Comments about ‘Colliding causes: Gay rights and religious liberty’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, Feb. 11 2012 1:00 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Rick LT
GLENDALE, AZ

There is no such thing as "gay rights". Check the constitution. However, freedom OF religion IS in the constitution. Any person in America, single, and of legal is can marry anyone else of the opposite sex they choose. No discrimination there. This NM commission is just another example of a radical left wing-nut agenda gone awry. Churches in NM need to rise up in arms over this to get the governor to disband the commission.

CTR Stan
PROVO, UT

Why is it that the public forum constantly being forced into the religious forum, while the religious forum is constantly being forced out of the public forum? It seem the separation of church and state is a one way street with religious freedoms constantly being eroded.

I used to create websites and whenever I was asked to make a pornographic website I always refused based on my religious beliefs. I am grateful I did not live in New Mexico or I may have had to pay the pornographers not to build them a website. If court ordered to make a porn site I would choose to go to jail.

Due to personal experience with some gay individuals showing off their nude gay photos; I feel Elaine Huguenin had every right to refuse photographing the ceremony. What if Vanessa Willock asked Elaine Huguenin to take some erotic photos of their wedding or reception? It would not be a surprise if this happened. Elaine Huguenin had every right to refuse photographing Vanessa Willock. There was no damage done to Vanessa Willock. Gays are constantly pushing the boundaries, constantly forcing their way of life on others. I know this from experience too! My wife was regularly hounded by her sister's lesbian friends to come out, when she wanted nothing to do with them. My son is also a victim of gays trying to get their way with him at his workplace. This is harassment, yet it would be politically incorrect and dangerous to speak out against the harassment by the gay community.

Rynn
Las Vegas, NV

RE: Why do people mix up homosexual behavior with race? People are born with a particular race - but Hollywood and the media have given us plenty of examples of people who switch between hetero and homosexual. A black man is always going to be black, no matter what. He didn't choose it and he can't change it.

........religion is a choice too.

DanO
Mission Viejo, CA

22ozn44ozglass, and none of those quotes had anything to do with loving committed gay relationships. The Genesis 19:4-5 quote is about an act of rape and humiliation, a very inhospitable act to say the least.

Ezekiel 16:49 "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy."

Nope.. not about committed gay relationships.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@Rynn

whether it is a chosen behavior or if people are born that way is a hot topic but the bottom line is it does not matter since people that oppose gay rights can give no legitimate reason to restrict their rights, which is exactly why the courts keep deciding against them. You cannot simply restrict another persons rights simply because you disagree with some aspect of their life, it is on those that seek to restrict those rights to prove why such restrictions are justified and not the responsibility of those how want their rights to prove they deserve them.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@Rynn

whether it is a chosen behavior or if people are born that way is a hot topic but the bottom line is it does not matter since people that oppose gay rights can give no legitimate reason to restrict their rights, which is exactly why the courts keep deciding against them. You cannot simply restrict another persons rights simply because you disagree with some aspect of their life, it is on those that seek to restrict those rights to prove why such restrictions are justified and not the responsibility of those how want their rights to prove they deserve them.

CTR Stan
PROVO, UT

@DanO

Sorry, homosexuality is a sin and Jesus never did nor will He condone it. This is what the scriptures have to say:

bring them out unto us, that we may know them, Gen. 19:5 (These were men wanting to have the male guests of Lot and to "know them" is to have homosexual sex.)

Thou shalt not lie with mankind ⦠it is abomination, Lev. 18:22 (Lev. 20:13). (to "lie with mankind" is to have homosexual sex.)

There shall be no ⦠sodomite of the sons of Israel, Deut. 23:17 (I am not going to define what a "sodomite" is, but it is not hard to figure out what city this sin was named after. And only men are naturally capable of being a "sodomite")

declare their sin as Sodom, Isa. 3:9 (2 Ne. 13:9).

men ⦠burned in their lust one toward another, Rom. 1:27

nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 1 Cor. 6:9

them that defile themselves with mankind, 1 Tim. 1:10

as Sodom and Gomorrha ⦠going after strange flesh, Jude 1:7 (Comparing "strange flesh" to Sodom means homosexual sex.)

doth declare their sin to be even as Sodom, 2 Ne. 13:9

After reading these scriptures it appears there is no such thing as a "healthy gay relationship" it is a sinful relationship.

