Comments about ‘Tolerance and the same-sex marriage debate’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, May 20 2013 9:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
New York, NY

This that appose gay rights seem to have this notion that we must sit and allow people to make what we consider inaccurate and false claims? Since when did challenging someone’s claims become discrimination? Should BYU be labeled as intolerant for not inviting the head of the atheist society to not give the commencement speech? This man has the right to express his points of view, others have the right to challenge that view and to voice their desire to not have their institution associated with such views. He was not forced out he made the choice to pull out and play the victim when his views were challenged.

Springville, UT

Dr. Carson's comments were "controversial"? To whom? Isn't the pro-gay marriage stance controversial to those who support traditional marriage and the sanctity of marriage? Let's leave the word "controversy" out of the conversation.

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

Liberals are champions of free speech as long as you agree with them.

Lebanon, TN

Oh, for heaven's sake.

"Free speech" does not mean "speech without consequences".

Nobody has forced anybody to stop saying anyting they believe in. The folks at Hopkins simply exercised THEIR First Amendment rights to speak against someone they didn't agree with.

In fact, it's MORE appropriate to say that gay boy scouts are having their freedom of speech suppressed by the BSA, because they know they'll be thrown out if they openly admit to being gay. That *is* force -- but in Carson's case, he withdrew voluntarily.

People get invited to commencement speeches specifically because other people want to hear what they have to say. In this case, the Hopkins folks decided they did NOT want to hear what Carson had to say, and Carson himself chose to bow out. That sort of thing happens all the time, with all sorts of different issues.

This is just another case of anti-gay people disingenuously trying to play the victim card.

Salt Lake City, UT

You argue for free speech and yet condemn the students for voicing their own speech?

Huntsville, UT

How many of you anti-gay folks would have been willing to have this man speak if his words were the following: "We shouldn't allow Mormons to marry because they're a cult and only 2.5% of the US population and we don't want to perpetuate a cult."?

Be honest now.

USS Enterprise, UT

The ironic thing is that the gays are not wanting Tolerance, they want Acceptance. Those are not synonyms.

What we see here is that for liberals, if you support their ideas they will accept you. If you don't support them they will not tolerate you.

To "atl134" free speech is not the issue here. The issue is tolerance, and specifically from a group that claims to want tolerance not tolerating an opposing view.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

help me out a little, please,
"This that appose gay rights"

what do you mean? what is the word "appose", and what is your sentence structure? I cannot make sense of it.


Did you mean "Those that oppose..."? That would make more sense, though I know of no one denying gays the same rights the rest of us enjoy.


The problem with those "supporting traditional marriage" is that that is not what they do. If they want to stand up and talk about how wonderful marriage is, no one would feel compelled to protest their remarks. Instead, they rail against "non-traditional" marriage. Thus, they are not being booed for what they support for themselves, but what they condemn for others. There is a difference.

New York, NY


How clever to pick up on my sloppy writing, it seems the other ten people (and counting) that agrees with my comment had no problem working through it. Once again your comment is more a poor reflection on you then anyone else lost.

Saint George, UT

Contrarius: The first thing a person from another planet would say after reading a morning newspaper: "This society is pre-occupied about something called 'gay' earthlings. They must be kings or something, for I don't see any other earthlings that are talked about so much, for no apparent reason for doing so. This society regularly discards their babies, but don't seem the least bit interested in their screams, but listen very intently when these other people talk. We must study them to find out why all life seems to be centered around them. All earthlings look the same, but these earthlings are always trying to get people to talk about them."


What did Mr. Carson say?

"My thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman," he said. "It’s a well-established, fundamental pillar of society, and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality -- it doesn’t matter what they are -- they don’t get to change the definition."

Lumping gays in with pedophiles and bestiality is totally inappropriate, and Mr. Carson should know better. But all too often this type of talk is accepted in the conservative culture.

Salt Lake City, UT

"The issue is tolerance, and specifically from a group that claims to want tolerance not tolerating an opposing view."

Last I checked he voluntarily withdrew. He wasn't booted from the position.

the truth
Holladay, UT


Carson was not even allowed to speak.

How can you have freedom of speech, when you are prevented from speaking?

American Fork, UT

How in blazes was gay marriage going to be a subject in a graduation speech?



Freedom of Speech doesn't mean everybody/anybody gets a invitation to speak at every/any prominent event.

Mr. Carson expressed himself on Sean Hannity's program, and at CPAC, apparently he is "luckier" than most people.

Eagle Mountain, UT

Last I checked, we are all allowed our own viewpoints and opinions. Labeling any of them as "controversial" is wrong.

salt lake, UT

@the truth
Was not lowed to speak? Did you read the article? He choose to back out, his choice.

Saint George, UT

Truthseeker: Is a polygamist on par with 'gay' marriage? I don't want you to cite laws, which can be totally unjust, evil, etc., Wade versus Roe comes to mind. Considering how discriminated gays feel, how could they deny a polygamist his/her right without hypocrisy screaming at them?

USS Enterprise, UT

To "atl134" read the news articles again about what occurred.

He withdrew because of the attacks by the liberals who claim to want tolerance. Don't you find it ironic that the liberals who claim to want tolerance couldn't tolerate a viewpoint that did not accept gay marriage?

to comment

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