Comments about ‘Role reversal: Gay-rights advocates 'not tolerant'’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, June 11 2011 11:38 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
tmaxr
Santa Rosa, Ca

10,000 BC: 'We can't let other tribes marry into ours, the sun god will be angry!"

1,000 BC: 'We can't let Gentiles marry Jews, it will be the end of the Jewish people!'

1,000 AD: 'We can't let outlanders marry our women, they eat babies!'

1500 AD: 'We can't let indians marry whites, the colony will fail!'

1600 AD: 'We can't let English marry Irish, England will cease to be English!'

1700 AD 'We can't let Catholics marry Protestant, England will cease to be Protestant!'

1939 AD: 'We can't let Jews marry Christians, it will be the end of Germany!'

1959 AD: 'We can't let blacks marry whites, it will be the end of the white race!'

2011 AD: 'We can't let gays marry, it will be the end of the world!'

Some things never change.

Seronac
Orem, UT

What I don't understand is how they can say such opposition is hateful. I am opposed to gay marriage, but I don't hate anybody, or any group. They should have access to the legal rights that married people do, so I support a civil union, but marriage is a religious union, and their mandates regarding that arena infringe on religious rights. If they don't believe in God or religion, then what's the problem?

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

Anyway, we could end this right now by getting marriage out of the gov't and giving all couples, same and opposite gender, equal rights civil unions that have the same rights/benefits currently given to marriage. Either that or we can slug it out until the gay marriage side wins nationally in about a decade.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

"marriage is a religious union, and their mandates regarding that arena infringe on religious rights. If they don't believe in God or religion, then what's the problem? "

Well for one atheists can get married so as far as the gov't is concerned it's not a religious union. Secondly, increasing amounts of churches are marrying same sex couples. So for many of them there is religion and God involved.

tmaxr
Santa Rosa, Ca

Mormons spent millions to deny California gays the right to marry. Perhaps it's time to revoke LDS tax-exempt status, until they get their church out of our government.

dcj07
Mesa, AZ

@isrred. No, I don't have pictures of family and I do not discuss my family or personal life in the workplace. My personal ethical and value systems prohibit such things. The work place is professional, there are those who do choose to behave as you depicted, I choose not to. Your point is well made, and I would agree with you to a point. However, my remarks were made more towards the intimacies of life, not the familial context in which you took it. My opinion is that personal life is at home, professional life is in the workplace. In regards to this article, if the individuals, lawfirms, or businesses are engaged in lobbying or public information of either side then some generalized discussion on the subject is appropriate, but personal life should not become a forum at any time. To force ones views on another is inappropriate, and as has been mentioned already, we are not judges, only players, even though some do not play well with others in the sandbox of life.

very concerned
Sandy, UT

I don't mean to argue but I don't think the comments of tmaxr are comparing apples to apples. Marriages between a man and a woman may have indeed had their own peculiar set of discriminations as tmaxr illustrates. But, now we are talking about an man marrying a man, or a woman marrying a woman. Not the same. Never was. Never will be as I understand it. Indeed, "Some things never change." For the present argument, what was wrong decades, centuries, and millenia ago is still wrong.

My second point is that the Mormon church's view and policies are actually quite accommodating and tolerant when one considers how serious the sin actually is in the eyes of our Lord and Savior. The position is entirely consistent with loving the transgressor, but not the transgression. Coming out in favor of anti-discrimination policies is truly a sign of a tolerant church when it so strongly feels the spiritual/moral/religious convictions against the behavior.

very concerned
Sandy, UT

To conclude:

2000's AD God, through appointed leaders, preaches tolerance and
nondiscrimination, while consistently condemning the
behavior.

Thank Heavens some things never change.

Tekakaromatagi
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

"As the gay-rights movement advances, there's increasing evidence of an intriguing role reversal: Today, it's the conservative opponents of that movement who seem eager to depict themselves as victims of intolerance."

If the pro-marriage side is protecting marriage (a liberal institution because it fights poverty) and protecting freedom of conscience, how is it they are conservative? The role reversal is deeper than gay rights. It is a role reversal about progressivism. The old liberals are the new conservatives. The old conservatives have become progressive and liberal.

Tekakaromatagi

very concerned
Sandy, UT

@alt134

You talk about government staying out of marriage, but in the same posting discuss the merits of a civil union between gay persons. Unless you define a "civil union" differently than what I've seen, you can't even separate the government from the idea of a civil union. The government is involved whether it's a "civil union" or a "marriage."

Marriage is not just a religious imperative. A man and a woman declare by their marriage that they are committed to each other in the eyes of the law and society. It is a social contract too, that is indeed quite important to and for society. Indeed, gay people want the government to condone same-sex marriages, not just "civil unions."

