Quantcast
Utah

64% don't support gay marriage new poll says

Comments

Return To Article
  • Greg Br80 BOSTON, MA
    Oct. 19, 2011 12:18 p.m.

    This poll is biased as it was conducted by an anti-gay activist known for spreading anti-gay propagaganda in the past which completely discredits it. The questions are presented as an either or - as if same-sex marriage eliminates man-woman marriage. The two are not mutually exclusive. They're also written to mischaracterize the issue and tap into the subconscious of the person being polled i.e. "...should be redefined to include any two people". "Redefined" is a loaded word and "any two people" implies marriage between close relatives and/or marriage to minors. Of course that was the intent. The honest way to ask the question would be: "Do you think that two unrelated adults of the same gender should have the legal right to enter into a civil marriage". They won't ask it that way because honest language is their enemy and they know that, assuming the people in the poll are truly a representative sample of the population (i.e. the poll wasn't conducted at the Focus on the Family company picnic), the results will favor same-sex marriage.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 17, 2011 9:59 p.m.

    O'really
    breakdown of the family, cheapening of the importance of marriage and family in society...

    LDS4
    A study conducted by Grey Matter Research (formerly Ellison Research) among a representative sample of 695 Protestant church ministers nationwide, asked pastors to identify the three strongest threats to families in their own community.

    The three most commonly named threats were divorce (listed as one of the top three by 43% of all ministers), negative influences from the media (38%), and materialism (36%). These were followed by absentee fathers (24%) and families that lack a stay-at-home parent (22%). The rest of the list included:

    Co-habitation before marriage (18%)
    Pornography (17%)
    Morality not being taught in schools (14%)
    Poverty, unemployment, and/or a poor economy (13%)
    Parental alcohol use/abuse (12%)
    Parental drug use/abuse (11%)
    Drug use/abuse among teens or children (8%)
    Teen sexual involvement/activity (8%)
    Alcohol use/abuse among teens or children (6%)
    Adultery (5%)
    Poor schools or quality of education (4%)
    Teen pregnancy (2%)
    Sexual predators or sexual abuse (1%)
    The expense of child care (1%)
    Other issues (12%)

    Gay marriage didn't make the list. The biggest threats come from within families, not outside evil forces.

  • MBSalt Lake Salt Lake City, ut
    Oct. 17, 2011 2:13 p.m.

    Pollster Gary Lawrence:

    Latter-Day Commentary describes him as an "LDS, Republican, conservative hawk" who was the "state LDS grassroots director for the Protect Marriage coalition. Brother Lawrence, who has served as a bishop has spent over 35 years studying opinions and behaviors of the American public."

    Really surprised his poll was against gay marriage. Really, really surprised.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Oct. 17, 2011 9:41 a.m.

    @ Malcolm Swall

    Religious people who believe in God and the Bible HAVE expressed what they feel the harm would be, many times over. To name a few- breakdown of the family, cheapening of the importance of marriage and family in society, teaching children in schools that homosexuality is normal and acceptable, a permissivness in general that leads people to confusion and unhappiness, very confused children. Non-religious LGBT supporters and even some liberal but religious supporters and especially the gay community never listen. They dismiss these potential harms as fairy tales, hate tactics, non-scientific fear mongering, etc.

    Those who fear what will happen will keep warning. The govt. and gay supporters will keep ignoring and dismissing. And in a few generations when we see these predictions really coming to pass, I hope those who knew will not say "I told you so" but "I'm so sorry you're so broken and sad. There is a way out of this darkness. Follow us to Christ."

  • Malcolm Swall SAN DIEGO, CA
    Oct. 17, 2011 7:16 a.m.

    @Jeff 1:19 pm 10/14 "A major problem with the argument that same-gender marriage causes no harm therefore it should be permitted lies in how that harm will happen. Marriage, like it or not, is indelibly linked to procreation, and harm to procreation cannot be determined immediately. In this case, it will take two to three generations, and by then the harm will be very difficult to reverse."

    You are being pretty specific - "...harm to procreation cannot be determined immediately". and "In this case, it will take two to three generations, and by then the harm will be very difficult to reverse."

    Yet, at the same time you are being pretty vague - you don't define any "harm to procreation".

    If you have enough knowledge about the harm to correctly indicate "it will take...generations", you must know what that harm is. You might actually carry your case if you share that certainty. If you don't actually know what the harm is, you should admit that you can't possibly know that "it will take generations".

  • Malcolm Swall SAN DIEGO, CA
    Oct. 17, 2011 7:05 a.m.

    @Jeff: "@ Malcolm Swall: You wonder what harm I think will come from same-gender marriage. You misrepresent what I said. I am suggesting that there is a problem with suggesting there is no harm from same-gender marriage because the potential harm will not be evident for at least three generations. I don't know what harm will come exactly. I suggest that proponents of same-gender marriage cannot claim that there is no harm, only that it is not immediately evident."

    Nice dodge, but you are the one proposing that there will be harm. I am proposing that there is nothing to indicate that there will be harm. It is your proposition, it is on you to explain what harm you think will occur.

    Importantly, same sex couples are experiencing demonstrable harm currently (not being able to have the legal benefits of marriage). How can we objectively evaluate and compare the two cases? You conceivably could argue that the future harm is of greater cost than the current harm to SS couples, but you have to quantify what that future harm actually is to make the point.

  • SFBay RIO VISTA, CA
    Oct. 16, 2011 11:29 a.m.

    The LGBT community does not have a problem with many Americans disapproval of same sex marraige. They have a problem with this poll. Gallup has been polling this issue for 16 years and the last time disappoval of same sex marraige approached the 64% this poll gets is back in 1998.

    Why does the Mormon community have such a hard time accepting the fact that a majority of Americans now support same sex marraige? Why does the Mormon church feel is it acceptable to spend millions of dollars specifically designed to disaenfranchise any Americian? If the Mormon Church does not believe in same sex marraige don't perform them. But don't tell other Americans (including many denominations) what they can and can't do.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Oct. 16, 2011 9:58 a.m.

    I don't understand why the uproar over this poll from the LGBT community. Why can't they just accept that many many people are against this relatively new idea of two of the same gender getting married? Isn't it obvious? Why try so hard to prove the poll false? Try as they might to convince, plead, dis religion and morals, turn it around to make non-gays look bad and every other tactic they employ, many many people will never accept it. It may be 49% or 51%. Either way it will never ever be 100%. That is a fact. So I would suggest that they just get used to that fact and go on living their lives and loving their partner without getting all fussed if people don't like what they're up to.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 15, 2011 11:12 p.m.

    Jeff
    A major problem with the argument that same-gender marriage causes no harm therefore it should be permitted lies in how that harm will happen. Marriage, like it or not, is indelibly linked to procreation, and harm to procreation cannot be determined immediately. In this case, it will take two to three generations, and by then the harm will be very difficult to reverse.

    LDS4
    Since 98.5% of people are straight, do you really think that the 1.5%, if granted marriage equality, will cause the 98.5%, within 3 generations, to no longer want to have kids? Gays want to have kids so gays dont have a desire to curtail population growth.

    If people stop having as many kids, it will not be due to gays getting marriage equality. It will be due to other things like high taxes, continued recessions, pregnancies no longer covered by insurance, etc...which makes having kids financially difficult. Id appreciate hearing your theory as to how giving gays marriage equality could possibly lead to straights having fewer kids.

  • amst plano, tx
    Oct. 15, 2011 10:57 p.m.

    Wickedness never was happiness.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Oct. 15, 2011 8:52 p.m.

    @Jeff 5:48
    you wrote:" Do you argue that I should abandon my faith for your convenience?"

    Never!!

    Jeff, " I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"(Voltaire)

    Your religion liberties are safe and very much protected.

    The question here is how far are YOU willing to go in order to defend yourself from an unknown harm that may happens in three generations down the road?

    Mormons more than other faiths in the United States should know the harm that comes from unfounded fear, missunderstandings and plain bigotry.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Oct. 15, 2011 8:43 p.m.

    Jeff 1:19 pm 10/14 A major problem with the argument that same-gender marriage causes no harm therefore it should be permitted lies in how that harm will happen. Marriage, like it or not, is indelibly linked to procreation, and harm to procreation cannot be determined immediately. In this case, it will take two to three generations, and by then the harm will be very difficult to reverse.

    Kaliendra 307 PM 10/14 first we do not require people to prove they can have children and intend to before they get married (not a condition of marriage), two there are many ways to have children that do not include marriage or even a man and a women directly, third homosexuality has existed for millions of years and throughout hundreds of species and has yet to ever caused an extinction.

    Jeff 5:48 pm 110/15 Do you deny the problems with the arguments I mentioned? I think the problems I point out are valid; I've been reading these threads for several years, and I have never seen anyone refute the problems with the arguments.

    Yes I do refute your failed attempt to find problems.

  • Bubble SLC, UT
    Oct. 15, 2011 8:03 p.m.

    @jeff

    "Do you know what will happen in three generations?"

    the same thing will likely happen that has happened for the hundreds of generations that homosexuality has been around. The world has not ended despite millions of years and hundreds of species with homosexuality.

  • Sorry Charlie! SLC, UT
    Oct. 15, 2011 7:25 p.m.

    @jeff

    did you read kalindra's post it clearly refutes each of the "problems" you bring up.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    Oct. 15, 2011 5:48 p.m.

    @ Malcolm Swall: You wonder what harm I think will come from same-gender marriage. You misrepresent what I said. I am suggesting that there is a problem with suggesting there is no harm from same-gender marriage because the potential harm will not be evident for at least three generations. I don't know what harm will come exactly. I suggest that proponents of same-gender marriage cannot claim that there is no harm, only that it is not immediately evident.

    @ Kalindra: It's ironic that you suggest that my "line of reasoning" is tired. What I was pointing out is that arguments in favor of same-gender marriage are problematic. What am I reasoning? Do you deny the problems with the arguments I mentioned? I think the problems I point out are valid; I've been reading these threads for several years, and I have never seen anyone refute the problems with the arguments.

    @ Baccus0902: I'm not sure you read my post very carefully. You are bringing up a number of straw men to knock down that I never mentioned. Do you know what will happen in three generations? Do you argue that I should abandon my faith for your convenience?

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    Oct. 15, 2011 3:42 p.m.

    The publisher of the poll should carefully consider whether to hold to one of the tenets of LDS faith "We believe in being honest" or publish such political propaganda which does not represent public opinion.

  • Bert Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 15, 2011 1:48 p.m.

    Intentionally(?) Deceptive Poll

    Whenever a poll results are dramatically different from the vast majority of others, it needs to be scrutinized for methodology, bias, motivation of the pollster, and what the poll sample looked like. This poll falls into the dramatically different category and we know very little about the polling details.

    "We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest. The Lord is not pleased with such dishonesty, and we will have to account for our lie." - Gospel Principles

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 15, 2011 2:10 a.m.

    @A voice of reason
    "If it came down to equality without freedom or freedom with inequality, what would you choose?"

    Why does it have to be one extreme or the other as you outlined it?

    @IDC
    " I don't think supporting monogamy in an activity that I consider to be immoral to be moral."

