Quantcast

Comments about ‘Religious, political leaders sound off on same-sex marriage before court hearing’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, March 19 2013 3:40 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Mick
Murray, Utah

KJK-

We can put a lot of stipulations on marriage. We can make a lot of rules. None of them will be "fair" to all minorities of society.

Once again, it is best to protect traditional marriage to preserve society. Marriage is between one man and one women is easy to follow and protects all of society. After all it is this couple that give birth to humans who may possibly be homosexual or heterosexual. Rights can be given. Definition of words should not be changed.

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@Mick --

"States have regulated marriage in many instances and homosexuals are not the only groups of people not allowed to marry who they want. Some states have not allowed people to marry multiple partners, polygamy or 2 men and 3 women."

You seem to be misunderstanding the situation here.

NOBODY is allowed to marry multiple partners, NOBODY is allowed to commit incest. Therefore, nobody is being discriminated against -- these things are illegal for **everyone**.

In contrast, women are allowed to marry men -- but men are not allowed to marry men. In other words, some people ALREADY have a right to marry a man, while other people are denied that same right to marry a man simply because of their gender. That's a clear instance of gender discrimination. One gender is being denied a right that the other gender already has, with no concrete practical reason to deny them that right (and no, infertility is not a legally justifiable reason).

Making polygamy or incest legal would involve giving the entire population new rights that nobody currently has. But making same sex marriage legal only requires eliminating a bit of unconstitutional gender discrimination.

Mick
Murray, Utah

It is not illegal for a man to love a man or to live with a man. No one is going into homes and arresting those who are in these relationships. That relationship is not being discriminated against. But it is not marriage. Secularly and financially, which is what the state cares about, it doesn't benefit society and its propagation.

How can you stop a sterile brother and sister from getting married if you make the definition about love? First cousins? They are consenting adults. Their marriage doesn't hurt you. Stay out of their bedroom.

Marriage is more than about love and bedrooms.

RedWings
CLEARFIELD, UT

Ranch Hand:

Yes, if your religious denomination performs your marriage ceremony, then it is called a marriage. I already knew that some denominations allow same-sex marriage. That was my point. "Marriage" is a religious ceremony and covenant; not a legal contract.

Dwayne: If you "legitimately value marriage" you should understand what it is and where it comes from. You seem to be twisting yourself in knots over a word. If legal rights are what the LGBT community wants, then a civil union gives them all of that. It was already in place in CA prior to Prop 8. The extreme left wants to redefine marriage, etc in an attempt to destroy religion. Many blindly go along with it under the guise of "tolerance" and "equality". Funny how the left is tolerant of anyone who agrees with them, and attacks anyone who disagrees. This is why I am no longer a Democrat. As Ronald Reagan said, "I didn't leave my party. It left me". (BTW - I am not a Republican either)

Marriage belongs in Church, plain and simple. Government needs to give it back.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@Mick:

"Rights can be given. Definition of words should not be changed."

--- No, rights are called "rights" because they are INHERANT, they are NOT "given". You're trying to redefine that word.

You're also going to have to prove that "traditional" marriage is better for society AND that same-sex marriage is detrimental. You can't simply state it as fact without proof.

@RedWings;

If one's church calls it marriage then there is no reason to disallow the term to be used in secular society as well, right? All you're doing is making a distinction between a secular and religious marriage, but if they're both called marriage, what's the difference?

Additionally, calling one couple's union a "civil union" and another couple's union a "marriage" creates a class of unions that are separate, where one is inherantly "better" than the other.

If a church performs a same-sex marriage I'd bet you that the "religious" right would still scream bloody murder about gays using the word. They really don't care about the religious freedom of others, it's only their own religious freedom that matters to them (same with all freedoms).

amazondoc
USA, TN

@Mick --

"Marriage is more than about love and bedrooms."

You're absolutely right, it is. Marriage is about commitment and stability. Marriage is also about legal rights and financial benefits.

And guess what -- those legal rights and financial benefits are being denied to all the men who wish to marry other men, and other women who wish to marry other women. They are the victims of obvious and unconstitutional gender discrimination.

"It is not illegal for a man to love a man"

As you yourself pointed out, marriage is about much more than love. We are talking about legal rights and financial benefits that are being denied to many people simply because of their gender.

"How can you stop a sterile brother and sister from getting married if you make the definition about love? "

You are the one talking about "definitions" here. We are talking about legal rights being denied because of gender discrimination.

