Comments about ‘Voices raised in support of gay marriage’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, March 25 2013 10:40 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Salt Lake, UT

I have a hard time understanding how you can belong to a group that clearly opposes/is against the teachings of the church and still be a student at BYU in good standing.

The article mentions support for LGBT students at BYU, are there support groups on campus?

Mcallen, TX

Voices against gay marriage will not be heard.

Say No to BO
Mapleton, UT

That's not true. We are heard and labeled as bigots and haters.
I'm not sure what the LDS Church believes any more. I used to quote the Family Proclamation.

Wilf 55

I believe one day the Church will change its stand, like it did on polygamy and the priesthood ban. Insights must ripen, inspiration must be sought, but changes do occur.

Springville, Ut


Well this is an easy one. It's none of your business who is allowed to attend BYU. As long as they continue to recruit athletes who can do whatever they want, I have no problem with students expressing their point of view on civil rights.

Mcallen, TX

@ Say No to BO:

I wouldn't brand these people as "the LDS Church", and I still believe in the Family Proclamation.

I've learned a long time ago, to be very selective when trusting the wisdom of others. Some are Mormons in name only.

Salt Lake City, UT

I keep listening to the arguments against equal rights, and as hard as try not to, I can't find them anything except shallow, baseless, fundamentally irrational and more than a little desperate.

Folks, your straight marriages, and your own heterosexual orientation, is not threatened in the least by same-sex marriage and equal rights for all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation.

Say No to BO
Mapleton, UT

I's pretty high up when they edit a talk by the President of the Quorum of the 12.
I can handle an opinionated High Priests Group Leader. The trouble comes when the PR Department says more about an issue than The Prophet in Conference.
(See also amnesty.)

Salt Lake City, UT

I think it is **hilarious** to see people talking about how the LDS church will eventually figure out that traditional marriage, between people of opposite sexes, the one prominently and exclusively referred to in its "Proclamation on the Family" a mere 18 years ago, is actually an outmoded and irrelevant artifact of stuffy non-progressive thinking.

That it is not actually the "divinely appointed" ideal model of a nurturing and supportive environment for people to be raised. That it really doesn't have the advantages to children and society that so many very careful studies over many decades has repeatedly and conclusively show. Not to mention the once common-sense experience of most people during the last several centuries.

Surely once the LDS church has figured out the fallacy of its proclamation, it will only be a matter of time before God himself will realize that the model of a Heavenly Father and Mother is actually a silly anachronism that must change to suit the political realities of our "modern" era.

Yup, all the rallies and protests will eventually convince the creator of the universe that he got it all wrong.

And that's when I jump on the bandwagon.

Cedar Hills, UT

gay marriage is a state issue ... not a federal one. If the progressive stink hole states want to allow gay marriage and legal marijuana and a host of other debaucheries then go for it ... those are states I don't have to visit or start a business in let alone raise a family in.

Utah Dem
Ogden, UT

Patriot - I agree and I believe the SCOTUS will turn the decision back to the states.

Leesburg, VA

How wonderful when the youth stands for what is right and fair.

Sahuarita, az

It is pretty simple. The Church is opposed to Gay Marriage! If you disagree with the Prophet that is your choice, but you shouldn't go to a university subsidized by the Church and its members if you don't agree with their teachings.

With regards to the Civil Rights issue, where are these same civil rights activists when polygamists are not recognized? How is it really different? If marriage cannot be defined by gender, how can it be defined by the number involved? This is the issue that gay marriage advocates dodge regularly. They have their idea that polygamy is immoral while they demand others keep their morals out of their decision. Incredible liberal hypocrisy.

Personally I am tired of Liberals who demand tolerance for their beliefs, but then show enormous intolerance towards anyone who does not wholeheartedly agree with them. They preach what they are unwilling to practice themselves. This is the liberal ideology preached from the top of the Democratic Party.

Third try screen name
Mapleton, UT

@Happy Valley Heretic
Excuse us for offending you.
There was a time when marriage was closely linked with religion.
Sorry. My bad.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

The argument put forth to foward gay marriage is a well-crafted lie.

there is no inequality in marriage. If there were inequality, different rules would apply to different people.

the same rules apply to all - find someone agreeable of legal age, unmarried, of the opposite gender and you can marry them. These rules apply to ALL, regardless of sexual orientation or lack thereof.

What gay marriage proponents really want is a redefinition of marriage. But they do not want to expand the definition to polygamists or polyandries, so they are being just as bigoted as they accuse those supporting the traditional definition of marriage to be.

Wilf 55,
your comment displays a woeful misunderstanding of LDS theology, doctrine, and history.

Freedom FROM religion is specifically banned by the 1st amendment. BTW, your diatribe against religion is off-topic. Your diatribe displays all the bigoted hatred for which you decry others. So much for the all-inclusive tolerance of the left.

Bountiful, UT

Happy Valley Heretic -- How in the world does someone with your belief/non-belief system live in Orem, Utah? It would seem to me that you enjoy being the vocal extreme minority?

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

Gay Marriage never would have become an issue at all,

We could have saved the definition of "Marriage" had it not been for the radical Right-wing who so's hard-hearted, stiff-necked, mean-sirited and uncompromising position denied Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships to LGBTs.

[You know - The non-religous type of contracts. Legal Partnerships recognized by the laws of man, not by God. With a Courthouse, Legal Documents, Licenses, Justice of the Peace. Like a Corporation.]

But NO.
Looks like your plan completely back-fired on you, and now all of us.

When to go for All-or-Nothing (i.e., no compromising)
Sometimes you are the one ending up with nothing.

I guess now my feelings toward gay marriage will now come down to how I view abortion.
If you don't want one, don't get one.

You stay out of my business, and I'dd stay out of yours.

Puyallu, Wa.

Here in Washington State the voters approved of gay marriage because we felt every family is important and should be supported. People who have been together for decades are now getting married and younger couples with children are getting as many benefits as their straight counterparts that the state allows. How is this a bad thing?


The stance of the church is simple and well laid out. The BYU students involved in this rally either do not understand the church's position on same sex marriage or they willingly choose to go against the prophets council. At the same time I think they should be free to express their opinions like anyone else. That being said, they do the institution and the church a disfavor when they show up to same sex rally's wearing their BYU apparel.

Salt Lake City, UT

"I have a hard time understanding how you can belong to a group that clearly opposes/is against the teachings of the church and still be a student at BYU in good standing. "

Elder Whitney Clayton of the Seventy who led the church's Prop 8 involvement stated that LDS members should feel free to disagree with the church on the issue without fear of sanction.

"gay marriage is a state issue ... not a federal one."

Do you believe Loving vs. Virginia striking down interracial marriage bans was an incorrect ruling?

@lost in DC
"there is no inequality in marriage. If there were inequality, different rules would apply to different people."

This argument could be used to justify interracial marriage bans. Something like 'it's not inequality, everyone can only marry someone of their own race, see equal'.

to comment

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