    You don't, but I think it is which is why I used it as an example when someone noted that moral people can still end up disagreeing on what is moral.

    @Baccus0902
    "Gays are procreating babies all the time."

    Utah even had a lesbian state legislator be a surrogate mother for a gay couple.

  • Michael De Groote
    Oct. 15, 2011 12:33 a.m.

    It seems if you focus on the DEFINITION of marriage, the solid majority of Americans think it should be "only as the union of one man and one woman" as the conservative Alliance Defense Fund's recent poll found. Their results were basically the same as Lawrence's: 62% of Americans agreed with this statement: "I believe marriage should be defined only as the union of one man and one woman." 53% definitely agreed. Only 35% disagreed.
    Lawrence's poll was 64% for traditional marriage, 33% for gay marriage.

    If you focus on the LEGALITY of gay marriage, you get these results in favor:
    Gallup: 53%
    Public Religion Research Institute: 51%
    CNN: 51%
    ABC News/Washington Post: 53%

    What do we learn from this? That one set of polls was biased and the other was not biased? Do we pick the result we like and ignore the others?

    I hope not.

    People should look at poll questions carefully, yes. Both sets of poll questions -- legality and definition -- tell us something about how people feel and think about same-sex marriage. For example, from a PR perspective: Proponents might emphasize legality. Opponents might emphasize how legalizing same sex marriage changes the definition.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Oct. 14, 2011 5:41 p.m.

    Jeff 1:19
    Come on brother, get on with the program.

    What is it? Aren't gays such a minuscule minority that their procreation or lack of it really will not affect the future of human kind?

    (psst...let me share a secret.... Gays are procreating babies all the time. The heterosexual way or by artificial insemination shhh)

    Or, do you believe that Homosexuality is contagious and eventually if we open the gates Heterosexuality will cease to exist? Do you doubt yourself?

    You wrote: "we are taught to be respectful of others and to have compassion for those troubled by same-sex attraction". Troubled? are you troubled by opposite sex attraction?

    There are many faithful, devoted LDS who have no problem with same gay marriage. Because they know it will not affect them or society negatively.

    Other compassionate LDS want same marriage so all can enjoy the happiness and benefits that a loving, legal monogamous relationship provides.

    Jeff, nobody is asking you to change your religious mind. Just let a secular society make secular decisions. As you enjoy your freedom of religion and life style. Let others have the same privilege. Is that really too much to ask?

  • Ranch HUNTSVILLE, UT
    Oct. 14, 2011 5:06 p.m.

    LValfre says:

    "...Just like the new revelation removing the Curse of Cain, "

    ----

    The curse has been removed? Bu-but they're still Black. Apparently that "new revelation" was faulty.

    @Jeff;

    Marriage is absolutely not indelibly linked to procreation. It is possible to procreate without marriage. It is possible to have marriage without procreating. Thus the two are not indelibly linked.

    If they were so linked, we would REQUIRE all married people to have children (even the old, the infertile, etc.).

    Again VoiceOfReason says that we live in a free country as long as you DO WHAT YOUR TOLD BY THE MAJORITY.

  • Greg Br80 BOSTON, MA
    Oct. 14, 2011 3:07 p.m.

    @ Badger55: When it comes from an anti-gay activist and contains intentionally misleading questions? No, we don't. We prefer our polls to come from sources like Pew and Gallup. You should too.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Oct. 14, 2011 3:07 p.m.

    @jeff

    So you are aware this line of reasoning has been taken before right? three things, first we do not require people to prove they can have children and intend to before they get married (not a condition of marriage), two there are many ways to have children that do not include marriage or even a man and a women directly, third homosexuality has existed for millions of years and throughout hundreds of species and has yet to ever caused an extinction. I now I now as I said before your line of reasoning has been tried on every thread on this subject so do us all a favor and go back and read the refutations to the next 20 points you are going to try to make then get back to us with some new ideas.

  • Malcolm Swall SAN DIEGO, CA
    Oct. 14, 2011 2:13 p.m.

    "A major problem with the argument that same-gender marriage causes no harm therefore it should be permitted lies in how that harm will happen. Marriage, like it or not, is indelibly linked to procreation, and harm to procreation cannot be determined immediately. In this case, it will take two to three generations, and by then the harm will be very difficult to reverse."

    What "harm to procreation" do you imagine? Anybody can argue against anything by postulating a future harm that "cannot be determined immediately". A claim that the world will end next year can't be disproved this year, that doesn't mean that it convinces anybody.

    Again, please specify exactly what harm you fear.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    Oct. 14, 2011 1:19 p.m.

    A major problem with the argument that same-gender marriage causes no harm therefore it should be permitted lies in how that harm will happen. Marriage, like it or not, is indelibly linked to procreation, and harm to procreation cannot be determined immediately. In this case, it will take two to three generations, and by then the harm will be very difficult to reverse.

    A problem with the argument that religious people should not allow their religious views to influence their attitudes toward same-gender marriage is at least two-fold. The first, for the LDS majority who read this newspaper, is that we are taught to be respectful of others and to have compassion for those troubled by same-sex attraction; if we abandon our beliefs, we abandon the teachings of compassion and respect as well. Secondly, a purely biological discussion of the difficulties of same-gender relationships is not permitted in this forum, and would be distasteful to most of us anyway. Biology is far more cruel than religions ever are.

    Finally, those who think the LDS Church will abandon its beliefs on marriage do not understand those beliefs.

  • Sorry Charlie! SLC, UT
    Oct. 14, 2011 12:31 p.m.

    @voice of reason

    So wouldnt the LGBT community and it supporters fighting for more be a part of their individual freedom and maybe a part of their seeking to be able to make choices about their life? You seem to be saying to contradictory things. Are you saying People should have individual freedoms to make choices in life but must just accept the inequalitys they face? Inequality is always going to be a fact of life in a free society or not but it seems silly to claim we should have a free society but you must accept your lot in life.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Oct. 14, 2011 12:18 p.m.

    Care to provide any evidence that gay rights had anything to do with the fall of the rome or our current problems?

  • I see nothing! Casa Grande, AZ
    Oct. 14, 2011 12:18 p.m.

    Voice of reason, you are free to be completly free. You just have to move somewhere where there is nobody else around and you can literally do anything you want.

    But, if you choose to remain in society you one, have to help pay for it and two have to not step on other's rights such as marriage when it truly does not affect you.

  • Malcolm Swall SAN DIEGO, CA
    Oct. 14, 2011 12:11 p.m.

    Mr Lawrence is not an independent pollster. His bias is reflected in the results. Why are his results so deviant from reputable independent organizations such as Gallup?

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 14, 2011 11:56 a.m.

    To all liberals on here:

    If two principles were inevitably at odds with each other and all things boiled down to one or the other. If you had to choose which you could have- what would you choose?

    Forced equality, where there is no rich vs poor, no extra benefits for some and not for others, no pain and suffering for some yet peace and happiness for others... a life where all things are equal no matter who tried to stop it and no matter who wanted to elect not to participate... things were equal regardless.

    Individual freedom, where some will suffer from their choices and some will gain, some will have extra benefits you don't get, some will treat others well and you poorly, some will discriminate and be prejudiced, some won't, you will have great things in this world along with bad things, you are free to choose what you make of your life, being free to chose right from wrong with what is yours.

    If it came down to equality without freedom or freedom with inequality, what would you choose?

    I would rather be free to choose my life, my government, my beliefs. That's true conservatism!

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    Oct. 14, 2011 11:35 a.m.

    @DeltraFoxtrot,

    "You may delay it a few years, but ultimately equality will prevail and the world will keep on turning. "

    Yep! You can keep calling it out as blasphemy but it's going to happen. Just like the new revelation removing the Curse of Cain, it was going to happen no matter how much you fight it. Equality will prevail and the country started picketing BYU games for exactly that reason.

  • IDC Boise, ID
    Oct. 14, 2011 11:31 a.m.

    Lane Meyer - In fighting for my beliefs, I only mean in the way I vote and causes I financially support. I won't march against gays or not associate with or shop at their stores. I won't threaten them or vandalize their homes or places of work. What are our rights? I believe we all already have the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex. We all already have the same rights. I realize my view is limited but just about everyone has limits. I would guess most who support gay marriage don't also support polygamy. We all have limits. By allowing gay marriage our country is in a way saying it is okay and that we all support gay marriage. I don't feel that way.

    alt34 - I don't think supporting monogamy in an activity that I consider to be immoral to be moral. Although I do have more respect for monogamous homosexual and heterosexual non-married couples than those who are not committed to one partner. I don't hate or have ill will towards either.

  • ParkCityAggie Park City, Ut
    Oct. 14, 2011 10:42 a.m.

    One simple rule folks: Best way to avoid hypocrisy is to mind your own business.

  • DeltaFoxtrot West Valley, UT
    Oct. 14, 2011 10:29 a.m.

    At one time 64% of the nation was against blacks and whites going to the same schools.

    All of you who speak out against gay marriage may as well be citizens of Mississippi in the 1960's. Change is coming, it scares you, you don't think it is right. Well it is going to happen anyways. You may delay it a few years, but ultimately equality will prevail and the world will keep on turning.

  • DeltaFoxtrot West Valley, UT
    Oct. 14, 2011 9:57 a.m.

    The entire problem behind this is the legal definition of marriage vs the religious definition of marriage.

    A simple solution. GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MARRIAGE.

    Replace the legal term "marriage" with "civil union" and guarantee equal rights and protections under the law for everyone.

    Let the religious folks (who are the only ones having a problem with gay "marriage") keep their religious term "marriage" and define it however they want to.

    If a couple wants to join together in the eyes of the state, they go down to the court house and get a civil union. If they want to join together in the eyes of their deity they go down to the church and get married.

    It's easy, it's simple, it's straight forward. Both sides get what they want. It lets the religious people keep the sanctity of their "marriage" while granting equal projections and status to everyone else.

    It's called compromise... something we've forgotten how to do.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Oct. 14, 2011 9:52 a.m.

    Nature created men and women differently for a reason. It has to do with perpetuation of the species. Yes, there are aberrations in nature, but aberrations are not the norm.

    Marriage, from the beginning, was intended to be between men and women. Any plumber can explain why this works best.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 14, 2011 9:39 a.m.

    L: "If you meet the criteria, you are a man, and find yourself a wife, you certainly have the same rights to get married that I do if you accept the "rules" of marriage and not try to redefine it."

    ---------------------------

    Or if you are a nice cheese and find yourself a nice wine, then you can be defined as a marriage.

    Or one of two companies that merge...that too is a marriage.

    Look up what a marriage is under our laws. It is a contract between two individuals and the state. The state allows these two individuals to become each others closest relation with rights and privileges to follow. The two individuals pledge that they will accept this.

    They do not have to have children. They do not have to even have sex. They do not have to live together. They do not have to love each other. But they have become partners legally. This is what "marriage" means per our laws.

    This has nothing to do with religion. This has to do with treating each law-abiding, tax paying American equally.

  • Kitenoa Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 14, 2011 9:26 a.m.

    In response to the comments above, "marriage" must not be treated as equivalent to the definition of a "family". Today, a family can be defined in so many different ways so as to fit your own preferences (no one can control that process).

    On the other hand, specifically, marriage is a reconized relationship defined by the condition of "one man to one woman". It is a unique combination and relationship of "one man to one woman".

    In defense of traditional marriage, please find other deserving names to define, the "one man to one man", or "one woman to one woman" combinations and relationships for gay couples (that process should be explored).

    Polygamy for example is for a "one man and many women" relationship, polyandry is another, and so forth.

  • Badger55 Nibley, Ut
    Oct. 14, 2011 9:06 a.m.

    Surprise. Surprise. A GLB supporter that doesn't agree with a poll that suggests 2/3 of Americans think of marriage being between a man and a woman.

  • Castlepath South Jordan, UT
    Oct. 14, 2011 8:58 a.m.

    "homosexuality exist in over 400 species and homophobia in only one. You tell me which one is unnatural."

    I don't care if there are a thousand species. Animals act only on instinct. Their behaviors don't necessarily mean "natural". Using deductive reasoning to justify homosexuality is a poor argument, i.e: monkeys eat bananas, I eat bananas, therefore I'm a monkey.

  • Greg Br80 BOSTON, MA
    Oct. 14, 2011 7:56 a.m.

    The other absurdity of this poll is that it asked about "homosexual behavior". Of course Maggie Gallagher (the woman who used to say she wasn't anti-gay but just wanted to "protect marriage" but now through comments like this proves that she is in fact generally anti-gay) tries to spin the 20% who refused to answer as anti-gay and uncomfortable with the subject. I'd say the 20% were more likely thinking "Why are you asking me about private consensual activity between adults? It's 2011."

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    Oct. 14, 2011 1:11 a.m.

    So Gallup, a widely trusted non partisan pollster, says 53% of people approve of it. And this guy, who admittedly has done paid polling for the Yes on 8 campaign, says otherwise. Who do you believe?

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Oct. 14, 2011 12:25 a.m.

    George

    Try early American history and the prosperous times of the Roman Empire. The point is, societies decline with gay rights. Our country? Witness for yourself.

  • L Central, Utah
    Oct. 13, 2011 11:13 p.m.

    Seems like we argue about a word "marriage." There are lots of words that have been defined by one source or another.

    One I am familiar with is the word "Doctor." I have been called "Doc" for many years, sometimes even "Doctor" but the truth is I'm not a "doctor" and I don't meet the criteria. Some people will get upset if I put that on a business card and say according to my defination I can represent myself that way, otherwise you are taking away one of my rights (to be called whatever I want.)You could subistute many other words like "electrician."

    I'm sure someone will say that with a lot of hard work I could become an electrician...well I only have one arm & one leg and I don't want to try that. I can however get married and I have a wonderful wife.

    If you meet the criteria, you are a man, and find yourself a wife, you certainly have the same rights to get married that I do if you accept the "rules" of marriage and not try to redefine it. You can be an electrician if you meet the defination of an electrician.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Oct. 13, 2011 10:29 p.m.

    @Ms.W

    instinctively understood, real? care to provide some scientific evidence for that claim or do you expect us to take it on faith?

  • Ms.W South Jordan, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 10:23 p.m.

    "Ask yourself this...if you did not have a religious belief that marriage should be between heterosexuals, would you care if gays were legally married?"

    Yes. Because it is instinctively understood that homosexuality is wrong. I do not support "gay" anything and I've never needed religion to understand that in the first place.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 10:14 p.m.

    @CottageCheese,

    I can't speak for anybody else, but I will answer those questions:

    How many homosexual individuals were sexually abused at some point in their life, particularly in their youth?

    I was never sexually abused.

    How many homosexuals viewed or engaged in pornographic material?

    I never viewed nor engaged in pornographic material. In fact, I avoided that material like the plague because I needed to be a good guy--what was expected of me. I even avoided Madonna songs because of the unsavory lyrics.

    How many homosexuals participated in self-abuse?

    I have lived a healthy life and take care of my body. I have never engaged in self abuse.

    I'm just wired a little differently than most people. The reality, however, is that I probably have more in common with you than you would like to admit.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Oct. 13, 2011 9:56 p.m.

    @worf

    and no society has prospered suppressing the gay community either so what your point?

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Oct. 13, 2011 9:28 p.m.

    No society has ever prospered with gay rights.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Oct. 13, 2011 9:01 p.m.

    Now what sense do religious people make when they spout off this stuff in thier comments. It's embarasing really.

    If I take a poll how many people think gay is catchy I'd probably get the same number as this poll.

    So soon, you'll be the minority fighting for your rights as the gay majority strikes down heterosexual marriage? I won't feel sorry for you.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Oct. 13, 2011 8:33 p.m.

    I'm religious as the next guy.

    What does that have to do with the US constitution and personal rights? Nothing.

    If you can honestly make a constitutional argument against gay marriage, go for it. So far, courts are agreeing that denying gay marriage is unconstitutional.

    When you actually live in a theocracy then you can quote the Bible while passing laws. Simple as that.

    And start writing your anti-premarital sex bill. That will fix nearly everything.

  • Ranch HUNTSVILLE, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 8:24 p.m.

    @VoR:

    What about religions that believe GLBT couples should be allowed to marry and believe that is it good to perform said marriages? You prohibit it. Religious freedom is now infringed upon - by the religious no less.

    BTW, the Constitution didn't "state" all rights. It specifically states that they weren't all enumerated.

    Refusing government recognition of our marriages denies us and takes away the very governmental benefits that you yourself receive (Hypocrisy).

    @Charlemagne;

    Allowing gays to marry in no way, NO WAY, damages traditional marriage.

    @BillInNeb;

    If you think something is wrong don't do it. Simple.

    What your "god" says is completely irrelevant.

    You "know" he's a prophet. So? (believe is a more appropriate word).

    @CottageCheese;

    Your questions apply equally to heterosexuals and are meaningless.

    For those who are quoting "god" and all that "god says"; Please come up with good, valid secular reasons for prohibiting marriage between same-sex couples. Your "gods" are irrelevant and their opinions are meaningless since you can't even prove they said anything at all or that they even exist.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Oct. 13, 2011 7:38 p.m.

    Relax people.
    I'm not hearing horror stories from Iowa, Massachusetts or anywhere where same-sex marriage is legal, and I'm pretty sure it isn't " contagious."
    Why shouldn't we support monogamy?

    Jesus commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves, so that is what I'm going to focus on, and leave the judging to Him.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    Oct. 13, 2011 7:31 p.m.

    Actually, blur, according to SCOTUS 'marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.' The have declared this in many a decision. Even if it were a privilege, the 14th amendment says that the government is to treat everyone equally.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    Oct. 13, 2011 6:54 p.m.

    To Lafavre: The problem is that I KNOW he is a prophet of God and you don't. There is nothing else I need to know about him other than that. He carries the entire world on his shoulders as the Lord's mouthpiece. Corporate elite? You really have no knowledge of the man. I have met him, talked with him and seen the kind of spirit he carries. Have you met him and talked with him. Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ? I do at least I have faith that I do and that is all I need. Until you can give evidence to the contrary other than an opinion such as that you know more about the Savior of the World than he I would possibly listen to you. Otherwise, your opinion of me and other Latter Day Saints falls on deaf ears.

  • Christy Beaverton, OR
    Oct. 13, 2011 6:34 p.m.

    davidroy | 8:21 a.m. Oct. 13, 2011
    Flagstaff, AZ

    Possibly she didn't read the Book of Genesis in which God creates Adam and Eve. I would challenge her to find any scripture that references an Adam and Bob or an Eve and Carol, at least not in a positive light. If Miss Love takes the time to read the Book of Genesis she might be further enlightened by the story about Sodam and Gomorrah.

    ==========

    Are you kidding me. We don't live in a theocracy, and we don't decide our laws based on a story about a man, a woman made from his rib, and their talking snake.

    Yes, the family is the corner stone of society, but guess what? Gay people are a part of families. Gay people have their own families. That is FACT, folks. You can't change that, and why would you even try? Because your religion says being gay isn't right? Well, then don't be gay. And keep trying to withhold equal rights from your fellow tax-paying, law-abiding citizens. See how far you get with your bigotry. You won't get far. You're just wearing a hole in the floor.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Oct. 13, 2011 6:05 p.m.

    @freedom in danger

    dictionary dot com
    any theory holding that criteria of judgment are relative varying with individuals and their environment.
    American Heritage Dictionary
    The doctrine that no ideas or beliefs are universally true but that all are, instead, relative that is, their validity depends on the circumstances in which they are applied.
    Collins Dictionary
    any theory holding that truth or moral or aesthetic value, etc, is not universal or absolute but may differ between individuals or cultures

    I would be careful accusing Phranc of being uneducated seeing as their use of the term relativism fits the definition of relativism and yours does not.


    "Laws doing require proof, they require votes. Gays are free whether states support them or not."

    Again with such poor sentence structure I would be careful criticizing others education.

    Laws are required not to violate a persons right to individual liberty without a clear reason why those rights should be taken away (i.e. social harm) not just the vote of the majority.

  • Phranc SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 5:47 p.m.

    on my 5:01 commentthat was suppose to read based not passing sorry, that post was my third try at getting past the monitors, as you can see it is really abusive and off topic right?

  • Freedom-In-Danger WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 5:46 p.m.

    Phranc: "Passing arguments based on religious beliefs is about as relative as you can get."

    I'm not sure you understand what relativism is. Relativism is the moral theory where truth is entirely subjective. Few religious beliefs claim to only be subjectively true. An argument based on religion is simply BASING your argument on a subjective idea. That does not make it relativism, that makes it subjective.

    Relativism is where you believe that you have no place telling other people what is moral as for them it is different. You can't accept "they believe different so I can't tell them their wrong" without also accepting that Hitler was okay doing what he did. People say "well as long as it doesn't harm others", but that is libertarian and in fact NOT relativism. Relativism requires that you accept another persons behavior as moral independent of any conditions other than what THAT person believes is moral.

    I mean you no disrespect in saying this- but it seems you aren't educated in this subject. I wouldn't blame you if you weren't. But your comment didn't make sense.

    Laws doing require proof, they require votes. Gays are free whether states support them or not.

  • cindyacre Shelley, ID
    Oct. 13, 2011 5:44 p.m.

    Michelle Bachman's pastor DID have something to say about Mormons:

    Although (Pastor) Merritt praised the LDS Church's emphasis on family and missionary service, he suggested the Mormon faith is "untrue" and "diluted."

    That was in 2007.

  • blur Murray, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 5:41 p.m.

    I haven't read every comment posted so far but I have notice one glaring problem with the arguments on both side of this issue. Marriage is not a right. I it is privilege granted by the state. This is why you get a marriage license before you marry. There are legal proscriptions against certain types of heterosexual marriage. Last I heard you can be denied a license to marry if you have certain diseases. The state feels it has a vested interest in marriage and the offspring of the marital relationship. I'm not sure I agree with or understand the need for the states involvement in marriage. Right now that is the way is is.

    Meanwhile, I haven't seen a good reason to grant people involved in sexually confused relationships a marriage license. Frankly, granting marriage licenses to homosexual couples undermines the protections that current marriage laws provide.