**Nobody** has the legal right to commit incest -- therefore there is no discrimination there. But women ARE allowed to marry men, so the men who also want to marry men are being discriminated against because of their gender. It's an obvious distinction.

wYo8
Rock Springs, WY

I think the Bible said He created them male and female and they shall cleave to non other. They were also commanded to mupltiple and replenish the earth. So lets put everything into proper content. The scriptures also say in the last days men would cleave unto themselves with un natural feelings. Good will become evil and evil will become good in the eyes of the people. Just look at the recent polls about marriage, abortion is not condidered murder but a right. Talk abou the shedding of inocent blood.

RedWings
CLEARFIELD, UT

Ranch Hand:

What does it matter what you call the union? There is no implied superiority of "marriage" versus "civil union"; this is a fabricated difference on the part of the gay rights extreme. Legal rights are the same under both. Government exists to protect the rights of its' citizens, and civil unions do that.

I don't define my union with my wife by any external terminology - I define it by our love and our commitment to each other and God (who is part of that union in my religion). Words just don't matter that much. Call my "marriage" a "religious union"; I am fine with that.

You said, "(t)hey (the right) really don't care about the religious freedom of others, it's only their own religious freedom that matters to them (same with all freedoms)."

You can say exactly the same thing about the gay rights activists...

amazondoc
USA, TN

@wYo8 --

"They were also commanded to mupltiple and replenish the earth."

That was a loooooong time ago. These days, there's already plenty of people in the world. In fact, in non-human animals, homosexuality is sometimes seen by scientists as an adaptive response to overpopulation.

@RedWings --

""Marriage" is a religious ceremony and covenant; not a legal contract."

That will come as a big surprise to all the millions of people who have been married in civil ceremonies over the years.

Do you really believe that all these millions of people are not married, just because they went to a Justice of the Peace rather than to a church?

"If legal rights are what the LGBT community wants, then a civil union gives them all of that."

Actually, no it doesn't.

First, separate is not equal. Our country proved that back in the days of racial segregation.

Second, civil unions are not recognized by the federal government. Marriages are. So they are not comparable.

Ranch
Here, UT

@RedWing;

We're not the ones trying to deny rights or take them away from you. We're not denying you your religious freedom, your freedom to live your life, your protections from the government. You're crowd is doing all of that to us.

You should search for the New Jersey Commission's results on their study about the problems of calling same-sex couple's unions "civil unions" rather than marriage.

excerpt:
"...civil unions are a failed experiment. They have shown to perpetuate unacceptable second-class legal status. "

"By creating a separate system of rights and by injecting language and titles not understood or easily incorporated into existing real life events and transactions, the civil union law has failed to fulfill its promise of equality."

zoar63
Mesa, AZ

So once same sex marriage is the law of the land than I suppose those who have advocated for it will quickly take up the cause for polygamists to legally marry. The definition of marriage will change and that opens up so many possibilities. All we have to do is just keep changing the definition to accommodate other’s that feel they have been discriminated against.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@zoar63 --

One More Time -- Polygamy and incest are completely different issues than gay marriage.

NOBODY is allowed to marry multiple partners, and NOBODY is allowed to commit incest. Therefore, nobody is being discriminated against -- these things are illegal for **everyone**.

In contrast, women are ALREADY allowed to marry men -- but men are **not** allowed to marry men.

In other words, one gender ALREADY has a right to marry a man, while the other gender is denied that same right to marry a man simply **because** of their gender. That's a clear instance of gender discrimination. One gender is being denied a right that the other gender **already has**.

Making polygamy or incest legal would involve giving the entire population NEW rights that **nobody** currently has. But making same sex marriage legal only requires eliminating a bit of unconstitutional gender discrimination. No new rights are involved.

Once again: **Nobody** has the legal right to commit incest. **Nobody** has the legal right to marry multiple partners. Therefore there is no discrimination. But women ARE allowed to marry men, so the men who also want to marry men are being discriminated against because of their gender. It's an obvious distinction.

Free Agency
Salt Lake City, UT

The key arguments of the anti-SSM people seem to be (1) that it threatens their own marriages by "changing the meaning of marriage." This can't be a legal consideration since it's a matter of personal perception, not fact. Further, the only thing that can threaten a marriage is the two partners within that marriage.

And (2) that it's "just plain wrong." This, too, can't be a legal consideration since the "wrong" is arrived at through personal beliefs, not fact.

