Comments about ‘Utah gay-marriage advocates disappointed’

Return to article »

But LDS officials say the California court's ruling is 'welcome'

Published: Wednesday, May 27 2009 12:56 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
RE:Jeff 9:03 A.M.


Common Sense?

Your experiences and beliefs shape your belief that there is no God. For billions of people past and present, common sense shows them by experience that there is a God. It is not your right to define common sense.


There are many commenting that by taking a stance on traditional marriage is tantamount to taking away rights for the minority. Actually, just the opposite is true.

Examples of heterosexual couples losing previously protected rights:
1-In the case Parker v. Hurley (514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir.2008)), the Courts agreed that under the guise of diversity, any attempt to prohibit instruction of grade-schoolers about gay marriage or to permit parents to opt their children out of it must be stopped.
2-Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public.
3-Catholic Charities in Boston have stopped offering adoption services because the State has determined that their religious beliefs cannot trump the redefinition of marriage, and therefore they cannot discriminate in providing adoptions for gay couples.

And so the list goes on from university accreditation organizations to Canada's C-250 bill, which criminalized public statements against homosexuality (punishable by up to 2 years!).

It is the gay marriage proponents who are trying to take away my rights!

useless arguments

neither side is going to convince the other. One side sees it about equality and hate the other side sees it as a moral compass for society. One side sees nothing wrong with two men or two women being together, the other side sees that as sinful. I can predict what will happen going forward. Ultimately the younger people will be more accepting of this behavior or lifestyle and gay marriage will pass. If you believe in God let Him decide in the next life.

To: to religion 12:34pm

Oh, but that's taking a side, that's against the rules. You can't pick a side at all, because every single decision is inluenced by something outside of ourselves. You have to vote "no comment" on the issue, or not vote at all. That's what you're telling us, isn't it? We vote your way, or we can't vote at all?

Art B.

Re: Kevin @ 12:45

First of all, I have read a lot of your posts and they are generally very respectful. I appreciate your willingness to foster dialogue. I hope to be equally respectful, and I honestly think the two camps in this debate can find common ground.

Here is my question. What rights and protections has the government of California not already granted to homosexual couples through domestic partnerships?


Nation of LAWS not of MEN.

The PEOPLE have decided this. Courts are not the Legislature for good reason.

Re Kevin

I understand all the rights, but eventhough all of those rights can be extended through so called Civil Unions, the gay and lesbian movement continues to insist that they must have marriage. I don't understand that logic, why must it be marriage?, if you have all the same rights.


Re: Religion 12:46pm
The ability to share ideas, opinions, AND beliefs is part of what makes this nation great. Your brand of irreligious imperialism, which seeks to disallow opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious belief, flies in the face of the Constitution and the principles of freedom and democracy.

As Neal Maxwell said, "If people are not permitted to advocate, to asset, and to bring to bear, in every legitimate way, the opinions and views they hold that grow out of their religious convictions, what manner of men and women would they be?"

I happily engage you in dialogue, allowing you to bring to the table all your opinions in their various forms, and yet you seek to disqualify mine simply because they are religiously based? Do you not see the terrible irony and intolerance in that?

I'm sorry, my opinions are not second-rate, merely because they are born of religious conviction. It is you who seeks to shrink my freedom, even as you reject the value our this nation's rich Judeo-Christian heritage.

Marriage is and should be between a man and a woman.

re: Lynn | 1:13 p.m.

That's a simple question to answer: evolution. ;)


There needs to be polygamy for women too.


Gay is by birth, remember genetics?? not choice.

The law is the law...if you do not like it, work to change it. Quit acting like fools with your crazy antics. Do some solid work.

Gays will never win with their present demonstrations and lack of control in the public venue.

Many of you quote the Bible. I believe man wrote the Bible to control his fellow man..and it is working well with you.

When you have a child that turns out to be "gay" see how your heart changes. I'm told it seems to run in families...interesting..you'll notice how "uncle charlie" tends to hold out his pinkie and likes pastels...or aunt betty is a little on the masculine side..but, she's just sporty..yeah, get a life and quit judging people..the closets are full...

All in all...if you don't like the way it is ...work to change it, quit acting like you've been betrayed by the law.

The California decision was the right one..according to the vote.

Utah has no place in California state politics.

Re;anonymous 1:45

That's a completely valid point. If gay marriage is legal than polygamy must be legalized and must be legal for both sexes. (not that I can think of any reason anyone would want more than one husband) And of course the next step is legalized homosexual polygamy. Yeah, that won't be at all confusing to the adoptive children that will have to be legally allowable. "Wait, which two of you do I call daddy?" I can see the sitcoms now. "My Ten Dads."


I just hope that all these activists are fighting for polygamy and insest and every other form of alternative relationship. Why do single people have to pay higher taxes and get fewer rights? Marriage is an incentive based program. And it is perfectly okay to believe that every child deserves a mother and a father and create a program (marriage) to encourage this. We don't need to apologize. This is not a religious discusion it is a social welfare discussion

to posters using religion

such as:
Common Sense? | 1:03 p.m
["For billions of people past and present, common sense shows them by experience that there is a God"]

that's not common sense by any stretch of the imagination. it is simply what you've been told, even though it flies in the face of common sense.

Michaelitos | 1:29 p.m
["I'm sorry, my opinions are not second-rate, merely because they are born of religious conviction."]

no - but your opinions are biased by superstition, and not of intelligent quality (or you wouldn't believe in fairy tales).

To: to religion 12:34pm | 1:08 p.m.
["You can't pick a side at all, because every single decision is inluenced by something outside of ourselves."]

not picking a side. treating everyone equally isn't a side, it's simply common sense.

and my favorite:
lynn | 1:13 p.m
["If marriage were between Adam and Steve how would the divine commandment to "multiply and replenish" be accompished?"]

divine commandment? please. and do you really think everyone would suddenly become gay?

like I said - religious people aren't know for common sense or great intelligence....

Just wondering???

Why is it that when my high school team finally gets an article written in the paper, there is only one measly picture of the game. Yet when gays protest, there are multiple pictures of their tantrums? Where's the equality in that?


Michaelitos | 1:29 p.m. May 27, 2009...

GREAT post!


Why do those who oppose marriage equality insist on comparing gay marriage with bestiality, and/or child molestation? One refers to legally consenting ADULTS, while the others do not. Is your faith actually so weak that you demand it be forced upon me? It is the only valid reason I can ascertain especially since you claim: We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own cconscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. My God doesn't mind gay marriage.

On leviticus

If you are going to spout leviticus 20:13 how about also spouting about Kosher laws (better watch out for swordfish) or fabric laws (heaven forbid you combine wool and cotton.) Do you also admire Lot who managed to pretend to be drunk enough to impregnate not one but two daughters? Your daughters need to be concerned if you do. What do you think about Abraham's parenting style? You really okay with a man that ties up his son and threatens to stab him as a sacrifice? Andrea Yates thought it okay as well.

re - anao at 2:07pm

if marriage stays between two consenting adults, your argument is moot. trying to create divorce laws for multi-person marriages is just not possible. but it's simple for two-party marriages.

so that explains why it should just be two consenting adults. now pls explain why they need to be different sexes (and leave your god out of it).

to comment

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