Deseret News | Let others live own lives

Reader comments
Readers' forum: Let others live own lives

Page:
1
2
Next >

Stop violating peoples rights | 4:13 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

RE:Mariana Kartchner

"I'm not asking people to support homosexuality, just support their rights as Americans."

That's exactly what you are asking people to do and what you don't seem to grasp is that legal marriage is more than people living their lives as they see fit. It is a three way contract with the majority of Americans agreeing to provide certain things to the people who choose to get married and who agree to do certain things for the majority.

The courts have repeatedly ruled that the state is a party to every marriage and the state is a majority and the majority is made up of individuals so when the state is party to a homosexual union then every citizen is party to that union when they vote for or agree to gay marriage or take part in legal marriage in any form.

Their heterosexual marriage becomes a recognition of the right of the majority or courts to solemnize gay relationships. You can't call something a sin and then take part in something that promotes that sin unless you are a hypocrite.

I may not be a religious person but others are.

on Mariana | 6:01 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

gender is not race
There is a huge difference which society still (rightly) ackowledges. It may make you feel morally supperior to argue otherwise - but reality is reality whether PC or not.

Why not promote legal polygamy instead? It has much more precedent
(didnt think you would go for that)

Ultra Bob | 6:21 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

All Adult Americans have the rights granted by the Constitution for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness so long as they do not impinge on the rights of others.

Adult American Gay people have the right to live their lifestyle, including getting married if that is their choice.

Children while having those same rights, have not been given the freedom in our society to exercise those rights. It is the purpose in the family setting to constrain children’s rights until they have developed their adult ability to make proper judgments in life.

It is right and proper for society to promote by law the best family setting for children and therefore not permit children to be raised in deviant family settings.

Gay people should not be allowed to interface with children in any capacity.

Comments continue below

Clark | 6:52 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

I appreciate letters where someone doesn't feel the need to childishly ridicule those they oppose, simply to make their point.

One thing I've noticed regarding the whole same-sex marriage debate is the fact many people don't seem to think or realize, the issue of "rights" is a two way street.

For example, there are many people who are angered by the LDS Church's involvement in Proposition 8, even demanding they lose their tax-exempt status. But when it comes to liberal leaning churches, who openly support all kinds of other legislation, these same people don't say a word.

I personally would have no problem with gays and lesbiands wanting to marry, if I didn't feel those who oppose such acts will not be legally punished in some way. I'm not convinced of this yet.

Robert Johnson | 7:15 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Thank you Ms. Kartchner.

I've never understood the mentality of my fellow Americans that believe they are entitled to certain rights/privileges while feeling somehow justified in denying those same rights/privileges to another.

Deborah | 7:30 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

I too, think that everyone has a right to live their own life, but if marriage were to be granted by law to same sex partners; then, might it become "illegal" for a church to NOT to provide marriage services for them?

Even if a church felt it was morally wrong, they could possibly be forced to provide services for a wedding that would go against their own beliefs. Church Bishops and Pastors would have a terrible delemia -- obey the law of the land or the law of the Lord.

They already have the same | 8:43 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

rights to get married as everyone else has. They want special rights that no one now has. These special rights will force me as a taxpayer and as a consumer to subsidize a lifestyle that I don't agree with, which interferes with my life. How about dropping the whole thing and letting me live my own life in peace.

Amen | 8:53 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Let others live their own lives and then they will be judged for their own choices.

C'mon Mariana! | 9:19 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Re: "Do you think that every man and woman should have the same rights in the United States? I do."

So why shouldn't every man in the United States have the right to marry 20 women? Or a three-year-old? Or his daughter? Or a gerbil? Why shouldn't every person have the right to live outside of jail -- including felons? Why shouldn't everyone have the right to hang around elementary schools -- including convicted child molesters?

Like it or not, there IS such as thing as right and wrong. A government of decent people has both a right and a duty not to promote wrong.

Ernest T. Bass | 9:26 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Exactly.

@ C'mon Mariana | 9:37 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

"So why shouldn't every man in the United States have the right to marry 20 women? Or a three-year-old? Or his daughter? Or a gerbil? Why shouldn't every person have the right to live outside of jail -- including felons? Why shouldn't everyone have the right to hang around elementary schools -- including convicted child molesters?"

Once there is a way to address the complexities that arise from plural marriage, there is no reason men and women shouldn't be allowed to have multiple spouses if that is what they desire and all are in agreement.

