Comments about ‘Majority of Utahns oppose gay marriage, but attitudes shift toward civil unions, BYU poll finds’

Return to article »

Utah attitudes on gay marriage shift significantly

Published: Monday, July 9 2012 10:00 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Thomas Alex
Colorado Springs, CO

"Nationally, 24 percent favor civil unions and 38 percent favor same-sex marriage."

Wrong. 54% of Americans support same-sex marriage. Somebody is using outdated stats.

Salt Lake City, UT

@Thomas Alex
Actually you're both right. The 54% you're referring to is a poll that gave two options, marriage or none. This poll had three options, marriage, civil unions, or none.

Lehi, UT

I think my attitude has changed. I used to be more supportive of gay marriage and unions. But, as I've researched these issues (thanks to encouragement from full time commenting activists), I've come to understand the potential harm that comes from mainstreaming homosexual activity. We should love everyone. And, if we truly love those suffering from unwanted homosexuality, and those who have given in to the propaganda, we will encourage and support them in their daily lives rather than help push the agenda that pushed them into sad situations. Love will teach all that they can help others avoid tragedies by pointing out truths about homosexuality, rather then trying to hide the truth. Love sees no need to mainstream homosexual activity. And love does not seek to "destroy" those who support the sanctity of traditional marriage.

The agenda that some are pushing is dishonest, and harmful, and has been shown to increase the numbers of children and adults who give in to homosexuality, and come to believe they were born to abandon families and spouses for homosexual desire.

salt lake, UT


you got one thing right their are those that are pushing a dishonest and harmful agenda and the rest of your comment just illustrates how far you are willing to go to deceive others in pushing your agenda.

salt lake, UT

sorry there not their. As my old english teacher used to say their, there, they're.

Orem, UT

I have increasingly become less tolerant of any type of gay marriage or civil union over the past several years because I no longer see it as a political issue or a civil rights issue, but as a moral one. Marriage is between one man and one woman and any convention to try to make it seem otherwise has no basis in Christian (or for that matter, Latter-Day Saints) values. It was strongly condemned when the Greeks and Romans engaged in the practice as noted in the Book of Romans in the New Testament. Many studies show that those who engage in homosexual practice are depressed and often suicidal. This is not a problem with a lack of acceptance, but a loss of the Holy Spirit in their lives. Some have condemned me for my views on the subject, but I have seen the damage this practice creates in the lives of those who engage in it. Yes, we can feel compassionate toward those engaged in this practice, but those who are involved in homosexuality need to stop the practice in order to feel whole again.

Medical Lake, Washington

President Hinckley came out in stating that we do not appose fair legal treatment for everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation - I took that to include civil unions. I'm not willing to call it 'marriage'.

I am convinced that there is a direct correlation between the ever increasing problems in society and every level and every facet - and the disintegration of the traditional family unit. And I am well beyond believing that the government has a new idea that will solve all of our problems.

Sorry Charlie!

ever increasing problems? such as very low crime rates, dropping teen pregnancy rates, decreases in abortion rates. sorry but the world really is not falling apart.

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

Sorry Charlie!,

One simply has to look at the increase in relativism from the youth in this country to see how things are falling apart.

Relativists: "equality!"
Me: "Only man and woman deserves recognition"
R: "Then you are oppressing others by imposing your morality on them"
Me: "Would you recognize incestuous marriages? Man-animal marriages?"
R: "That's different"
Me: "Actually no, then you are imposing a morality just as much as I am"

The problem is NOT that we disagree. I have NO problems whatsoever with people believing that gay marriage is worth recognizing, or even if that recognition is a right. I disagree with them, but have no problem with them having that opinion. The problem I have is that relativist does something far worse. It's a facade of equality but its end function is utter tyranny. Relativism is rejected by the vast majority of philosophers for good reason, it can't be rationally supported. It ultimately functions to say "what I say is right and anyone else is wrong automatically" without regard for reason or rational argument.

Again, disagreement is one thing. But disagreeing with the EXISTENCE of other opinions is dangerous, and highly un-American.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

You realize it was conservative idealism, intolerance and absolutism that drove the Mormons into exile?

You realize that Mormons were the 1st to live in peaceful, unorthodoz marriages long before Prop 8?

You realize that we Mormons should be the first to recognize intolerance, bigotry and in-equality and should stand against it?

You realize the Holocaust sent Millions of non-Christians, Liberals, Communists, and Homo-sexuals and other "un-desirables" to the gas chambers?

You might want to reconsider and examine who's side you are really on....

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

LDS Liberal,

What matters more to you, following God's prophet or legislating equality? "Equality" is not a commandment, not even a doctrine. We are all equal before God. But treating each other with kindness, as equals, etc. and treating each other's ACTIONS as equally acceptable and moral are not the same thing. To treat everyone's actions as morally equal was the devil's plan, NOT God's. While you continually fight the church on here, I would ask you (as I have before) to reconsider. You are not God. You are not a prophet of God. Neither am I. However, the men who have been authorized to speak for God have consistently reminded in kindness, rebuked, and commanded the truth. All I ever hear from you is to follow another doctrine, a different one.

