Quantcast
Utah

Voices raised in support of gay marriage

Comments

Return To Article
  • paintandestroy Richmond/Cache, UT
    March 28, 2013 2:27 p.m.

    on a lesser note- my wifes friend was harrassed at work for eating Chick-fil-a by a gay co-worker last week at City Creek. Freedom of lunch- an unforseen cassualty of the road we're on.

  • Free Agency Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 1:46 p.m.

    To those saying that the BYU students who support marriage equality shouldn't be going to a Mormon school if they can't support the Church position on this issue:

    I'm not Mormon but I think I'm pretty familiar with Mormon teachings. I've certainly had several visits from missionaries, and I've studied Mormonism on my own.

    From what I've learned, I'd say the foundational teaching of Mormonism is Eternal Progression.

    Coupled with that (at least in my mind) is the teaching of Free Agency. You can see by my name how much I resonate with *that* teaching!

    So these students seem to me to be living exemplary Mormon lives: they're using their Free Agency to decide how they feel about an issue, and they're taking part in their Eternal Progression by doing so. (Could they progress if they ignored what their spirit was telling them is right?)

    It finally seems to me that many in the Church only extol these teachings when they *don't* conflict with the Church’s position. But when they do, then is Free Agency supposed to go out the window? And one's Eternal Progression with it?

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    March 26, 2013 6:32 p.m.

    Re: KVC,

    If you don't want others to point conservatives, Mormons, Arizonians, etc. with a broad brush as being people without conviction, racist, bigoted, deceitful, etc., please don't do so with liberals. Overgeneralization does nothing to contribute to a healthy, rational, and civil discussion.

    I don't believe all conservatives/Mormons/Arizonians or even most display any or all of the characteristics listed above. I also firmly believe that all liberals are not evil people out to trample rights and make your life miserable.

    If you want to have a discussion on the topic, by all means share your views and opinions, not your (inaccurate) perceptions of the views and opinions of others. When you overgeneralize, you waste your time saying anything.

  • KVC Sahuarita, az
    March 26, 2013 5:30 p.m.

    LVIS- you are not free from Religion because, as you quoted, the Constitution forbids the government from prohibiting the Free Exercise of religion. This means that you cannot prohibit anyone's religious beliefs, even if they surround you or are contrary to your beliefs. You cannot limit the exercise of the beliefs of those around youas long as they conform with the rest of the Constitution. Unfortunately the Supreme Court and other Courts get this wrong a lot.
    Liberals also seek to limit the exercise of religion on a regular basis. They do not believe religious views opposed to their views have any place in government or society, and seek to demonize those they disagree with.
    Liberals fight vehemenently against discrimination, but openly discriminate against those who share beliefs different than them. They have succeeded in getting opponents of Gay Marriage fired from jobs, and continue to work toward that end. The same discrimination they decry against their beliefs, they openly and brazenly practice against others.

  • bob j Maryborough, 00
    March 26, 2013 3:22 p.m.

    "A Bible ? A Bible ? We have no need for a Bible. We are free people and can follow our own ways. The laws which Moses quoted are no longer with us".
    Thus it is said by certain of the generation of this day, But although to them the ice looks firm, yet it is thin and the reckoning will surely follow. It is only God's law which will prove to be solid.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    March 26, 2013 3:05 p.m.

    @ Say No to BO:

    I see your point, but I'm not questioning how the matter is being handled. We must research, study, and do the best we can.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    March 26, 2013 1:47 p.m.

    @LVIS lost in DC said "Freedom FROM religion is specifically banned by the 1st amendment."

    I don't know either, but apparently I'm not allowed an opinion as the censors have removed my comments after approving them.

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    March 26, 2013 1:11 p.m.

    Re: thunderbolt7

    Yes there is. The goat can't consent. As has been explained hundreds of times, the attempt to equate beastiality to homosexuality is offensive and spurious. If you have a logical argument against same-sex marriage, by all means share it. It doesn't help anyone to offer spurious examples in an attempt to get cheap laughs.

  • Al Vernal, UT
    March 26, 2013 1:04 p.m.

    How about a father marrying his daughter, a mother marrying her son, (or father-son, mother-daughter)? Or a brother marrying his sister (or another brother for that matter or sister to sister)?

    If your mantra is "equal marrying rights" then you surely can't be opposed to two (or more) members of the same family marrying. They should have the right to marry whomever (or whatever) they choose, regardless.

    This is not about equality. There is a greater agenda. Watch and see if they get what they want now, will they be satisfied? In Mass. they weren't satisfied with marrying, it then had to be considered hate speech to say that you were not in favor of same gender marriage.

    Then they will try to force religions to recognize and perform those marriages.

    If you don't believe me, look at the kind, understanding, loving way that they defaced sacred religious property after prop 8 passed legitimately. This is not about love, it is about power.

    I don't know the final goal here, but marriage is just another step towards it.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    March 26, 2013 1:00 p.m.

    HVH
    I have a difficult time believing your comment that hatred is not part of your life when you continually rant about “magic” and “mysticism”. You know those terms are demeaning to people of religion, yet you continue to use them, apparently just to be insulting, hurtful, and hateful.

    And please tell me where I injected religion into the argument against same sex marriage. I did not. I said there is no inequality when the same rules apply to all. How is that religious?

    atl134,
    If you cannot tell the difference between race and gender, may I suggest a biology class at a continuing education center. But that is beside the point; the same rules even then applied to ALL. So again, it was NOT inequality, but changing the definition.

    LVIS,
    Unless you want to deny everyone around you the constitutional right to beleive as they see fit (or not), you will NEVER be free from some type of religious influence. Sorry you find that so confusing and offensive.

  • thunderbolt7 DUTCH JOHN, UT
    March 26, 2013 12:37 p.m.

    Is there anything wrong with me marrying my goat? What am I missing in this debate?

  • LVIS Salt Lake City, UT
    March 26, 2013 12:28 p.m.

    @HVH--
    "Freedom FROM religion is specifically banned by the 1st amendment. "

    May I ask which 1st amendment you are referencing? The one I am most familiar with says only the following: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

    And what does your statement mean, anyway? The 1st amendment bans being free from religion? So, you CAN'T be free from religion? I are confused.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    March 26, 2013 12:16 p.m.

    @ worf and Say No: You are absolutely right - not a single voice of dissent is allowed to be heard - I mean, just look at the comments - the only ones here are those in favor of gay marriage!

    Not!

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 26, 2013 11:56 a.m.

    @INTELLECTUAL
    "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.

    @patriot
    "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'.

  • joe9 MAPLETON, UT
    March 26, 2013 11:53 a.m.

    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.

  • HappyHeathen Puyallu, Wa.
    March 26, 2013 11:43 a.m.

    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?

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    March 26, 2013 11:18 a.m.

    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.

  • UU32 Bountiful, UT
    March 26, 2013 11:10 a.m.

    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?

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    March 26, 2013 11:03 a.m.

    Blue,
    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.

    HVH
    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.

  • Third try screen name Mapleton, UT
    March 26, 2013 10:48 a.m.

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

  • KVC Sahuarita, az
    March 26, 2013 10:45 a.m.

    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.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    March 26, 2013 10:29 a.m.

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

  • Utah Dem Ogden, UT
    March 26, 2013 10:02 a.m.

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

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    March 26, 2013 9:57 a.m.

    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.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    March 26, 2013 9:56 a.m.

    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.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    March 26, 2013 8:27 a.m.

    @worf
    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.)

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    March 26, 2013 8:28 a.m.

    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.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    March 26, 2013 7:57 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    March 26, 2013 7:46 a.m.

    Intellectual,

    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.

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 26, 2013 7:39 a.m.

    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.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    March 26, 2013 7:19 a.m.

    @worf
    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.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    March 26, 2013 12:21 a.m.

    Voices against gay marriage will not be heard.

  • INTELLECTUAL Salt Lake, UT
    March 26, 2013 12:16 a.m.

    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?