  • Freedom-In-Danger WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 5:28 p.m.

    Pagan: You shamed me and accused me of making hateful comments.

    A common argument for homosexuality is comparing the behavior of animals to humans in order to justify our behavior. I ONLY commented on how the same logic would justify things like murder. I did NOT myself compare the morality; I ONLY compared the justification that someone else gave- stating that THEIR justification would in fact be making such a comparison. Which doesn't help them, but inhibits their claim. I in fact did the very opposite of which you accused me of.

    Your comment was full of a hateful and judgmental attitude towards me. It was a deceitful criticism of my using logic regarding another comment. I was not disrespectful to them yet you were to me.

    Previously, you have referenced the LDS Church and gay suicides in Utah as if there was a connection. While the LDS Church repeats it's loving statements, you boast hateful ones. While I am not the horrible monster you've made me out to be, you are in fact using words as a tool for committing what you accuse others of, hate.

    I am not ashamed of LDS doctrine, which is entirely of love.

  • EJM Herriman, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 5:20 p.m.

    Twinkleberry...I agree with you.

  • Gary Federal Way, WA
    Oct. 13, 2011 5:20 p.m.

    Interesting that hardly no one here has mentioned how the Constitution protects us from what the majority wishes for. No matter how much a majority may be right on something, if it is a law that goes against the Constitution's Bill of Rights, then it can not be law. That's why Prop 8 is being ruled unconstitutional.

    That's why some day in the future, Polygamy will be allowed because it will be ruled in the near future that the Act against Polygamy is unconstitutional as well. Got it? We can't wish our wishes on someone just because of a religious belief we have. Thus said, the Constitution Bill of Rights for equal rights protects all. That's why we show a great diversity of who we are.

    Sure there are a few bad apples in the thick of it, but so what. I value what the Bill of Right for equal rights gives us. Now do you finally get it and realize what the silliness is about these issues? Polls may be interesting and try showing favoritism, but if it goes against the Bill of Rights, such a law that violates Bill of Rights definitely will be thrown out.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 5:13 p.m.

    @whitelines

    First off let me dismiss a little fable here it is a biological reality that homosexuality unlike marriage actually has existed for millennia and has yet to cause a single known extinction so don't worry so much.

    With that out of the way let me say, I have been where you are and I understand the fear and the pain of having to live lies. Please now there is help, support and even those that love you for who you are. Do not give in to despair and do not give into the lack of acceptance, judgmental attitudes and the hate that sometimes is expressed on threads like this they really are not representative of the real world there is plenty of room for you to be you, all you need to do is be willing to reach out for it.

  • Phranc SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 5:01 p.m.

    @Freedom-In-Danger

    morality is a religious term based on individual beliefs not a scientific or legal facts. Passing arguments based on religious beliefs is about as relative as you can get. All the things you listed with homosexuality (i.e. murder, rape) have a proven social harm and are irrelevant comparison, I could just as easily lump religion in with those same things and it would be just as relevant to religion (not at all relevant), the point is there is no proven social harm from homosexuality that does not also exist in heterosexuality. You have every right to adhere to whatever individual or collective religious beliefs you wish provided they do not harm others but you do not have the right to prevent others from the right to act as individuals when they also do not cause any harm. We have had this debate before many times on these threads there is nothing new under the sun here.

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    Oct. 13, 2011 4:58 p.m.

    @Bill in Nebraska,

    "I gather that no one on this board or even within the voice of President Monson has any more understanding than President Monson."

    He has so much understanding and knows so many things you don't know Bill ... if you knew everything he knew, you'd question your testimony with every living breath.

    Only 'corporate elite', so to speak, of the church know the truth on certain topics and the history.

  • twinkleberry67 Layton, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 4:44 p.m.

    Polls can be manipulated to state anything under the sun. I do not concern myself with who has a romantic relationship with whom. I have some friends who are homosexual even though it is not a lifestyle I agree with or would choose for myself. But I also know some individuals who are determined to stick it to me for none other reason that I am straight , then I get accused of discriminating if I stick up for myself. I will repeat here what I stated to these individuals in person recently--It is not discrimination to stick up for myself, and that I am a proponent of civil unions or a system that is used in Europe which involves A mandatory civil ceremony, then if the couple wishes, have it solemnized in a religious one. Hence everyone has their civil rights recognized, and traditional marriage is left the way it is.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    Oct. 13, 2011 4:40 p.m.

    As such the Lordhas the ability to determine who may hold this priesthood. For a time the Lord determined that certain races were excluded from the priesthood. Just as he excluded them, at a later date he can include them. That is the privlege of the Lord, not a prophet.

    Look again at the temple endowment ordinance and you will find very little has changed. Certain things have been omitted but are still relevant through other parts of the endowment. The wording and certain aspects changed for brevity. You have to understand why.

    Does any man alive really understand the ordinances of the temple? I will answer that with a resounding NO. President David O. McKay towards the end of his life and over 40 years as a General Authority stated in a meeting with the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency that he was FINALLY starting to understand the ordinances of the Temple. I gather that no one on this board or even within the voice of President Monson has any more understanding than President Monson. I voice to say that even President Monson hasn't a complete understanding of the temple ordinances. How can you?

  • CottageCheese SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 4:36 p.m.

    Pagan...

    I realize that statements that begin with 'how' are generally questions... and I was asking questions, not stating facts. I was simply asking some thought provoking questions. Questions that don't get asked enough. Questions that would lead to quite revealing answers and facts. Facts that the LGBT community do not want out there.

    Would you want the world to know that you were an abused and self abusing pornography addict? Neither does the rest of your community.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    Oct. 13, 2011 4:34 p.m.

    To Pagan and others:

    You don't have to believe me or even agree with me. I do not hate you at all but I don't agree with your lifestyle. To me it is wrong. So many on this board say your God or your Jesus condemns this but mine doesn't. Really then we read the same Bible but it is clear that God/Jesus Christ both CONDEMN any sexual sin which is anything sex outside of marriage between man and woman.

    To those who continue to use polgamy and blacks in the priesthood along with temple endowment changes. Either you misunderstand or really don't understand the differences and why. Polgamy was stopped for the living. It is still a true practice on the other side of the veil. Therefore the doctrine is still practiced as indicated in Sec 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants. The Aaronic Priesthood was originally given only to the sons of Aaron of the tribe of LEVI. Therefore, unless you were a member of that tribe you were excluded from the Priesthood. As such members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have been authorized by the Lord to officiate in the priesthood.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    Oct. 13, 2011 4:28 p.m.

    Mr. Lawrence found in his poll that the majority of people in American do not support same-gender marriage. Mr. Lawrence is attacked.

    Someone suggests that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is sinful. Either the Bible is attacked, the person's faith is attacked, or someone attacks the Bible's teachings. (Cf, one of the "abominations" mentioned by Ezekial 14 was clearly homosexuality. Also, Jesus did not need to teach that homosexuality was wrong; the Law already taught that. Jesus reaffirmed marriage as between a man and a woman and rescinded the death penalty for sexual sin.)

    Someone argues that marriage is for procreation, and heterosexual unable to procreate are attacked. The argument seems to be, if homosexuals can't have it for that reason, no one should be able to.

    We are told that the Bill of Rights somehow guarantees the right to same-gender marriage, that the majority should not rule, that Constitional amendments should be disallowed (as in Prop 8), and that everyone who disagrees is hateful.

    If California loses the battle over Prop 8 and is forced to allow same-gender marriage, it will be necessary to stop these absurd arguments and amend the US Constitution.

  • whitelines Salt Lake City, Utah
    Oct. 13, 2011 4:19 p.m.

    I am a "closeted" 18 year old homosexual.

    I understand that many people want to protect marriage because it makes sense biologically. And that does makes sense to me.

    However, I did not choose to be this way, nor would choose to be if I had the choice.

    To cover-up this lifestyle, I have resorted to dating women whom I have no attraction towards.

    Think about your own love. How would you feel if the world told you that you couldn't marry the love of your life because some people want to protect a word?

    By "protecting marriage" you are encouraging homophobia.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 3:52 p.m.

    A voice of Reason | 3:27 p.m. Oct. 13, 2011,

    I apologize. But leaving an asterik (*) by the claim does not mean they are true, or even relevant.

    Your claim that states MAY offer legal protection to see a dying spouse does NOT negate that gay couples are FACTUALLY prevented from seeing dying loved ones.

    Again:

    *'Kept From a Dying Partners Bedside' - By TARA PARKER-POPE - NY Times - 05/18/09

    Americans are Americans, first. Not Utahns, not Texans and not...

    2nd class citizens.

    And last there is no 'logic'...

    WITHOUT irrefutable proof.

    Your belief, is not something to bludgen me, with.


    Freedom-In-Danger | 3:32 p.m. Oct. 13, 2011,

    Gay marriage is not:

    'murder, cannibalism, and rape'.

    And shame on you, and the moderator for continuing to allow such hateful rhetoric and then claim you have

    civil discourse.

    You cannot claim homosexuals are COMPARBLE to murderers, and then claim to be...

    moral, yourself.

    *'GOP state legislator: Homosexuality worse than terrorism' - By David Ferguson - Talking Points Memo - 09/10/11

    I have never killed, eaten, or raped, anyone.

    And to continue to make that implication shows which side is truly moral.

    The one, fighting to marry.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 3:44 p.m.

    @LDSareChristians
    "You miss understand the point. He offered, but were they raped? No, he knew they would turn down his daughters. His daughters were safe from those only interested in raping a fellow man."

    And you're completely missing my point. Is it suddenly okay to offer ones daughters just because the men turned that offer down? Of course it's not. You say he offered something he knew they wouldn't accept. Okay, if that's true then... why offer it in the first place? He clearly wanted the men to not go after the angels and apparently to Lot offering his daughters was worth protecting the angels and if he knew offering his daughters wasn't going to do anything to stop them then there's no reason to offer. Really, if he cared that much about appeasing the rapists (giving them someone to have sex with) and protecting the angels, maybe he should've offered himself before offering his daughters.

    Besides, I'm not even sure one could say they wanted men... they wanted the angels (that admittedly were in the form of men, but I'm not so sure they wouldn't have wanted the angels if they appeared as women).

  • Freedom-In-Danger WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 3:41 p.m.

    DanO,

    "Luckily we have the courts whose job"

    Hold on there... you find me "Judicial Review" in the constitution and something stating that the Supreme Court has that power, and I may just agree with you.

    Until then, I'll keep on agreeing with Thomas Jefferson... who said that if it was accepted, this country would face the despotism of an oligarchy.

    When Roe VS Wade forced 46 states laws out the door... I'd call that an oligarchy, wouldn't you? Or do you define oligarchy different than what it actually means? But then again, that's what liberals usually do. They find all sorts of meanings, moralities, and twists in words that we use every day.

    No wander a word used to mean happy, then it somehow changed to mean something else.

  • Freedom-In-Danger WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 3:32 p.m.

    Phranc: "homosexuality exist in over 400 species and homophobia in only one. You tell me which one is unnatural."

    Yeah... murder, cannibalism, and rape exist in thousands upon thousands of species. We still don't give those legal protection and call them moral just because they are popularly accepted now. That's relativism.