I'm not perfect. I'm a sinner and make lots of mistakes. Our prophet has authority to speak for God, you don't. You telling me who's "side" I am on is not within your own authority and is completely inappropriate, ESPECIALLY while you so frequently argue contrary to what our priesthood AUTHORITIES have instructed. They have authority, you do not.

St. George, UT

The writing is on the wall, even in Utah.

Firstamendment, I, and countless others, might be tremendously offended by your comment - which does the very thing it claims to be trying to defend against - except you're so far off the mark of truth that it's not worth allowing it to get to me. Mean-spirited and hurtful, perhaps, but threatening? Hardly. Everyone, including you, can say and insist whatever they want, but it's not going to change reality, nor is it going to diminish the love and devotion that so many gay couples have. And I suspect that they don't care what you think of their relationship anymore than you'd care what they think of yours (if you've got one). You're only convincing yourself and your choir.

A voice of "Reason": you compare homosexuality to beastiality and incest under the guise of relativism. Are you so ignorant of homosexuality or are just hoping everyone else is? We're comparing consensual relationships to non-consensual relationships, unless we're willing to be so arrogant that we are comfortable telling two other adults that consent to an activity that they do not, in fact, consent.

salt lake, UT

how is your selective interpretation of the a written work by people thousand of years ago any less relative then my position?

In This Case
Cottonwood Heights, UT

The debate over same-sex marriage has been ongoing for ages, but one thing I never see people discuss is family law and children. Currently, family laws define parties in the family as mother, father, dependents or children. How on earth do you redefine family laws, not just in each state, but nationally, birth and death records, other records of who someone is and where they came from, etc. I have a friend who is a lesbian and she is now too old to conceive and carry a child but wants her partner who is much younger than her to carry HER egg and give birth to what biologically would be her child but by birth would be her partner's. They have split several times over the years so even if they love each other, the relationship really isn't that stable. If they split for good, whose child would he or she be? How does a court even begin to make a ruling on that? I feel for her desire to be married and have a family but the issue is far more complex than just defining it as a moral issue or legal issue. Others are affected.

Bronx, NY


"Relativism is rejected by the vast majority of philosophers for good reason."

So lets see sorry charles comment is based in known and easily verifiable statistical fact and your opinions are based on your interpretation of ancient writings of other men. WHich one do you really think philosophers would rally find relativistic in nature?

"Again, disagreement is one thing. But disagreeing with the EXISTENCE of other opinions is dangerous, and highly un-American."

How is portending that anything sorry charlie said even remotely translates to them disagreeing with the existence of other opinions a valid argument? what do you think philosophers would think of the tactic of protending that you are being repressed because others offer a more compelling factually based argument then your own?

Bronx, NY

@in this case
funny this really has not been an issue in any of the places that gay marriage is allowed. I am going to take a stab at maybe they could use the term parents in place of mother and father. as to custody gee I guess they would just have to do it the same way they do know for heterosexual couples. really not a compelling argument sorry.

Bronx, NY

pretending not portending sorry.

Salt Lake City, Utah

@ In This Case: My parents broke up a couple of times before they married and, after they were married, they separated at least 4 times before they finally divorced. In spite of this, my siblings and I are our parents children, custody was awarded to one parent and the other parent paid child support and had visitation.

Family law has changed many times throughout history. There was a time when the father had all the rights - to the extent that women were property and were not allowed to own anything, everything belonged to the husband. There was even a time when a man could legally rape and beat his wife. It was illegal for a man to abuse his animals before it was illegal for him to abuse his children.

Very recently, and still ongoing to a certain extent, family law held that women were always the better choice for custody of the children - even if there was strong evidence that the mother was abusive or unstable or on drugs. Women were considered so much better at being parents, that some widowers were forced to allow an aunt to raise the child(ren).

Laws change all the time.

In This Case
Cottonwood Heights, UT

@Kalindra - But the parent who gave birth to the child is the birth mother, even if the egg belongs to the other mother. Birth mother rights are much stronger in states like Utah, so my friend, even though she is the egg donor, could lose her own biological child to her partner should they split. My point is that same sex families can get very confusing. How do you write laws to encompass all the situations that may arise when things get complicated like this? I am not attacking anyone's desire for marriage and family, nor am I making a judgement call about what kinds of relationships are stable (hetero or homosexual) only that IF the relationships end in divorce, it can get very complicated. Without recognizing same-sex marriage, the definitions of who children will live with doesn't necessarily fall on the courts to decide. Is that right? Not for me to say, but it definitely is a valid point to discuss, even though George is not willing to think beyond and see how complicated it can get.

In This Case
Cottonwood Heights, UT

@Ace4309 - Just clarifying you comment back to A Voice Of Reason, incest can also be between consenting adults. I am in no way condoning it, because I DO think that is something that should never be allowed, but again, I am passing judgement on two consenting adults who may want to marry each other even though its not socially (and in the case of homosexuality as well, not physically) natural. Before you attack me, speaking scientifically, there is no natural way to conceive a child through homosexual relations, and relations of incest can result in genetic defects to the child. If we follow the laws of science and nature, both situations go against those laws. It seems very prudent that societies have followed that in creating laws for their own government.

to comment

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