The key argument for SSM proponents is that consenting adult gays deserve, every bit as much as straights, to formalize their loving relationship and enhance their lives via marriage. This would hurt no one (except in the perceptions--not facts--of the anti-SSM groups) and would, indeed, add more love to a society that could certainly use it.

Even the newest Archbishop of Canterbury, who opposes same-sex marriage on theological grounds, has admitted that he's seen "stunning" relationships among gays, and he's reflecting deeply on his beliefs.

Let's hope that love triumphs over people's rigidities and baseless insecurities. Would Jesus have wanted anything less?

Free Agency
Salt Lake City, UT

I once saw a sign held by an elderly lesbian couple who were respectfully picketing in California for their right to marry. The couple had been together for many years.

The sign said, "Life feel different when you're married." Who could disagree?

I can't imagine that this sign would have had the same effect if it had said "Life feels different when you're civil-unioned."

People are free to define marriage any way they want. But only to themselves. (And isn't what makes a marriage beautiful--or horrible--the way the two partners involved define it to themselves and live it? "My best friend." "My ball and chain.")

But no one is free to impose their own definition on others. Only facts should decide whether gays are allowed the right to marry or not. And not one fact has been presented to show that they shouldn't--only personal beliefs, personal definitions, personal perceptions and personal prejudices.

The anti-SSM groups are free to hold fast to those things. But again, only amongst themselves, not throughout our country.

Free Agency
Salt Lake City, UT

@Brent Bot,

Your citing of Pitirim Sorokin's conclusions as an argument against homosexuality is laughable.

Sorokin's last year at Harvard was in 1959--more than fifty years ago.

We surely have a much better understanding now of homosexuality than we did then. Or at least many of us (to judge from the latest polls) do.

The Bible's last word on homosexuality was thousands of years ago. The same applies to its conclusions as it does to Sorokin's.

Free Agency
Salt Lake City, UT

@ BYU Track Star

I fail to see how Harry Reems' alcoholism and his getting free of it fits into a response to gays and same-sex marriage.

Except, of course, for the implication that homosexuality is an affliction too, which needs to be "cured."

Many religious people try to call homosexuality as on a par with bestiality, pederasty and, yes, alcoholism. It won't wash anymore, not for an increasing majority of Americans.

More and more Americans are recognizing that if love exists between two consenting adults (not merely sex, but genunine love), then it can't in any way be called a dysfunction which must be cured.

Rather, it's something--as all authentic love is--to be celebrated.

BTW, I wish you'd given your own opinion on whether Pres. Hinckley was right or wrong to tell his followers how to vote. I'd say, according to Mormon principles, he was wrong. Because, just as Mormons do, I too believe in free agency. (You can tell that my name.)

Normal Guy
Salt Lake City, UT

They can leave it up to the states if they want but I'm still more comfortable leaving it up to the bible. Marriage is between a man and a woman until God says differently.

Normal Guy
Salt Lake City, UT

Equal rights? Again, only the conservatives seem to care for the rights of the unborn and children. If I was placed in a family with two dads or two moms I would sue the country that allowed it the moment I was of legal age for everything it was worth.

Gregorio
Norco, CA

Marriage is defined between one man and one woman period.Other words can be chosen for other lifestyle choices. Government sanctions marriage because history has a record of showing the great advantages of a family within a community with a mom and a dad for children.
Our US constitution works only for a virtuous man and woman who the founders believed in the marriage covenant.

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

Mick
KJK, We can put a lot of stipulations on marriage. We can make a lot of rules. None of them will be "fair" to all minorities of society.
KJK
But why do it? D&C 134 decries laws that advance one group and harm another. We LDS had an extermination order issued on us. We were once an unpopular minority too.t happened to the Golden Rule?

Mick
Definition of words should not be changed.
KJK
The definition of “voter” changed to include Blacks and women. The definition of “priesthood holder” changed in 1978.

RedWings
There is no implied superiority of "marriage" versus "civil union"; this is a fabricated difference on the part of the gay rights extreme.
KJK
Why was Prop.8 proposed? Is “separate but equal” really equal?

zoar63
The definition of marriage will change and that opens up so many possibilities. All we have to do is just keep changing the definition to accommodate other’s that feel they have been discriminated against.
KJK
If you can enter a legal contract with one or more people, that same arrangement should be allowed to be a marriage too.

to comment

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