The American
Spanish Fork, UT

The issue about gay marriage should be decided by the people state by state as California did. The government was established "for the people and by the people" therefore, if the people decide something, especially on a state basis, it should be followed. The courts shouldn't have claim because it was a decision made by the people. If you don't like the peoples decision move to another state. If you try and say if this happened to Mormons it would be different, look into their history. The Mormons were driven from state to state from Missouri they were to be exterminated if found, talk about unconstitutional. The Mormons finally left the country to find peace. I'm not condoling or condemning anything here, all I am saying is that the people should decide, and since there are already states who accept the marriage move there if your so committed and for religious beliefs if you find yourself in a pickle. Maybe it would be best if able to move to a state that would be more accepting of your rights and beliefs.

Darrel
Eagle Mountain, UT

@The American,

Are you saying what happened to the Mormons in Missouri should have been legal, that had the courts stepped in it would have been an abuse of their power?

An interesting position if you take it, but it would allow you to support your majority rule position without being hypocritical.

I for one am glad we have a Constitution that seeks to protect the rights of even the minority.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

once again civil rights are not up for pubic vote.

ClarkHippo
Tooele, UT

@wrz

I said - "I've heard people say, 'If gay and lesbian couples can go into any business and demand service, next thing you know, they'll demand to be married in any church they want and no one can stop them,' but in my opinion, such arguments are apples and oranges."

You said - "Don't hold your breath. You apparently haven't a clue as to the power the federal government has acquired in the last few decades."

What power is that exactly? What laws have been passed forcing churches to accept gay and lesbian couples? Can I get some specifics here, please?

22ozn44ozglass
Southern Utah, UT

Dan O

The law given to Moses was clearly and without question declared any kind of homosexual relations as a violation of Gods law and an abomination. If homosexual acts were a violation of Gods law then any "committed gay relationship" that included sexual relations was expressly offensive to God and an abomination unto God. The Old Testament is very clear-God did not approve of gay relationships period whether the two men deemed themselves as "committed" or "married" or not.

When the Law of Moses was fulfilled at the time of Christ's resurrection, some practices and rituals of the law were changed such as blood sacrifices and burnt offerings. However, they were replaced by a higher law that called for a more spiritual and a more personal offering, symbolic ordinances such as baptism and covenants. In addition, the Lord was now going to send his word to people and nations other than the house of Israel as promised.

However, the Lords Law of chastity/morality did not change whether it was against incest, fornication, adultery or homosexual sexual relations. In fact the Lord instituted a higher law that included lustful thoughts and fantasies regarding all of the previously forbidden sexual sins including homosexual acts.

The changes made to the Lords law and commandments as a result of the crowning sacrifice of Christ were either directly specified or explained by Christ, his Prophets, or his authorized Apostles or they were exemplified by Christ as a model for us. There is absolutely no verse in the Old or New Testaments that states the the Lord now approved of incest, rape, fornication, adultery and last but not least homosexual sexual relations. Nor is there any instance where Christ modeled these behaviors or stated that they were no longer sins and now acceptable as a result of a change in the law. Christ came to fulfill the Law of Moses which was a law of sacrifice but the spiritual laws and principles behind the Law of Moses and the Commandments observed from Adam to Abraham did not change.

If you are going to use the Old and New Testaments to support homosexuality in a "committed relationship" you can not just cherry pick verses to suit your agenda.

Vince here
San Diego, CA

Please become informed. Look up "religious liberty" in The United States Supreme Court website. To join the argument of religious liberty alongside universal rights is combining apples with oranges. The rhetoric is a screen to prevent logical evaluation of the real history, background, and legal defense for the issues.