    While an animal may do whatever it wants and not care. Human beings do. Such a comparison don't help the LGBT argument, but only shows more weaknesses in the claim.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 3:27 p.m.

    Pagan,

    hospital visitation-

    I promote my ideas in the public square. Even though I vote not to support state recognition of your religious practices* I have not denied you the right to practice them, or hospital visitation, etc. However, such issues are irrelevant as legal protections from such infringements may exist without state-recognition.

    How you live is your free right. I live and vote a portion of my morality into the public creation called government the same as yourself. I do not vote to take away what is yours**, only for myself and a creation I own a share of- to represent my view without taking freedom to practice beliefs.

    I practice many beliefs the state does not endorse. Am I still not free?

    *I refer to your belief that gay marriage is moral as a religion as there is no distinction between religion, irreligion, philosophy, or ethical system. They are all rooted on the logic of believing without irrefutable proof.

    **State-recognition is the state's to give. The people's. Our not giving you recognition does not take anything away or any freedom from you.

    -------

    Referencing events does not provide logic and wisdom as I have given.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    Oct. 13, 2011 3:10 p.m.

    "Either the polls are flawed in favor of same-gender marriage, or people are lying in the pre-election polls, and telling the truth with their votes."

    Actually, Jeff, there's a very basic issue here and the very reason why it's wrong to vote on the rights of a minority. A poll is taken within the comfort of one's home when someone calls them. While the pollster will ask what the likelihood of one voting and then voting a certain way, the reality is, they're probably going to say they're more likely to vote than they actually will.

    When you're voting on the rights of a minority, there are two extremes: the minority whose rights are in question, and those who want to limit those rights, but there are a great deal of people in the middle who just don't care either way and will either vote for status quo or leave the question blank. Which, in many cases, is the same effect as voting against the minority. The minority is always at a disadvantage.

    Luckily we have the courts whose job it is to ensure that every law meets the supreme test of constitutionality.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Oct. 13, 2011 3:06 p.m.

    So, what would you think of a poll that asks weather people think mormons are real christians or not? Or weather a mormon should ever be president?

    Polls and majorities aren't supposed to trump the constitution.

    This is basic kindergarten stuff here. You are allowed to marry by your own choice another adult HUMAN capable of choosing as well.... And you allow others to do the same. It really is that simple.

    Now a religious cerimony is an entirely different issue and there has never been any serious threat to religious practices, only scare tactics about it.

    Anyway people, just by the basic number of the gay/straight population, 90-95% of assumed "sexual sin", shacking up ect is being done by heterosexuals. Why are your efforts not focused there? Not very popular? Not so much support for craking down on premarital sex? Why is that never brought up as what is dooming society and making god sad or mad?

    I'd love to hear a republican say they are proposing an anti-premarital sex and cohabitation bill and see if all republicans think that is constitutional.

  • Holladay Holladay, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 3:05 p.m.

    I'm sure similar Head lines were around with Interracial Marriage. Weren't those the good old days?

  • Charlemagne Salt Lake City, Utah
    Oct. 13, 2011 2:58 p.m.

    We should not give up on protecting traditional marriage. Younger people may take a more liberal view of same sex marriage than their elders do does not mean that does not mean that they will continue to do so throughout their lives. Most people become more conservative as they age and come to realize the real life consequences of their youthful idealism!

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    Oct. 13, 2011 2:52 p.m.

    Hutterite, except when SCOTUS unfortunately extended those rights to corporations.

    Sadly, too many people thing that a loving same-gendered couple getting married affects them in some way. If only they could see the Prop 8 trial tapes and watch as every ridiculous point made by Prop 8 proponents were summarily decimated by competent legal counsel. In fact, their own witness ended up confessing that we would be a more American society the day we allowed marriage equality.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 2:38 p.m.

    What's also being said, or at least implied, is that mob rule should overturn individual rights. The individual, by the way, not the family, is the basic unit of society. And it is individuals, not mobs or churches, to whom basic human rights are conveyed.

  • Utes11 Salt Lake City, Utah
    Oct. 13, 2011 2:36 p.m.

    I continue to chuckle at Mr Lawrence's questions on his polls. Ms. Love is correct, he can write his questions to get the response that he wants. He wants to further his agenda. His company is hired by organizations to get the poll results that they want. Why does the Des News continue to plaster his photo and write articles about his company? Is he a contributor? Does the News fund his polls?
    Mr. De Groote, Did your editor assign this story to you? How about some real journalism?? Walk over to Pioneer park and write a story about all the homeless people there. What is the city & church doing to help them?
    Let's stop putting up photo's of Mr Lawrence and get the Des Nes back to a real journalistic force for SLC.

  • ute alumni Tengoku, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 2:33 p.m.

    LValfre
    going along with your logic, then let's let our kids decide if they want to be educated when they are old enough to make that decision on their own. Let's also not discipline them or teach them anything until they are old enough to make that decision.
    Sorry, your logic is illogical.

  • BYU Track Star Los Angeles, CA
    Oct. 13, 2011 2:33 p.m.

    If the article's premise that because still the majority of American Citizens disapprove of same sex marriage. It shouldn't be legal in California. By this same logic, Inter-racial marriage should not have been legal until the 1990s because the majority of Americans disapproved until then. Despite the fact that the SCOTUS ruled in 1967 (Lovings vs. Commonwealth of Virginia) I-R marriage was legal nationwide. There are still legally married same-sex couples in California. As far as I can tell. The trash gets picked up weekly. I still have Water, Electricity and Natural Gas whenever I throw a switch. Also LDS Kids go to California Public schools without issue. Life has gone on.

    Coreypaul, et al; You bring up an interesting point. The constuction of the polling questions on the same subject results in different opinion poll results. Removing The WWJD or WWGD from the question makes the person have to uncomfortably think for oneself. Can or should this be allowed in this most christian countries?

  • cymrul West Valley City, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 2:26 p.m.

    I find it interesting that people do not realize that a marriage is a binding LEGAL agreement between two people, granting certain rights. The CEREMONY is the religious aspect of marriage. A marriage is just as legal and binding wether it is performed by a Bishop, Priest, Elvis Impersonator or Justice of the Peace. Basically, you are preventing two people from entering into a legal agreement. To me that would be a violation of a couple's right to "the persuit of happiness".

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Oct. 13, 2011 2:13 p.m.

    LDS are Christians 1:20

    You are repeating what men with little knowledge have repeated throughout the centuries. The sin of Sodom is explained in scripture:

    "This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it." Ezekiel 16:46-50

    In the Old Testament you will see the constant lament of Jehova and his prophets for the lack of love and attention to the needy. Some having too much while their neighbors went hungry. More or less what is going on today.

    Moses and Paul of Tarsus are the writers used by those who believe that homosexuality is a sin. Paul raised a pharisee and educated as a strong Jew under the teachings of Moses.

    However, Jesus never mentioned Homosexuality. If you read the writings of the Apostles who knew and lived with Jesus you will find nothing about homosexuality. Which is strange because Judea was under the licentious Romans
    and traditionally God warned its people against foreign influences that lead them stray.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 2:10 p.m.

    'It's not logical to say that you can replace a wife with another man and still retain all the qualities that a woman brings to the marriage relationship.' - El Chango Supremo | 1:35 p.m. Oct. 13, 2011

    Let's take this a step further.

    Is it logical to say you can replace your wife with...another woman?

    No. You made a commitment to your spouse, correct? Love and matramony that is more than 'your fertility and desire to have children.'

    If the drive to have children was the ONLY reason to be married, this argument would make sense.

    And then, make having a child, OUTSIDE of marriage...

    illegal.

    Octo-mom has x14 children with no husband. The argument has no merit.

    And, marriage is needed.

    My example to support this is:

    *'Kept From a Dying Partners Bedside' - By TARA PARKER-POPE - NY Times - 05/18/09

    '...the couples had prepared for a medical emergency, creating living wills, advanced directives and power-of-attorney documents.'

    And yet, even with Living Will, Medical Directive, Power of attorney and emergency contact information...

    Janice Langbehn was kept from the bedside of her dying partner, Lisa Pond.

    They were together for 18 years.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 1:59 p.m.

    Blue,

    You said, "So... The Bill of Rights is applied to citizens on the basis of a popularity contest?"

    --------

    Some would propose to ignore the religious freedoms outlined in first amendment and SCOTUS already added their own "implied rights" with roe v wade.

    A constitution is strong, not something where you can "interpret it" to change its meaning. Suggesting "implied" concepts in someone else's words is making a statement of what you have no objective account of, being therefore illogical.

    However, the framers actually did protect religious belief and practice. NO ONE has taken that away from gays. If they want to believe it, fine. Practice it? Fine. But if the people vote for the state not to endorse your practice, while also not prohibiting it... then no freedom is infringed.

    The "free exercise thereof" is not being prohibited. Liberal 'dishing out' equality is but one political philosophy and IS NOT in our constitution. Our constitution represents diverse views. Forcing one's single view, AGAINST A VOTE that took no constitutionally stated and protected right, threatens our freedom.

    Anything less is selfishness and greed trying to overthrow what belongs to the masses, the people- turning democracy into an oligarchy.

  • El Chango Supremo Rexburg, ID
    Oct. 13, 2011 1:35 p.m.

    OHBU,

    even if they are old or infertile, the parts still match up!

    That being said, there is more to being a man or a woman than just your "parts". It's not logical to say that you can replace a wife with another man and still retain all the qualities that a woman brings to the marriage relationship. Or, replace a husband with another woman and replace all the qualities a man brings to the marriage relationship. Being a man or a woman is more than just our fertility or desire to have children. Marriage is a relationship that unites the sexes and, therefore, shouldn't be inclusive of homosexual couples.

    It's not hateful or bigoted to have this position, it's just the only logical conclusion you can come to when you observe the way we're made, physically, emotionally, & spiritually.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 1:29 p.m.

    Mukkake
    coleman51: "the Church will never change it's position."

    Polygamy?
    Priesthood for Blacks?
    The penalty in the temple endowment ceremony?

    LDS4
    You forgot about the First Presidency letter stating that a certain marital act was an unholy and impure practice and a violation of temple covenants. Within a short time, bishops were instructed to no longer ask whether couples engaged in this common behavior. If it TRULY were a violation of temple covenants, shouldn't it still be warned against?

  • Greg Br80 BOSTON, MA
    Oct. 13, 2011 1:29 p.m.

    How surprising! I never would have guessed that a poll conducted by an company led by a man responsible for spreading vicious and vile lies about LGBT people finds that more opposition to marriage equality than polls from well respected mainstream organization. On another note, I took a poll of my friends and acquaintances and 80% said I am the most handsome man they ever met. Take my word for it, it was completely scientific and unbiased.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 1:24 p.m.

    This is a clear example of a push poll.

    Instead of asking about God and what one feels God would approve of, what if the lead in questions were

    Do you believe everyone has equal rights?
    Do you believe that government should restrict the rights of people different from you (different race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, politics, etc..) ?
    Do you believe that couples unable or unwilling to have kids should have their marriage licenses revoked?
    In light of the above, do you support giving same-sex couples the same equal rights as straights to marry, even though they are unable to produce children?