There are genetic and social reasons why closely related people should not marry and reproduce.

Three-year-olds and gerbils cannot legally consent.

Criminals have victims - they have caused a harm in society for which they are required, by society, to atone for.

Children do not have the means necessary to protect themselves and therefore society has an obligation to do its best to protect them.

If you really cannot see the difference between actions by and between consenting adults and actions that victimize others, you obviously have very little understanding of the concepts of right and wrong.

jackhp | 9:40 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

@ 9:19 a.m.

"Like it or not, there IS such as thing as right and wrong."

Great. Then PLEASE, please, tell me what exactly is so wrong about allowing gay people equal access to the civil right of marriage?

Anonymous | 9:42 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

"We all finally realized it was their choice as Americans."

Actually this is an innacurate statement. The supreme court ruled that you couldn't bar inter-racial marriages.

While I agree with the bulk of the letter, I think it is important to note that the biggest changes are inacted by the judicial branch. Many people will call them radical activist judges. I like to think that they are just trying to look out for the best interests of everybody.

No one has been able to prove, or even theorize why "traditional marriage" would be harmed if gays were allowed to marry. What would be the detriment to society if they were allowed this?

Please no religous allegory here. We are talking about secular law right now. I know what people say God says, (I am fully antiquated with all of the LDS scriptures). Please let me know.

@ Deborah | 9:52 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Why do you think the First Ammendment would be repealed if gay couples would be allowed to marry? I do not understand this thinking.

@Ultra Bob | 9:53 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

You lost credibility there Bob. Every study done about gay people raising children has shown that the children are just as well off if not better than their heterosexual counterparts.

acceptance | 9:54 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Its more about acceptance than it is about rights. Homosexuals already have all the rights that straights have, they just want straights to accept and condone their lifestyle. It is the straits that live and let live. The Homosexuals just won't leave it alone.

@Stop violating peoples rights | 9:55 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Ummm what?

Dagmar | 9:56 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Gays define themselves by their sexuality. Homosexuality. They believe that is who they are. So by supporting gay marriage, I would indeed be supporting homosexuality.

Anonymous | 10:05 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

We can't let people speed by schools, dump poison in to rivers or murder people. I hate smoking. I'm not telling my neighbor not to smoke because the smoke invades my yard. I value freedom too much.

I have my belief system I don't impose my beliefs on people who don't impact my life. I'm personally accountable for me. If I believe some act is morally wrong, I don't do it.

Gay marriages isn't going to effect me. I have my life to live. Have you ever seen anyone who did such a great job of living there lives that you wished they were living your life?

This as got me thinking. Do you send doctors to treat the healthy? What if hospitals told sick people they weren't welcome? Could the ill be treated?

Look at religion. Religion claims to advance spiritual health. Churches constantly tell people who have spiritual problems that they aren't welcome in your church.

If the sinner is unwelcome, haven't you lost the ability to have any influence on them in the future? Religion is very strange.

Hello! | 10:49 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

There are no laws forbidding homosexual marriage - any gay couple can get married anywhere in the US - it's just not recognized by the State and I've never heard a good argument in favor of State -sanctioned gay marriage

@ Ultra Bob | 10:59 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

"Gay people should not be allowed to interface with children in any capacity."

Marriage, gay or straight, has absolutely nothing to do with children. Gay individuals and couples are raising and will continue to raise children. Denying marriage does nothing but put these children at a disadvantage as compared to other children.

These children are disadvantaged by the risk of losing both parents should the named parent become incapacitated. These children are at an increased risk of living in poverty and/or being on welfare should their parents' relationship end. All the benefits of family that are automatically granted to children of parents in heterosexual relationships are denied to the children of same-sex relationships.

Anyone who truly has the welfare and well-being of children at heart should be urging parents - gay or straight - to be married.

Anonymous | 11:02 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Hi antiquated,
"traditional marriage" is religious and so religion can't be left out. If we're talking secular law, then we are talking "civil marriage". Since you are acquainted(?) with scripture you know the harm to "traditional marriage." Same-sex marriage is also harmful to "civil marriage" because it is non-civilizing and to a large degree de-civilizing. Same-sex marriage does not contribute to civilization, individual homosexuals may and they should be rewarded, but it is in heterosexual marriage that civilization is perpetuated. If gays want marriage they can have it, but by definition it can't be "traditional" or "civil".

@Dagmar | 11:14 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

I am a human. How I live and act is what defines me. Not who I sleep with. If you think that sexuality defines any person, or that person believes that, then they do not know or have any meaning to life.

@9:54 | 11:16 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Actually I do not care if you accept me or not. I am happy and secure about who I am. What I am not ok with is being a law abiding American citizen but beind denied rights because I don't fit in to your special club. There is a difference.

Mike Richards | 11:42 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

@ 9:42,

Let's have it your way. Let's bar God from all conversations about morality and marriage. Let's bar religion from giving input into the purpose and structure of a family. Let's open our homes to deviant sex so that our children will not be pre-programmed to reject homosexual overtures when they are accosted on their playgrounds. Let's invite the wolves in to have a feeding frenzy on our flock of children.

Yes, let's have it your way. Let's let the father of lies tell us what to say and how to lie. Let's let those that defile themselves become the pillars of our communities and the example of goodness and grace for our children. Let's let those who promote homosexuality teach and train our children. Let's let them be the coaches, the scout masters, the youth leaders. Let's let them condemn tradition marriage and traditional families so that they can teach innocent children to walk in their footsteps and live their lifestyle.

Yes, let's have it your way. Let's bar God from this discussion.

Anonymous | 11:59 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

They have every legal right to get married now. Although they proclaim homosexuallity, they still have a gender and it is very legal for one man to marry one woman. They choose not to, and they want to redefine marraige. As much as they deny it, they want everyone to be forced to embrace their lifestyle choice and to trample on the ideals of traditional marriage.

Anonymous | 12:06 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Marianna- another victim of the gay propaganda machine.

Supporting the ABSURDITY of gay marraige is supporting the choice to engage in homosexual activity.

Re: Mike Richards 11:42 a.m. | 12:31 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Mike, there's so much idiocy in your post that I can't even begin to cover it in my allotted space here, but I'll try: Do you worry about heterosexual teachers/coaches/scout masters promoting straight sex and forcing children to accept heterosexual overtures from anybody at anytime? No? Then why (besides your own bigotry) do you worry about gay people doing this? I know you don't believe this, but most gays are just like anybody else. They work, pay taxes, are part of their communities, try to lead good lives, and are certainly not defined entirely on who they sleep with. I shouldn't need to tell you this, but there are other things in life besides sex.

And no one's trying to "bar God" from anything. Teach your loved ones to believe whatever you want, but when you try to use social pressures and the law to force your beliefs on others, that's where the problem lies. I certainly don't have to tell you what the eleventh Article of Faith says, do I? I love how you always try to play the victim. What if someone could vote your marriage away?

ender2155 | 12:39 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

As I've stated many times before, and had a lot of conservatives agree with me, let's get the gov out of the business of marriage and show what it is the gov REALLY does ... grants a civil union that grants rights and responsibilities to the 2 people involved in it. Grant gay, lesbian and straight couples a civil union, and then let them call it whatever they want. That way, no church would be required to act opposite their beliefs, and I'm pretty sure this argument will go away. I mean, I plan on marrying my same sex partner, right here in Utah, and we are free to call each other husbands all we want despite the fact it's not state recognized. You can't bar people from using a word.

@Uncle Bob | 1:30 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Careful there old boy, you are beginning to sound like a conservative lately. You hit the nail on the head, its about unlimited access to troll for the young.

@RE Mike Richards12:31 | 1:46 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Sorry Dude, gay people are not just like everyone else. We, who work with them, aren't buying it. And they are not innocuous. For the majority, their focus on sexuality is hyper. It's tiresome Dude.

Mike Richards | 2:27 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

@ 12:31,

It appears that you didn't read the anonymous 9:42 post that was the object of my post. That post asked NOT to have religious allegory, but instead wanted to keep the subject limited to "secular law".

Do you, like the anonymous 9:42 poster think that your Godless secular world is THEE model for a home and a family?

Do you, like the anonymous 9:42 poster, think that law should be based on your secular ideas and that the religious ideas of 300,000,000 Americans should be tossed out because you have an incorrect interpretation of the Constitutional ban on CONGRESS passing laws pertaining to an establishment of religion?

Are you so full of deviant ideas that you promote sex, homosexual or heterosexual, at anytime and with anyone? Do you think that it is EVER APPROPRIATE for ANYONE to advocate sexual activity to a MINOR? Your post implies that you want equal access and equal opportunity to indoctrinate the youth.

If you ever get an understanding of the Constitution, you would realize that the Federal Government is restrained from interfering with my practice of religion, whether you approve or not.

jackhp | 2:50 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

"Are you so full of deviant ideas that you promote sex, homosexual or heterosexual, at anytime and with anyone? Do you think that it is EVER APPROPRIATE for ANYONE to advocate sexual activity to a MINOR? Your post implies that you want equal access and equal opportunity to indoctrinate the youth."

Wow, Mike, you're being exceptionally idiotic today.

@ Mike Richards | 3:25 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

"If you ever get an understanding of the Constitution, you would realize that the Federal Government is restrained from interfering with my practice of religion, whether you approve or not."

But it is okay for you to use your religion to interfere with others practice of religion? Not all religions oppose same-sex marriage. By disallowing same-sex marriage, you are prohibiting those religions from offering all sacraments to their members - whether you approve or not.

Mike Richards | 3:36 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Jackhp,

Thank you for your comment.

You did not read 12:31's post where he/she wrote: "Do you worry about heterosexual teachers/coaches/scout masters promoting straight sex and forcing children to accept heterosexual overtures from anybody at anytime?"

Since that poster singled out heterosexual teachers/coaches/scout masters as those he/she alleged were teaching children the to accept "heterosexual overtures" "anytime", it is only logical to infer that he/she finds it perfectly fine to allow homosexual teachers/coaches/scout masters to teach the youth about sex.

Do you share 12:31's perverted ideas?

Why is it that homosexual activists feel that it is their DUTY to teach MY children and my grandchildren that it is permissible to have homosexual relations outside of marriage?

Why do homosexual activists feel that they have the right to speak to any child about sex?

Why do homosexual activists desire that laws be passed to promote and condone their sexual activities, including teaching minor children in public school about the gay lifestyle?

Is it because they have no children of their own? Do they think that their stewardship extends into my family?

@Deborah | 4:06 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Not everyone gets married in a church. To be married in a church, synagogue, temple, mosque, whatever, you usually have to have permission from the church.

Gay people want the right to marry civilly, not in the temple. No one is going to 'force' the church to give them a temple recommend.

jackhp | 4:26 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

re: Mike at 3:36 p.m.

Thanks for proving my point.

jackhp | 4:41 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Not sure why this is being censored. I'd like to respond to Mike's comment which I quote below, however the censor apparently doesn't like what I have to say. It clearly does not violate any of the terms for posting. I guess I'll try again.

"If you ever get an understanding of the Constitution, you would realize that the Federal Government is restrained from interfering with my practice of religion, whether you approve or not."

Mike, practicing your religion does NOT include the right to force others to live by YOUR religious tenets. If that's what you want then you're going to have to find someplace else to live because here in the United States we value freedom, individual liberty and equality under the law. You obviously don't . . .

mark | 4:53 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Asking Mormons to MIND THEIR OWN BU$INE$$ is like asking a fish to ride a bike.

It's just not in their NATURE.

Mike Richards | 5:24 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Jackhp,

Would you be so kind as to show me how I'm "forcing" you to go to the temple to be married. That is a religious teaching that is very dear and sacred to me, but I would never "force" you or anyone else to enter the temple.

Maybe if you list those items that I've "forced" YOU to do we could clear the air. Please be specific and tell me what police officer or even which church official I brought to your house and FORCED you to do anything that had to do with me or with religion.

You have absolutely NO RIGHT to keep me or anyone else from worshiping God! If you choose to turn your back on Him, that is your right but you have no right to force anyone else to NOT believe.

You use the words freedom and individual liberty very carelessly. In your world, perhaps people force you to agree with them, but in my world, your desire to force homosexual activities on society under penalty of law shows that you respect neither freedom nor liberty.

Do you realize that | 5:24 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Homosexuality is STATISTICALLY associated with increased murder, poorer health, increased child abuse, worse mental health, ETC. ETC. ETC.

Yes, the exceptions outweigh the examples. But,why would it make sense for any society to legitimize and institutionalize behavior that degrades, on average, the well being of its people? Marriage is reserved for heterosexual relationships precisely because of the societal good, on average, they produce, mainly in the form of children taught and nurtured in families. You may argue that not all marriages produce children. True, but they do provide exemplars for those that do and contribute to their stability both within and across generations. Something that cannot happen in homosexual situations. Society needs to focus its resources on repairing and strengthening its families that are broken, not on creating artificial families that are at higher risk of dysfunction.

Anonymous | 5:46 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

@Do you realize

ABSOLUTE LIES

just make up garbage you can't prove...it's SO Mormon.

evolutionfish | 6:44 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Some people don't want to "subsidize" gay marriage because it offends them? Well, having 7 kids offends me and I don't want to subsidize that. (Which we all have to because you get tax exemptions for every kid you have).

evolutionfish | 6:52 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Ok...you know what? I have tried so hard to be understanding of people who oppose gay marriage. I have tried to understand your positions. I have tried to see where you are coming from but now I am FED UP. You people never listen to any arguement. You just spew the same hurtful false information you find and no amount of studies or data or LOGIC will change your position. That in my opinion makes you all stupid ignorant selfish idiots and I am so done trying to reason with you because it's useless. I will sit back and laugh as your precious world falls apart around you because change is coming and there really is no stopping it.

To: Do you realize (Part 1) | 6:54 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

My hard-core Republican, heterosexual bro-in-law has been divorced 3 times and produced 2 children out of wedlock. Wife #2 swears like a sailor and physically abused him for years. He currently lives with her in a trailer since she won't work because she's addicted to drugs. He self-medicates with Budweiser. She's had 3 kids with 3 different guys, only marrying my bro-in-law after their baby was born so she could wear a pretty dress. Her son#1 has been in and out of jail and just had a baby with his girlfriend whom he doesn't want to marry. Son #2 is 15, and wants nothing more than to marry his goth girlfriend, and they’re both failing school, and his parents couldn’t care less where he is or what he does. They’ve never in their lives attended a parent/teacher conference. They've near-starved and abandoned countless pets. I could go on but I won't.

To: Do you realize (Part 2) | 6:58 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

On the other hand...

My daughter's best friend has 2 moms who’ve been together almost 20 years. One works a good job so the other can stay home. They are incredible parents. They are actively involved in everything their 2 girls do - school, Classic soccer, band. They volunteer at school and they fundraise for Juvenile Diabetes and breast cancer. Their girls are smart, well-adjusted, well-behaved, polite, kind, and funny. And their oldest, my daughter's bff, even has a boyfriend! (gasp!) They have a dog and 2 cats that are adored and well taken care of.
I could go on but I won't.

So, my question to you is -- which of these two families is better for society?

Bottom line | 7:07 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Just because you're heterosexual doesn't make you a nurturing parent.

And just because you're gay doesn't make you a child abuser.

Re: Mike Richards | 7:44 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

I'm the guy who wrote at 12:31, and I've been rereading my post and trying to figure out how you could possibly think that I advocate involving minors with anything sexual. If anybody here is obsessed with that notion, that'd be you.

In fact, you didn't answer a single question I asked, so I'll try again:

1) What evidence do you have that gays want to teach your children about engaging in homosexuality?

2) Have you read the eleventh Article of Faith? Tell me what it means.

3) Imagine that a group could get a measure on the ballot that would invalidate your marriage. How would you react?

So are you going to answer me, or just sling some more insults?

jackhp | 7:45 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Mike,
It's simple. You PREVENT gay couples from marrying and enjoying the same civil rights that you yourself enjoy simply based on your religious tenets. That's forcing people to live by your religion. That's why I said your religious freedom does not include forcing others to live by your beliefs. I didn't say squat about your temple so save the sanctimony for another time, m'kay?

Mike Richards | 8:33 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Jackhp,

How does civil marriage have anything to do with temple marriage? You have the same civil rights as I have. No one has ever denied your civil rights. You have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, just as I have.

You were born into this world because two people of the opposite sex were willing to set aside the self-centered "I" disease that you and your friends have and invite you into the world.

What have you offered in return? Selfishness? A fatal case of "I" disease? Slurs against mothers and fathers everywhere as you tell them that you have the "civil right" to force them to acknowledge your definition of "marriage"?

When I PREVENT robbers from entering my home and robbing me, does that constitute a violation of of THEIR civil rights to pursue their "occupation"?

Believe me when I tell you this: Your embarrassment will know no bounds when you face the giver of all law and hear from His lips what you have been told over and over and over by His prophets - since Adam walked the earth. What arrogant retort will you have then?

Page:
1
2
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.