Christy
Beaverton, OR

Peter and Paul did the Lord's dirty work? The Lord delegated dirty work? He outsourced?

How many other prophets have done the Lord's dirty work?

Erwin
Canada, 00

IF you took the gay pride parade and called the celebration Haunika, would that not violate religious rights? Marriage has a biblical definition, but that definition seems to have been watered down by the continuous use of the word for all unions of all faiths (or non faiths) in a christian founded country. The gays... and everyone for that matter have the freedom or free agency to create a union with similar contract commitments found in a marriage contract, BUT should find another word other than marriage to use to identify that union. Christians have the additional responsability of warning against what the written word (scripture) has to say about certain situations and this is one of them. Gays have the right to ignor them and create their union. They do not have the right, in my opinion, to use the word that is religiously defined as a union between a woman and a man. Do what you want to do, but don't claim our beliefs and values to be the same as yours by using our words in your actions. I blame the government for this conflict as they should remove the word in unions that have no tie to biblical definitions. There would be a holy war if you called a gay pride march by the name of a religious event... this is no different.

DanO
Mission Viejo, CA

22ozn44ozglass, sorry, but Ezekial clearly pointed out that the sin of Sodom was not taking care of others. Everyone says it was destroyed because of homosexuality, but that wasn't the case. Ezekial's passage defines the list. It doesn't say "some of the things" it declares a specific list. Homosexuality wasn't in that list. The Jews were doing exactly to outsiders exactly as the "good Christian folk" are doing today.

Also, you're rationalizing away the rest of Leviticus which I'm sure you don't follow so that you can pick and choose the ones you do. But even then, there is some argument whether Leviticus 18:22 is even translated correctly. As KJV has it, it's unsupported by Hebrew text.

Furry1993
Clearfield, UT

To The American | 12:59 p.m.

Please tell me why you think some people can vote away the civil rights of others. Please tell me where you believe support for voting away the civil rights of others is found in the Constitution.

I'll give you a hint and a starting point -- it's not.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

"Marriage has a biblical definition, but that definition seems to have been watered down by the continuous use of the word for all unions of all faiths (or non faiths) in a christian founded country. "

-----------

Are you telling me that there were no "Marriages" before the old testament was written? Really?

Check your world history. You might be surprised that the tribes that wrote down the bible were not the first to marry. In fact, if you look up the meaning of marriage in these countries, they were mainly used to pass property and lineage down in a patriarchal society. Women were property.

That defination of marriage only ended a few hundred years ago.

Marriage has evolved and meant different things to different societies. It is still evolving, wouldn't you say?

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

All you citizens who are against gay marriage: Can you give me an argument that can be used in a court of law to support the ban of gays marrying? Would you quote the Bible? It really is not admissable as evidence, any more than any other book of beliefs are.

What could you show to a judge or panel of judges that would prove to them that marriage is not a privilege that we should share with gay Americans? Where is the proof that religions will be harmed?

Do any of you realize that New Mexico has a clause written into their state constitution that makes homosexuals a minority that cannot be discriminated against, just like Mormons and blacks? That is why the photographer was sued. It was under an amendment to their constitution that was duly voted upon by the citizens of New Mexico and accepted as law.

I do hate it when others tell only half of a story to prove their own point of view.

I am waiting to hear your fact supported argument that can be used in front of a court. So far, no one has come up with anything that shows that gay marriage is bad for society. Massachusetts has had gay marriage for almost a decade. No one is clammoring to be married in the Boston temple. Not one LDS member has complained that they cannot worship however they want to. They can still preach again homosexuality in all their churches. Everyone there can believe whatever they want to regarding being gay. All it has done is grant a few more of of tax-paying, law-abiding citizens rights and privileges that we all have enjoyed.

Anyone have a good argument?

VocalLocal
Salt Lake, UT

I suppose if we allow businesses to decide whether or not to provide services to homosexuals because it is 'a choice' which they find morally objectionable we should also allow businesses to not provide services to those who choose a religion that they find morally objectionable. If so, then that seems fair.

to comment

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