    How would the polling results be different?

    Brother Lawrence was the force behind the discredited propaganda piece Six Consequences the Coalition Has Identified if Proposition 8 Fails. It was so bad, that a BYU law professor wrote a refutation of it. I wouldnt trust Brother Lawrence as far as I could throw him.

  • ksampow Farr West, Utah
    Oct. 13, 2011 1:24 p.m.

    If I put up a "no smoking" sign it does not mean I hate people who smoke. If I put up a "no soliciting" sign it does not mean I hate salesmen. Not allowing gay marriage is not hateful or bigoted. Saying that marriage is between a man and a woman is not a demonstration of hatred toward gays. Loving everyone does not mean approving of everyone changing the definition of a cherished institution like marriage. If you choose to have a relationship with someone of the same gender, you don't have to apply a name to that relationship that has already been defined as a union between a man and a woman.

  • LDSareChristians Anchorage, AK
    Oct. 13, 2011 1:20 p.m.

    atl134 posted: A story about people attempting to rape angels (we're not talking consentual homosexual sex here) while the one "good" man in the story offered his daughters to the rapists? Honestly that story has always bothered me because offering ones' daughters to rapists should never be an acceptable solution to a situation.
    ===============================
    You miss understand the point. He offered, but were they raped? No, he knew they would turn down his daughters. His daughters were safe from those only interested in raping a fellow man.

    Has someone ever offered you something knowing fully well you'd reject it, based on his knowledge of your character?

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 1:19 p.m.

    Indeed the family is the natural unit of society, atomistic or extended, single or plural, and any gender. BTW, since most families are communes it follows that the natural economic unit is the commune.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 1:07 p.m.

    So...

    The Bill of Rights is applied to citizens on the basis of a popularity contest?

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 12:58 p.m.

    'Prior to "coming out" and openly "practicing"...
    How many homosexual individuals were sexually abused at some point in their life, particularly in their youth?
    How many homosexuals viewed or engaged in pornographic material?
    How many homosexuals participated in self-abuse?
    Revealing.' - CottageCheese | 12:49 p.m. Oct. 13, 2011

    How?

    These are questions, not facts.

    *Ex-seminary principal Michael Pratt pleads guilty in sex case' - By Sara Israelsen-Hartley, Deseret News - 06/02/10

    'AMERICAN FORK A former seminary principal accused of having a sexual relationship with a former student pleaded guilty Tuesday rather than go to trial.'

    CottageCheese, if you have a study to present, I would love to read it.

    Until then...

    'You are normal.
    Homosexuality is not a mental disorder. All of the major medical organizations, including The American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics agree that homosexuality is not an illness or disorder, but a form of sexual expression.'
    Published online: November, 2008
    Source: Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Teens: Information for Teens and Parents

    - America Acadamy of Pediactrics

  • CottageCheese SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 12:49 p.m.

    The data you will never see...

    Prior to "coming out" and openly "practicing"...

    How many homosexual individuals were sexually abused at some point in their life, particularly in their youth?

    How many homosexuals viewed or engaged in pornographic material?

    How many homosexuals participated in self-abuse?

    Revealing.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    Oct. 13, 2011 12:44 p.m.

    While Mr. Lawrence's biases may be a source of criticism in his polling, the results of his polls coincide more closely with the results of public elections on the issue. It has long been a source of difficulty for supporters of same-gender marriage when the pre-election polls indicate a victory, but the election supports traditional marriage. Either the polls are flawed in favor of same-gender marriage, or people are lying in the pre-election polls, and telling the truth with their votes.

    In either case, Lawrence appears more accurate.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 12:33 p.m.

    'This kind of article certainly does not add to the credibility of this newspaper.' - Embarcadero | 12:18 p.m. Oct. 13, 2011

    Agreed.

    In fact, I will give example, why I agree with you.

    *'President Obama's purported 'weird'-Mormon strategy against Mitt Romney will backfire, pundits say' - By Hal Boyd, Deseret News - 08/10/11

    *'Michele Bachmann's pastor on Mormonism' - By Jamshid Ghazi Askar - DSNews - 09/06/11

    To date, Michele Bachmann, her pastor, or Obama have said ZERO about Mitt Romney's faith.

    In fact, the Rick Perry & Deseret News have said more about it.

    Since the Deseret News has also published an article about 'anti-mormon prejudice'...

    they continue to eat away at their own credibility of this newspaper.

  • Phranc SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 12:27 p.m.

    @El Chango Supremo

    homosexuality exist in over 400 species and homophobia in only one. You tell me which one is unnatural.

  • Embarcadero SAN FRANCISCO, CA
    Oct. 13, 2011 12:18 p.m.

    Mr. Lawrence is not a pollster. He is an advocate, someone with an axe to grind.

    As a source, he is not reliable or neutral. The Deseret News should know better than to write an article like this. It's one thing to have a view point (and clarify that from the beginning), it's another thing entirely to try to insert that viewpoint as undisputed fact.

    This kind of article certainly does not add to the credibility of this newspaper.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 12:15 p.m.

    Michael De Groote, at 10:23 a.m. said "One thing I was hoping to accomplish with this article was to illustrate how polls can come up with what appear to be different results. But I don't think Lawrence's poll invalidates other polls. Instead I think it fills in the gaps in the other polls."

    -------

    This is perhaps the most important point regarding polling. I've given this commentary before, but I feel this clarification will only add to Mr. De Groote's statement about how this article is best understood.

    'Deductive' is provable, but only with true premises. Moral problems and religious arguments are generally deductive.

    'Inductive' is only ever probable, like a statistical guessing game. Scientific data is generally used inductively. Thus 'good science' requires being open to the possibility of being wrong (aka: more data).

    Inductive argument example: It snowed the last 100 winters, therefore it will next winter. The problem: there always remains the possibility of a "black swan event" where something occurs against the pattern we've seen.

    While useful- polls should never bee seen as proof, as commonly understood. Polls simply add observations, they don't negate the unobserved. Thus why polls add to 'the gaps'.

  • Tahoemormon70 Bountiful, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 11:55 a.m.

    The middle question in the polls that asks "If God were to make His opinion known etc..." is shamefully put in the rhetorical. It is no longer a matter of if, it is a matter of do you accept the will of God in this matter. You ask, "Well, how did His opinion come to be?" It is simple, He made His will known through both the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles by means of 'The Proclamation of the Family'. The very first paragraph of the Proclamation answers this moral question and puts ALL debate to the side. The answer is again simple. ONE MAN & ONE WOMAN constitutes a marriage. No other combination of men and women may substitute for this sacred companionship. They may try other alternatives, but will ALWAYS come up frustrated and failed. Even as someone who has engaged in same-sex behaviors in the past, the Spirit of God has always told me that my deviance was sinful and NOT sanctioned by Him, His Son and/or the Holy Ghost. Also, my heterosexual one man and one woman marriage has brought me blessings beyond measure and equal to none. Always CTR!

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 11:22 a.m.

    @davidroy
    " If Miss Love takes the time to read the Book of Genesis she might be further enlightened by the story about Sodam and Gomorrah. "

    A story about people attempting to rape angels (we're not talking consentual homosexual sex here) while the one "good" man in the story offered his daughters to the rapists? Honestly that story has always bothered me because offering ones' daughters to rapists should never be an acceptable solution to a situation.

    @IDC
    "and moral values differ among those who have morals."

    Indeed, for one I believe that encouraging gay couples to have committed monogamous relationships via marriage ia a moral thing to support.

  • DeltaFoxtrot West Valley, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 11:12 a.m.

    @LBU: Whatever happened to "love thy neighbor?"

    That's my gripe with religious types... it's always judge judge judge. Just because you don't agree with someone's chosen way of life doesn't make it wrong.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Oct. 13, 2011 11:09 a.m.

    @Michael De Groote
    I agree and you said that in the first line. I wonder how many people just read the headline and go from there.

    I've worked in politics for years and there are other tricks that can be used. Who you poll and what weight you give to different demographic groups in tabulating the final results can make a big difference.

  • TRUTH Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 10:40 a.m.

    what???? I thought more than 50% of Americans supported gay marriage just a year ago?...it appears gay marriage support is taking a nose dive.....as it should!

  • Michael De Groote
    Oct. 13, 2011 10:32 a.m.

    To see the exact wording of the poll questions, take a look at the graphics that accompany the article.

    A sample size of 1,000 is reliable for polling purposes -- many polls use smaller samples. The methodology he used is pretty standard.

    People might, however, take issue with the way he asks questions. I hope they will do so for all polls.

    One thing I was hoping to accomplish with this article was to illustrate how polls can come up with what appear to be different results. But I don't think Lawrence's poll invalidates other polls. Instead I think it fills in the gaps in the other polls. It shows how another look at a issue can help increase understanding of peoples' complex opinions.

  • Cora Smith BOUNTIFUL, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 10:05 a.m.

    Polygamist married (caugh) couples enjoy all cival rights offered in America. Has anybody read up on what goes on in those communities?
    How can anybody pass judgement on gay people as long as polygamy gets a wink and a nod in America? It has and still goes on. It is against the law of the land.
    Yes, Texas tried to do something, but it is unchecked in Utah. Shame on those who use God to discriminate.
    Thats not what my good parents taught us children.

  • RAB Bountiful, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 10:02 a.m.

    People are confusing acceptance of gay marriage with approval of gay marriage.

    Most people will ACCEPT (i.e put up with, allow, permit, tolerate, etc.) gay people doing whatever they want as long as it does not hurt anyone. In other words, if a gay couple wants to have a ceremony and commit to living together for the rest of their livesfew people are going to care. They are not going to try to arrest them or seek laws to force them to stop. They do not want them punished. They believe in allowing people to establish their moral values according to the dictates of their own conscience.

    However, the poll proves that most people do not APPROVE of (i.e condone, endorse, agree with, support, etc.) gay marriage or the gay intimacy that accompanies it. Consequently, they justifiably do not want laws created that obligate them to endorse or support those things.

    Government same-sex marriage laws are NOT establishing the people's acceptance of gay marriage. That already exists. Rather, they are forcing the people's endorsement of gay marriage. It is no different than government endorsing some religion's unique religious practices. It is wrong.

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    Oct. 13, 2011 9:57 a.m.

    @IDC,

    "It is okay for me to fight for what I believe in as long as it is within the law."

    So you're okay with fighting to take away someone's freedom to marry whom they love? That's terrible.

    I'm okay with fighting to keep kids out of churches or religious institutes until they're old enough to make their own decision. Indoctrination is real. A kid raised in an LDS church, a Muslim church, Catholic, so on and so forth will most likely stick with that the rest of their life. That's not right when you take away their choice by shoving it down their throat from birth onward. They don't have freedom then, it's indoctrinated.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 9:52 a.m.

    1Infidel

    Why does it matter what the number of homosexuals are?

    If they are only .555% of the population, don't they still have the same rights and privileges that you have? Aren't they allowed to pursue happiness the same as you - or do you feel that you need to force the government to comply with your beliefs?

    Does it harm you or anyone else if the gay couple down the block is married and has the same privileges that you and your family has?

    Does it harm that gay couple if they do not have those privileges?

    Ask yourself this...if you did not have a religious belief that marriage should be between heterosexuals, would you care if gays were legally married?

    If your answer is that your opinion is because of your beliefs, think about our constitution. Think about why we allow others to have freedoms even when we do not agree with them. Think about this great nation and what freedom really means.

    BTW, it does not mean that you are not going to be offended by others actions or beliefs. Even though most Evangicals believe that the LDS church is false, we still have our rights.

  • Mukkake Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 9:48 a.m.

    1Infidel: "why the commercial kow-tow by corporations and such pandering organizations and political organization to such a "huge" number of consumers and voters?"

    Because they have more disposable income. Face it, gay money is wroth more than straight money, because even with less tax breaks, most gay households aren't supporting a stay-at-home-spouse and kids. On top of that, most gays are also better educated and more career-oriented than their straight counterparts.

    I'm not saying gays are smarter or harder-working, but without non-working spouses and kids sucking up all their time and money, they are able to get better jobs and spend more money. That's why corporations are targeting them.

    This is why straight people should support gay marriage. Because if they also have to support a spouse, kids, and a crippling mortgage to house it all, they won't be able to easily out perform their straight co-workers and get all the raises and promotions. Until then, your gay coworker will always perform better at work, have more money to spend, and go on far better vacations.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 9:42 a.m.

    IDC | 9:14 a.m. Oct. 13, 2011
    Boise, ID
    This is a difficult issue. Discussion is difficult when there is no common ground. Some don't believe in God. Some don't have any moral values and moral values differ among those who have morals. I believe there is a God and I believe that sex and marriage are to be had between a man and a woman. I believe that sex before marriage or sex between anyone or anything other than a married man and woman is a sin. I believe God loves everyone. I believe God has commandments and that he does not accept any sin. These two facts are not in opposition. We are all sinners and can be forgiven through Christ's blood and sacrifice. It is okay for me to fight for what I believe in as long as it is within the law.

    ------------

    But are you fighting against the rights of other law-abiding Americans to pursue their own source of happiness? Does our constitution allow you to make them have less rights and privileges than you enjoy?

    Do you really want to do this to other Americans? Will you be next?

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Oct. 13, 2011 9:41 a.m.

    If the U.S.were to base equal rights laws on polls. Certain things perhaps would be different:

    Perhaps the LDS church would have ceased to exist. Or would be smaller.
    Slavery would still be part of the U.S. culture or the country would have been divided.

    The rights of individuals should not depend on the approval of the masses or mobs.
    What is this, the Roman Circus? Thumps up or down,...ridiculous!

    GZE: I am with you on this.

    When people will stop putting their nose where it doesn't belong.

    What is sad is that they cry foul when things don't go their way.
    or, they have the audacity of complaining that GLBT people are pushing their
    lifestyle on their faces.

    Go, follow and live the precepts that you think are right. Let other people live the way they want. If other people habits harm you, you have the Courts to prove it.

    Gay Marriage doesn't harm YOU. That is why the courts are ruling on favor of equality under the law.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Oct. 13, 2011 9:39 a.m.

    In other words, if you did a poll asking people if they thought it was best to marry within their race you would get a different result than if you asked the same people if interracial marriages should be banned. I think the public has heard all the scare stories about what will happen if we allow gays to marry and found them wanting. A clear majority are willing to allow gay marriages. It will only grow over time.

  • LBU FORT CAMPBELL, KY
    Oct. 13, 2011 9:38 a.m.

    It's easy to be a Christian and be against homosexuality. "Hate the sin, love the sinner." Remember, God is no respecter of persons, and he cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. These two basic tenets tell us everything we need to know about how God views homosexuals and how we should too.

  • no fit in SG St.George, Utah
    Oct. 13, 2011 9:33 a.m.

    So many people are so frightened of so many things, particularly those who have been sheltered. We see much of this in Utah. Many do not like to leave"their" state because of the "evil" the invision lurking in other places. Returned missionaries marry and take their wives to a new state, only having to return to Utah, as the young wife in unable to adjust to the outside world.
    It is sad. They are missing so much. So many great, kind, loving folks out there. Just because others chose something different..........
    Just more of the Michelle Bachmann, and her like, philosophy.

  • Mukkake Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 9:33 a.m.

    coleman51: "the Church will never change it's position."

    Polygamy?
    Priesthood for Blacks?
    The penalty in the temple endowment ceremony?

    Hmmm...

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 9:32 a.m.

    Pete in Texas: " God apparently doesn't want man to worship any graven images. Isn't that our "right"? ... It doesn't hurt anybody else, does it?"... Apparently God has a different view of what our "rights" should be as individuals. And even though "worshipping graven individuals" affects no other physical human except ourselves, most importantly, it affects our relationship to Him."

    ----------

    Pete,

    That is why we do not have a law against "graven images." It harms no one and it is a religious tenet.

    You are asking us to pass a law (that does not harm others) to please your religious ideas. Totally against the constitution. Totally unAmerican, in my mind.

    We do NOT push our religion on to others and make them live by it. We do not make a minority of the population live by rules that harm them just because it is what we BELIEVE our God wants us to do.

    That is why we have a secular constitution - to protect the minority from being ruled by the majority when it is not something that would harm anyone else.

    If we had laws against worshipping idols, Wall Street would be illegal. Too many there worship the dollar, don't they?

  • 1Infidel APO, AE
    Oct. 13, 2011 9:25 a.m.

    The US Census recently backtracked and admitted to overstating the presence of same-sex households. They were only 39% off in their estimates. This is gov't accounting we are talking about, so perhaps 39% is not hugely surprising, especially in this administration who quietly revises labor numbers every week after the ballyhooed news comes out on schedule, and who skews inflation statistics to their favor every day. However, it is obvious that politics played a role in the 39% hopeful over-estimation.

    The District of Columbia was the highest reported area, with only 1.39% of the population recorded as same-sex households. So, where do we get this convoluted figure that 10% of people are born homosexual, and if the numbers are closer to accurate at 2-3%, why the commercial kow-tow by corporations and such pandering organizations and political organization to such a "huge" number of consumers and voters? Why the limelight and PC-ness?

    It is obviously uncalled for, over-played by the community, and skillfully managed by their sympathizers and those who would capitalize on their victimhood. And those who kow-tow are witless syncophants. What a waste of attention and money.

  • IDC Boise, ID
    Oct. 13, 2011 9:14 a.m.

    This is a difficult issue. Discussion is difficult when there is no common ground. Some don't believe in God. Some don't have any moral values and moral values differ among those who have morals. I believe there is a God and I believe that sex and marriage are to be had between a man and a woman. I believe that sex before marriage or sex between anyone or anything other than a married man and woman is a sin. I believe God loves everyone. I believe God has commandments and that he does not accept any sin. These two facts are not in opposition. We are all sinners and can be forgiven through Christ's blood and sacrifice. It is okay for me to fight for what I believe in as long as it is within the law.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 9:13 a.m.

    Then 64 percent should not enter into a same-sex marriage. They should, however, allow the other 36 percent the right to follow their own beliefs. Then let God decide who was right and who was wrong.

    Quite simple, really ....

  • Noodlekaboodle Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 9:09 a.m.

    Why don't these marraige groups start focusing on the 50% divorce rate(so much for the "sanctity" of marraige)instead of the 5-10% of people in America who are homosexuals.

  • morganh Orem, Utah
    Oct. 13, 2011 9:07 a.m.

    Marriage should be between a man and a women. Biologically only a man and a woman can create life. My answer to the question of "What would Jesus do?" would be the following: since Jesus is the only begotten son of God and he came to earth to teach the plan of his father he would never contradict his father who created Adam and Eve who are the first parents. God the father loves everyone but hates the sin and his son Jesus would do likewise.

  • ParkCityAggie Park City, Ut
    Oct. 13, 2011 9:04 a.m.

    So let me get this "Strait" - this conservative research group didn't like the results of the Gallop poll so they decided to conduct a new national poll, changed the questions up a bit and voila, new results! Highly dubious. Don't like the answer keep cherry picking until we find it. And then publish the results so they get front page new in most "Red States". Even more dubious.

    Someone mentioned most people under 35 just don't care and it's not an issue. I would probably raise that number to most people under 45. When the pre-Hippy boomers are dead, the whole "Gay Marriage" debate in this country will DOA. I seem to recall when most Americans were against inner-racial marriage, or civil rights, or against Utah becoming a State, etc.

  • Pete in Texas Copperas Cove, TX
    Oct. 13, 2011 9:04 a.m.

    CHS 85,

    They're not allowed to protest here in Texas now. We just passed a law that says they can't, thanks to the larger majority saying that they didn't feel it was someone's "right" to be able to do this. Apparently their rights to protest weren't able to trump the rights of people to hold a peaceful funeral.

  • Ranch HUNTSVILLE, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 8:49 a.m.

    Its a good thing that we have the courts to eventually invalidate laws that discriminate against *some* American Citizens simply because of their sexuality.

  • speed66 Heber City, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 8:45 a.m.

    Civil rights is not something that is determined by a poll. If we made decisions simply by popular vote we'd have no Mormon Church, interracial marriage would be illegal, women wouldn't have equal rights not to mention minorities.

    Popular opinion is rarely right about these issues and is irrelevant in the debate. We shouldn't kill people just because the majority of people want us to. We shouldn't deny people equal rights and protections just because a majority want us to. We are better than that as a nation and have a strong history of protecting individual rights. Unfortunately, we are lagging seriously behind in this one area. But once again, religious leaders can fight against the tide but they cannot win in the long term.

    If you don't believe in gay marriage and your god doesn't approve, then don't do it. I refuse to be held to your god's standards.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 8:34 a.m.

    What if posed a question like this in a poll?

    Do you believe that the Westboro Baptist Church should protest at military funerals decrying the country and the dead soldier while the family mourns?

    How many people would answer that they should not? I imagine a huge majority - yet the Westboro Baptist Church continues to protest at military funerals.

    Why is that? It is simple, really - we don't base laws on popularity polls! We are a national of laws, not a nation of mob rule!

  • KBell NEW YORK, NY
    Oct. 13, 2011 8:32 a.m.

    Sure 64% may believe gay marriage should be between a man and a woman, but that isn't exactly related to how someone would vote or how they believe the law should be applied to this issue. In terms of the law, I really don't see how this directly applies.

    As for this poll's statistics, I'm pretty skeptical. You don't know how these questions are skewed and in what order they are asked. Considering this research company shot out polls in favor of Prop 8, I can't consider this source reliable.

  • Full-on double rainbow Bluffdale, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 8:21 a.m.

    This poll does a good job of validating what my man made God has already made abundantly clear: God and his people are not on board with gay marriage.

  • davidroy Flagstaff, AZ
    Oct. 13, 2011 8:21 a.m.

    "I think God does," Love said. "I don't find a preponderance in scripture that God's love and acceptance has anything to do with gender and sexuality. The preponderance has to do with how we treat each other as human beings as part of a community. It is unfortunate that we are so stuck on this issue."
    ---------

    Possibly she didn't read the Book of Genesis in which God creates Adam and Eve. I would challenge her to find any scripture that references an Adam and Bob or an Eve and Carol, at least not in a positive light. If Miss Love takes the time to read the Book of Genesis she might be further enlightened by the story about Sodam and Gomorrah.

  • Ridgely Magna, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 8:05 a.m.

    When the first two questions of a three question poll reference judgement by God and THEN you ask a question about Marriage, that's the very definition of Push Polling.

    Beyond creating a splashy headline for the Deseret News what purpose does this "data" serve when it is so out of context, so out of synch with other polling data, and so undefined.

    Were these respondents from areas where gay marriage is legal, or where civil union laws are in place, or from places like Utah where gay relationships are constitutionally banned? And a sample size of 1000 to represent 307 million people. Really?

  • Pete in Texas Copperas Cove, TX
    Oct. 13, 2011 7:54 a.m.

    coreypaul,

    It doesn't always have to be a "rights" issue, however, that's how the gay agenda always poses it. God, Himself, sent the 10 commandments, (as well as others), to man limiting what you might classify as his "rights". God apparently doesn't want man to worship any graven images. Isn't that our "right"? Can't we think for ourself as educated adults as to whether or not that hurts us? It doesn't hurt anybody else, does it? So what's the problem? Why would He limit our "right" to something that doesn't affect any other human being? Amazingly, He made a special point to put it in the 10 commandments Moses brought down from the mountain. Apparently God has a different view of what our "rights" should be as individuals. And even though "worshipping graven individuals" affects no other physical human except ourselves, most importantly, it affects our relationship to Him. That's why He included it. So even though you may think gay relationships doesn't affect anyone outside of their relationship, even though you think it's their "right", it, like the 2nd commandment, affects the relationship between an individual and God. That's why Christians shouldn't support that type of lifestyle.

  • dustman Nampa, ID
    Oct. 13, 2011 7:41 a.m.

    The hardest thing about this is getting people on board with the same religious beliefs. It kind of contradicts the idea of freedom of religion, when having no religion is just as protected.

    It is equally difficult to say two people that love each other cannot enjoy the same legal protections as others based on their sex and/or sexual orientation.

    I'm glad my wife and kid are the beneficiaries of my hard work. I love them, we take care of each other, and it should be so. It is difficult that a same sex couple cannot enjoy those protections and assurances also, especially when they love each other.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 7:35 a.m.

    This seems to be fairly typical. Two thirds are in favor of one thing, in this case the time-honored definition of marriage as a contract between a man and a woman, but all the media hype is on the opposite side of the issue. I no longer listen to or watch our big corporate media outlets.

  • isrred Logan, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 7:24 a.m.

    " found that 64 percent of Americans feel that marriage should only be between one man and one woman. Thirty-three percent feel marriage should be redefined to include any two people"

    Talk about deliberate and purposely flawed questions to make the results say what you want! When you give respondents the choice of "man and woman" or "any two people" those are not offsetting things. "Any two people" includes incest, pedophilia, and a number of other disapproved practices. "Any two people" and "any two consensual adults, regardless of gender" are not the same thing.

    Anyone that has ever taken even a basic methods course (or has a modicum of common sense) can see that this is just as flawed as those in the article claim the gallup poll was.

  • coleman51 Orem, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 7:21 a.m.

    Since when is marriage defined by a poll? As far as that is concerned, when is marriage defined by any person, legislative body, or any group? Marriage is defined by God, and no person, group, or legislative have any right to define what has essentially been the union between one man and one woman since the Garden of Eden. It is highly presumptuous and blasphemous for any people to come up with any stupid idea that flies in the face of what God has settled on and that will never change. For those latter-day saints that believe that gay marriage is a matter of one's preference or a constitutional right, the Church will never change it's position. Marriage is a union between one man and one woman and that will never change.

  • zer28 Ogden, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 7:20 a.m.

    "In our country, God is viewed as the seat of judgment, whereas Jesus is viewed as the seat of compassion," she said. "I like to ask people what they think Jesus would do about this because they give a totally different answer than if you asked them what God would do."

    I find this very interesting that people would believe that God and Jesus have two separate opinions about the same issue, and yet most people believe that they're essentially the same person....

  • Mugabe ACWORTH, GA
    Oct. 13, 2011 7:19 a.m.

    "64 percent of Americans feel that marriage should only be between one man and one woman."

    Satan is very clever. He makes sure, in this debate, that Plural Marriages is never again considered because he knows that it is an eternal principle; therefore, he stresses "between one man and one woman."

    I don't like writing about this subject because to me it is like debating with Satan and his followers whether Jesus is the Christ, or whether man is a product of divine creation or some evolution design.

    In a country where the Declaration of Independence states that, "All men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, slavery is still in practice, families are being torn apart, Rachel still weeping for her sons because they are in a correctional institution some where in this country. Yet we spend time and ink discussing whether two men are justified for having unnatural affection towards one another. Is this the discussion that intelligent men and women find intellectually stimulating?

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    Oct. 13, 2011 7:10 a.m.

    The two polls aren't necessarily contradictory. A person could very well believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, at the same time realizing that an interpretation of the constitution would allow for same-sex marriages to share the legal rights of heterosexual marriages. Many don't believe a person should drink, but they recognize their legal right to do so.

    @El Chango...the purposes in marriage in American society today have reached far beyond childbearing. While you may believe that's the purpose for marriage, for many, many people marriage is a commitment of love between two people who never plan on having children. This applies to heterosexuals and homosexuals. If marriage should only be granted to couples in order to reproduce, then we shouldn't allow barren women, impotent men, or older couples marry either.

  • catram North Las Vegas, NV
    Oct. 13, 2011 6:13 a.m.

    65 percent. Just added my vote. :)

  • Pete in Texas Copperas Cove, TX
    Oct. 13, 2011 6:02 a.m.

    I thought it was interesting that they mentioned that when people were given the choice between God and Jesus, they felt the opinions of the two would differ. That, sadly, goes to show where everyone's knowledge of the two is. Can you imagine God saying "something is wrong" and Jesus saying "No, because we love them?" The real irony is that yes.... God can say something is wrong and love you at the same time. That, in essence, is the message that those who've been against gay marriages from the start has been fighting with the gays. If an individual says to me, "Do you think gay marriages are wrong?" I'd answer, "Of course they're wrong. Gay lifestyles are wrong." Now a gay individual would label me as a hatemonger for stating what God has already said. Can God hate? No. Just as Jesus can't. I can say something is wrong and at the same time still love. I do it every day with my kids. We all do. From the beginning right and wrong aren't affected or overridden by love. That is the message that gays won't accept. If I don't support them, I hate them. Who's the bigot?

  • Born that Way Layton, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 6:00 a.m.

    God loves all men and women; They are his children. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God to help his children become perfected. By caring for someone of the opposite gender, one encompasses the whole human experience in a tiny new world called Marriage. In that world can come new worlds through children of their own. These children are nurtured in a shelter of love, peace, until creating worlds of their own--if they accept someone of their opposite gender--Choosing likewise to create a new world in Marriage. Thus God has created a means by which men and women can experience much the same eternal nature of God, one in which they may know the joys of being a parent, reflect upon the sacred innocent nature of their created children, care for these children and provide for the future in a stable and sound covenant-based society. These relationships may be eternal and linked back to God. Any other relationship outside of Marriage, while meaningful, does not carry eternal importance. No other relationship perpetuates society to the next generation. No other creates worlds without end. No other sociality should be elevated or given precedence.

  • Wastintime Los Angeles, CA
    Oct. 13, 2011 5:56 a.m.

    I simply don't respect Mr. Lawrence's work and I would explain why but it isn't being allowed by the moderators.

  • coreypaul BOSTON, MA
    Oct. 13, 2011 5:45 a.m.

    If a question was worded like this: "Do you believe everyone should have equal rights?" the percentage of people who say yes, would most likely be higher, unless of course you are a conservative Christian, who oddly are always against equal rights this proven throughout history, while at the same time believe they have been chosen by their god to rule the world, and believe they are treated worse than all other groups of people, yet are in the majority and make laws endlessly in US Congress, making equal rights for all actually illegal. Clearly, these types of people could not answer "yes" unless they were lying.

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    Oct. 13, 2011 5:35 a.m.

    Statistics are always interesting, but we live in a Republic, not a Democracy. If 64% according to this poll do not support same sex marriage how do you address what the remainder of the sample feel? Remember that we pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic not democracy. This is, was, and always will be an issue of trying to follow the will of the majority, while protecting the minorities wishes whatever the cause du jour is. And in the end why do we obsess so much about causes should we not rather be spending our time on helping those who have less, families and individuals, who are struggling? Setting the example rather than constantly writing about things like this? Sometimes I feel we have lost all perspective on what is really important.

  • MCowley LAGUNA HILLS, CA
    Oct. 13, 2011 2:36 a.m.

    This is a losing issue. The 35 and younger crowd could care less about gay marriage. 20 years from now, the trend will increase even further.

  • StGeorgeBeacon SAINT GEORGE, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 2:28 a.m.

    What's truly puzzling is why NOM has decided to use same sex marriage as the standard by which to defend "the sanctity of marriage".

    For years in this country, the rate of divorce has skyrocketed...as has the rate of couples living together unmarried, and single parenthood (by choice).

    Yet, all we're hearing from NOM is how the gays, who make up less than 5% of the entire population (and many of whom don't even want to marry) are "ruining the sanctity of marriage".

    If NOM is truly interested in the preserving sanctity of marriage as they claim, then they need to get over their poorly disguised homophobia and focus on the REAL issues at hand.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 13, 2011 12:32 a.m.

    @Northern
    "the family unit is the basic unit of society. "

    And yet this state allows single gay people to adopt but not gay couples. So much for caring about family.

  • El Chango Supremo Rexburg, ID
    Oct. 13, 2011 12:04 a.m.

    Of course marriage should be between a man and a woman. Same sex marriage simply does not make any biological sense. There's nothing hateful or bigoted about that position, it's just the way we're made!

  • Rational Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 12, 2011 11:51 p.m.

    For Love the real question is "Does God approve of me as a homosexual?"

    "I think God does," Love said. "I don't find a preponderance in scripture that God's love and acceptance has anything to do with gender and sexuality. The preponderance has to do with how we treat each other as human beings as part of a community. It is unfortunate that we are so stuck on this issue."
    ---------

    Wow, talk about it is "all about the wording." "Preponderance in scripture" that "God's love and acceptance has anything to do with gender and sexuality."

    Woman in adultery: "Neither do I condemn THEE." In other words, I love you, but "Go thy way and sin no more." I love you, but I don't want you to sin. Sex outside a heterosexual marriage is sin, or in other words, BEHAVIOR that Jesus disapproves of, and there is PLENTY of scriptural evidence of that.

  • tabuno Clearfield, UT
    Oct. 12, 2011 11:36 p.m.

    Finally a news article that goes beyond the media hype and simple minded news headlines and begins to really discusse the complex and substantive nature of this public policy issue. Thanks you Deseret News for introducing news that expands the readerships mind instead of the usual superficial news media razzle-dazzle.

  • Northern Logan, UT
    Oct. 12, 2011 11:33 p.m.

    So essentially what is being said is the majority of the country does not support gay marriage.

    When its all said and done, the family unit is the basic unit of society.