Comments about ‘Obama: Religious intolerance has ‘no place in our society’’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, April 14 2014 11:13 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Pianoman
Salt Lake City, UT

"Religious intolerance has no place in our society," ironically said by the man who intolerantly dismisses the religious view of traditional marriage.

Ranch
Here, UT

@Pianoman;

You immediately go out and marginalize another group. Isn't there enough hate in this world without adding to it?

BTW; there are quite a large number of religious organizations that support SSM right along with your "traditional marriage".

As long as we allow groups (Jewish, Muslim, LGBT, etc.) to be marginalized in our society (and the DN perpetuates this marginalization with all their anti-LGBT articles), these things are going to continue to happen. Enough with the hate already.

MichaelNomo
Here, UT

@Pianoman Ironically said by the person who intolerantly thinks that "traditional" marriage is the only correct form of marriage.

Stalwart Sentinel
San Jose, CA

Pianoman - You do realize that marriage is not a zero-sum game, right? When one supports marriage equality that does not, in any way, diminish or dismiss one's tolerance of traditional marriage. In fact, most supporters of marriage equality are like me in that they themselves are in a traditional marriage.

Of course, I could be mistaken - you could always prove me wrong by pointing out where SSM supporters/Obama have advocated to remove the right to marry from heterosexual couples. I'm sure you must have loads upon loads of evidence to support such a conclusion based on your rather direct comment.

Esquire
Springville, UT

No matter what positive message the President delivers, some will respond with hate and cynicism. I would guess they consider themselves religious?

Moontan
Roanoke, VA

Speaking of marginalization, notice how Pianoman's opinion is immediately reduced to 'hate' bypassing a whole range of acceptable categories that have nothing to do with hate. Telling, that.

Ranch
Here, UT

@Moontan;

Notice how you immediately dismiss the hate that allows one to marginalize another group? If it isn't hate it is pretty darn identical.

MichaelNomo
Here, UT

@Moontan - sounds like you're committing the fallacy fallacy.

Moontan
Roanoke, VA

@Ranch ... One can't dismiss a hatred that marginalizes others until one first establishes that the hate exists. We haven't done that here. Pinaoman may simply believe in traditional marriage as established by God, and that the institution isn't ours to redefine. This isn't hate. While it is unquestionable that hatred for our gay brothers and sisters exists, this isn't obvious from merely a desire to leave traditional marriage intact. The "let me do what I want or you hate me" argument doesn't work.

@Michael ... No, no fallacy here. For the above reasons.

MichaelNomo
Here, UT

@Moontan - or it would be if there was an initial fallacy committed in the first place (the implication being "ad homonym"). I think that no one here has attacked Pianoman's character. It's just that his logic is a bit off. You have to admit that wanting to restrict marriage to a single sexual orientation (heterosexual), is far more intolerant than one who promotes marriage with no respect to sexual orientation. At this point you can only logically argue whether or not this particular case of tolerance is a good thing (it indeed is, especially from a human rights perspective).

MichaelNomo
Here, UT

Oops, forgot to edit that "one who promotes" bit. You get the idea though.

Moontan
Roanoke, VA

@Michael ... "You have to admit that wanting to restrict marriage to a single sexual orientation (heterosexual), is far more intolerant...". Now THERE is your fallacy, from which any conclusion made is a fallacy. Does abiding by the traditional definition of marriage mean I am intolerant of redefinition's? Is the International Triathlon Union intolerant because they won't give me a gold metal, even though I couldn't run 100 yards without a life-support unit on standby? A simple desire to be considered 'X' without meeting the criteria history associates with 'X' does not entitle me to be considered thus, or mean that those would deny me the desired status are intolerant, bigots, haters, etc.

The Scientist
Provo, UT

Regardless which side anyone falls on this issue, I think I have learned (again) not to underestimate the ability of religious folks to spin and rationalize.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"said by the man who intolerantly dismisses the religious view of traditional marriage."

And in Utah, for 40 years, what constituted "traditional marriage"?

airnaut
Everett, 00

Obama: Religious intolerance has ‘no place in our society’

=========

And I knew I would find "hate all thing Obama" haters chiming in the comments.

If the President was addressing this toward a right-wing KKK member shooting at a Jewish synagoge in Kansas last weekend,
there would still be those who would deriv him.

Pathetic when blind hatred can decern right from wrong.

Just like with the KKK shooter.

MichaelNomo2
Here, UT

Of course I'm approaching this from a political standpoint--separation of Church and State and all that. This is not a question of "whose beliefs we need to cater to?", it's a question of "does this infringe on someone else's rights?" It does. Does allowing marriage equality infringe on anyone's rights? No, it does not.

Wastintime
Los Angeles, CA

"But it’s also his deeds, simple yet profound, hugging the homeless man or washing the feet of somebody who, normally, ordinary folks would just pass by on the street. "

It is so refreshing to see a religious leader doing this!!

Stalwart Sentinel
San Jose, CA

Moontan - You stated, "A simple desire to be considered 'X' without meeting the criteria history associates with 'X' does not entitle me to be considered thus, or mean that those would deny me the desired status are intolerant, bigots, haters, etc."

To the first part of your statement, you're actually using the incorrect criteria for making the determination of what does or does not constitute a marriage. History is not the guiding factor (and neither is religion) for determining secular marriage contract policy, rather it is the Constitution of the United States. Now, the COTUS can take into consideration historical realities but the "we've always done it this way so we should keep doing it this way" argument is not convincing in the court of law, particularly when dealing with a fundamental right such as marriage.

Secondly, when you seek to deny rights to individuals or groups (particularly when you yourself hold those rights and are therefore laboring to create a two-tiered society) that is definitionally intolerant and the pro-active measures to marginalize the group you disagree with is patent bigotry.

Ranch
Here, UT

@Moontan;

It certainly feels like hate to those on the receiving end and it certainly isn't love. You can claim that it "isn't personal"; but to us it is. To those murdered by a White Supremacist, it was personal. It is motivated by hate and fear. You can believe whatever you want, you CAN NOT violate the rights of your fellow citizens. Hate, no matter how you try to spin it is hate. Intolerance and biogtry are motivated by this hate.

Believe it or not, I also support "traditional marriage". And you are 100% wrong about the "definition of marriage". It has NEVER excluded same-sex couples - many ancient cultures allowed it - so there is no "redefinition" of the word taking place.

MichaelNomo2
Here, UT

Of course I'm approaching this from a political standpoint--separation of Church and State and all that. This is not a question of whose beliefs we need to cater to, it's a question of "does this infringe on someone else's rights?" It does. Does allowing marriage equality infringe on anyone's rights? No, it does not.

to comment

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