regardless of the fact.Fact:
Religious liberties have not been compromised where same-sex marriage is
legal.Plee | 7:59 p.m. May 10, 2011Your quote,
"marriage is a privilege" - how do you figure that? Is there legal
precedence you have for that statement?If you make a distinction
between a right and a privilege I think you have legal precedence going back
better than a hundred years - to put it in modern perspective, where Marriage -
by definition - and right - has been more inclusive, more encompassing--not just
to gays, but to many groups in modern history.Also - I do not
believe anyone is questioning Vidmar's celebration of the olympic spirit - the
issue is dragging a political issue into the global arena of an event that is
meant to be inclusive and apolitical.I think he is a great
representative for the olympic spirit. The politics is where the distinction is
made. No one should have to be aliendated at the expense of a political agenda.
A gay relationship is a physiologically incompatible relationship. Period. End
of story. The United States government shouldn't sanction it!
Blue: Marriage: the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife.Wife:
a woman married to a man. Husband a man married to a woman. By tried and true,
old as time definition Marriage is a heterosexual union. It does not take away
anyone's civil rights when the very definition is what it is. just about all of
the "rights" of the married can be obtained by other legal means, just
don't insist on imposing a change in definition to call marriage what it is not.
Words have meanings and definitions are important to avoid miscommunication and
confusion. If we change the meaning of a word, then what word will be used for
the original meanning of the word? The word "marriage" used to mean
"the social institution under which a man and a woman establish their
decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitment, religious ceremonies,
etc." This meaning of marriage goes back for centuries and is found in
scriptues, poetry, literature, etc. If the definition is changed to include
people in homosexual relationships then what word or term will be used if we are
talking about the original meaning of the word? What word should be used to
refer to heterosexual marriage exclusively? In the future, when teachers are
teaching literature will they have to explain that the word marriage before 2011
meant heterosexual marriage? Or will we clean up literature like some people
have tried to do with Huck Finn and substitute another word in order not to
offend? Will the Catholics have to change the word for marriage in their bible
to another word like they changed "booty?" Isn't "Civil
Union" a perfectly good term?
I'm surprised that the gay and Mormon communities haven't found common ground on
this issue. Mormons once supported polygamous marriages in this life and
presently support such marriages in the putative life to come. Though I support
both, assuming informed, mutual consent, it's hard to say which falls outside
our societal norms more than the other. If I had politically and financially
supported an anti polygamy statute (for this life and the next) and there were
several Mormons on the Olympic team I too would resign.
Imagine, instead, that someone was actively campaigning to prevent Mormons from
building temples anywhere, with the claim that he "is not Anti-Mormon, but
simply believes that Mormons building temples is a threat to society."
Would you want him as a team leader for a team you were on? What if he was
actively using his free-speech to promote racism? Of course he has his free
speech--however, speech and actions comes with social consequences. You have all
the free speech you want if you wanted to call me names or be rude to me.
However, you can't be surprised if I no longer want to be your friend.
In terms of statistics a homosexual relationship is abnormal. It does not fit
in portion of the statistical curve that is considered the norm. The norm for
ages has been marriage.
Blue said:"When you support denying people a civil right that
you claim for yourself, based on irrational prejudice and ignorance, that's
bigotry."I agree. When you deny people the civil
right to vote as they choose (a civil, and constitutional right), through
intimidation, threats, forcing them out of their jobs, that's bigotry.
Marriage is not a right, it's a responsiblity.I think the great
Peter Vidmar, being a gentleman, stepped down from the leadership position
because he does care about the Olympics so much. He must have figured that with
the way things are nowadays, there would be controversy over this issue in 2012.
And he wanted to protect the 2012 Olympics from any controversy within his
power.It's very unfortunate that it has come to this. The
"Silent Majority" that believes in traditional family values must
truly be silenced. They are not allowed to have any freedom of speech.It is sad that in Massachussetts where same-sex marriage is allowed,
elementary schools, teachers discuss homosexual lifestyles with the children.
It's sensitivity training for them. I'm not against homosexuals,
but I won't celebrate the homosexual lifestyle that brings disease, drug abuse,
suicide, and mental/emotional pain. I have dear friends who choose that
lifestyle. But, people want to give credence to a perversion by calling it a
"marriage," it defies reason.
"Just because you take a position against gay marriage does not mean you're
anti-gay." Really? So in the aftermath of California's Prop 8
and Utah's Amendment Three, exactly where is the line in the sand between
tolerance of gays and the persecution of gays because it seems to keep moving
with every LDS Conference talk, BYU Symposium, and Deseret News Editorial about
the loss of religious liberty, and how gays are bullies (despite how many are
the victims of hate crimes and assaults), and how the gays are destroying
heterosexual marriage.If it was just about "marriage" then
why are the same anti-gay people denying gay families civil unions, basic legal
protections,equal pay, health benefits, or even the use of the word
"family" to describe their relationships.Nope, this has
never been only about protecting "marriage".
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments