Comments about ‘Sen. Portman stirs mixed reaction with same-sex marriage stance’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, March 15 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

Not to complain, I'm glad he's finally come to his senses - but,

Typical GOP response --
He's totally against something until it affect HIM or his family personally.

Middle America welcomes your bleeding heart Senator.
Now, prepare yourself - your radical-right GOP hounds about to turn against you...

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

@Mormon mind,

I like your prophet's reponse, who mormons I am told speaks for God. Your prophet's response is that everyone should be treated kindly, yet wrong is wrong.

Not only does your prophet(again, speaks for God I am told) think gay marriage is wrong, he also thinks it should be illegal.

Seems to me when the Mormon church encourage its people to support Prop 8, the Mormons prophet(speaks for God) says it should be illegal for homosexuals to marry.

I'm with Mormon prophet(speaks for God) Monson and my prophet, Pope Francis on this one!

Thanks Monson and Pope Francis. God bless you both as you support what is right.

HS Fan
Salt Lake City, UT

The real one with courage is Senator Portman's son. Be yourself, as that's the way God intended it.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

HS Fan,
the way God intended it. So by your logic we should never correct club feet or hairlips. people are born with those conditions, so they should just be that way?

If Portman's son wanted to marry two women or if his daughter wanted to marry 2 men, would he then press for the legalization of polygamy or polyandry? If we are redefining marriage, why should there be any restricitons on our definitions?

salt lake, UT

@lost in dc

club feet and hair lips?You really just tried to compare being gay to a medical diformity? As to the rest of your comment, after so many years I would think you already have all the answers to that failed logic memorized You really need new material.

Poplar Grove, UT

Ok, so let assume that all of the people in your scenario are
1. People(not animals)
2. Adults, who are able to legally consent to a marriage.
So my question to you is why do you get to determine what constitutes marriage between someone who meets my criteria? You don't get to choose who gets married when it's a man to a woman. Why is it such a big deal if a man marries a man. Or a woman marries 2 or 3 men. If everyone in the relationship is fine with it then why is it your business what consenting adults do at home? It's not hurting you anymore than a straight couple that you think aren't a good match.

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

@Lost in DC is right.

Claiming "born that way" doesn't mean anything. Studies have shown some people are more predisposed to be alchoholics. Should we support acholihics behavior and not try to curb those actions, because they were "born that way"

If HS FAn's argrument is not to mess with what God created, we shouldnt be fixing those things(amoung countless others) that Lost in DC said.

If I was born with a problem, I would try and fix that problem.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

to your first point - yes. Many claim homosexuals are born, not made, so why would they object when I say people are born with club feet or hare lips and that those conditions are not "made"?

to your second - I have yet to see an answer other than, "it can only be 2", to which I respond - "why? if gender does not matter, was does number?" I have YET to see an answer to that. When you simply saying I should have the answer memorized, I can only conclude you cannot give a satisfactory answer.

why limit it to people? If we are giving carte blanch to the definition, why limit it to people?

Adults - In Columbia the age of consent is 14; in Britain it's 16. why not adopt one of those ages?

the basic quesiton is, when redefining marriage, if certain things don't matter, why should others? Who gets to decide what matters and what doesn't? if gender doesn't matter, why should age, number, or any myriad of factors? if we're taking the restrictions off the definition, take them ALL off. Or are you just not open-minded enough?

salt lake, UT

@chris b
The failer in both of you logics is with your assumption that being gay is disfunctional in some way. Whether some one is "born that way" or not is ilrelevant. (Which frankly you are right is hs fans arguements weakness.)

Colorado Springs, CO

Let's go back 2,000 years. Wonder if they fixed that club foot or hair lip? These arguments are silly.

Chris B: One little flaw in your hypothetical: Gays don't believe they have a problem. It's only "some" straight folks who believe this is a problem!


@Lost in DC --

My first response to you seems to have gotten lost, so I'll try again --

"if gender does not matter, why does number?"

In principle number (at least small numbers) doesn't matter, if all participants are consenting adults. Heck, polygamy was common in the Old Testament.

However, in practice women have always had much less power than men. Therefore, it's easy to take advantage of/subjugate/mistreat women in a polygamous relationship -- as we have seen several times with the various polygamous sects. Therefore, polygamy has had, and continues to have, measurably bad practical effects in society -- specifically an increased risk to women. In contrast, homosexual marriages have no measurably bad practical effects.

"If we are giving carte blanch to the definition, why limit it to people?"

Because animals -- like children -- can't give informed consent. Informed consent is a fundamental principle affecting most aspects of our legal system. Gender is not.

"In Columbia the age of consent is 14; in Britain it's 16. why not adopt one of those ages?"

Actually, 16 is already the legal age of sexual consent in many US states. Federally it's up to the voters, Congress, and the courts.

Leesburg, VA

@ Lost in DC, Chris B.

Your ship is sinking, your old arguments and failed logic no longer can keep it afloat.

You are welcome to continue believing whatever you desire. However, I would like you to think and reason with emphathy, not only on this issue, but in all issues.

You see, we are all made to the image of God. Just because certain tendencies and/or behaviors make you feel unconfortable, it doesn't give you the right to curtail people's dignity as human beings and deprive them of rights you enjoy.

Homosexuality has existed always in all cultures. In our Judeo-Christian tradition there is nowhere written (not in Leviticus,or, Romans)that "God had said" this or that negatively about homosexuality. It is attributed to Moses and Paul, not God, which is not the same. Otherwise all Christian churches would be violating, many, many God's commandements.

Actually, I would like to invite you to read and meditate on Isaiah 56:4 where God is quite liberal to the "eunuchs". (Please remember the term "Homosexual" was coined in England in the 1800's)

Whatever the result of this process, we are still brothers and sisters.

to comment

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