But still, a civil union is a relationship recognized by the GOVERNMENT, with certain rights and priveliges. The government is still involved.

sjgf
South Jordan, UT

Part of the problem is that the homosexual community is trying to redefine standard English words, which makes it very difficult for us to discuss things:

Gay -- used to mean "happy"; now means "homosexual male"

Hate -- used to mean an emotion bordering on a desire to cause harm; now means disagreeing with someone, even if you love the person

Marriage -- used to mean a lifelong commitment of a man and woman to live together and be the basic unit of society, typically (but not always) with the understanding that the union might produce offspring and bear the responsibility of rearing the offspring; the LGBT community wants to change the word to include two people of the same sex, to obtain government recognition and benefits even though there is no possibility of producing and rearing offspring.

Tolerance -- used to mean being civil; now means totally agreeing with the LGBT agenda without question.

c00kster
Provo, Utah

Prior comments have hinted at what I think part of the problem in relation to this issue, that is, the shifting of majority view and the resulting relabeling of positions. Whether it is acknowledged or not, the majority view is typically intolerant of the minority (or opposition) view, and often demonizes the minority/opposition. Rarely is it comfortable for the majority to experience this shift away from power and traditional intolerance/ignorance. When the minority fights back and is able to land blows against what has become the "former" majority, the latter often feels victimized and disrespected, as if appealing to the minority, many of whom HAVE been victimized and disrespected for ages, will do them any good. As the forces of both sides equalize it behooves the former majority to understand what the minority knows too well...this is a war and all's fair, including individual persecution and open aggression, unless one establishes personal guidelines of good behavior towards friend and foe alike. My suggestion is to spend one's energy on the group of people who are largely ambivalent about the issue and attempt to win them over to one's point of view and side.

Linus
Bountiful, UT

One comment included the following: 1) Doubt there is a god, 2) Assurance that if there is a god, he or she will not be displeased with sexual perversions, and 3) if god mistakenly disapproves, then god is unworthy.

Oh, how far we've come! All the way to Sodom.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

This article did it's homework. And found cases of people choosing to leave a job profession, it's true.

But the claims that the LGBT movement are 'intolerant' pale when confronted with one, simple fact.

31 states still have laws on record that allow them to fire someone for only being gay.

How is this an example of 'tolerance' from the other side? From those with anti-gay bias?

Answer: It does not. Now that more and more examples of a majority in SUPPORT of LGBT rights is becoming evident, those against gay rights make claims of those in favor of gay rights as 'intolerant.'

When Kobe Bryant made an anti-gay slur not 4 months ago.

This is the example of the 'moral right.' Of the people who claim God is on THEIR side...

they are now playing the role, of the victim.

panamadesnews
Lindon, UT

Shame on those alleged 50% in favor of gay rights. It is an abomination that will put our civilization on the brink of disaster, until we people of the United Stated wake up and put this abomination into its rightful place in our thinking. Yes, these pro gay rights persons have the right to say or do what they want so long as they do not infringe upon our rights. But we also have the right to say and do what we want, so long as we do not infringe on their rights. Let's not let them bully us into entering into their way of thinking just to pacify them - let us continue to fight for righteousness for our nation. Let us not call bad, good - and good, bad. Good is good, and bad is bad. Let us remember that important teaching in the scriptures. May righteousness prevail.

ouisc
Farmington, UT

Here's the problem: you don't have the right to "oppose" gays. That's like saying, "I oppose women."

Faith is something you choose to believe in or not. So people of faith, you do not get to make the rules for other people. People of faith can choose to not be gay, if they so believe it is a choice.

I am excited about the recent developments in benefits for gays. We are making progress!

merich39
Salt Lake City, UT

those darn gays! they're trying to stop the homophobes from practicing their (perceived) constitutional right to block others from having equal constitutional rights. what a bunch of bullies!

merich39
Salt Lake City, UT

fortunately, for those of us who support equal rights for all, the tide has turned in our favor. your kids and my kids have realized that a country that values freedom and rights for all cannot deny certain groups those rights just because other groups find them "ichy'. the older generations will pass on and the younger generation will bring equality into existence. it's inevitable now.

The Caravan Moves On
Enid, OK

@ tmaxr | 11:50 a.m. June 12, 2011

There you go again, making a false claim.

You say that the LDS church donated money in the fight for Prop 8 but that claim is absolutely, positively NOT true. It was not the "LDS church" that donated money but individual members. Early in the Prop 8 fight I actually went to my bishop and asked him where I could specify money on the tithing slip to go to the Prop 8 fight and he said there was no way to do that through the Church, that if I wanted to donate I'd have to do it through a private organization.

It absolutely shocks me that the pro-homosexual crowd demands that churches, and the LDS church in particular, has no right to get involved in matters of morality. Just what exactly do you think churches are formed for?, to just get people together for tea and crumpets?

A Guy With A Brain
Enid, OK

@Pagan | 5:11 p.m. June 12, 2011

So, Pagan, what exactly is wrong for a private company to fire someone solely for being a homosexual?

Is this not America?

If I run a company, MY company, don't I have a right to operate my the way I see fit?

And yes, if I worked for a company run by a homosexual person and they fired me because I opposed homosexual activity, then yes, they have that right to do that as well.

Again, isn't this America?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments