Comments about ‘Gay marriage: What's next for Utah?’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, July 3 2013 5:30 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Contrariusest
Nashville, TN

@sharrona --

sharrona: "Context,(Jesus) Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly."(John 7:24)

This passage is talking about circumcision, keeping the Sabbath, and deciding whether Jesus was truly the Messiah -- it's not talking about judging people's sins. ;-)

sharrona: "And see(Mt 7:16)."

I like this one. Thanks for reminding me of it.

"By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?"

It's very easy to see which side is currently spreading hatred and thorns, and which side is spreading love. :-)

Yes, Sharrona, people DO have the right to love each other -- whether you approve of them or not.

"(Gal 5:21)and the like=(homoios G, similar)i.e.. Jude the brother of Jesus, "other flesh";..."

I've asked you before to stop adding words to Bible quotes when they don't exist in the actual Bible passages. **Please** do stop doing that.

Gal 5:21 does NOT mention homosexuality. It does mention "orgies" or "revellings" depending on translation, but never homosexuality.

Oh, also -- please remember that the term "sodomy" actually refers to acts that are just as easily performed by heterosexuals as by homosexuals. :-)

2plainbrownwrappers
Nashville, TN

@VA Saint --

"interesting that you would bring in Ancient Greece and Rome. The older men would 'groom' male children in the ways of the world, so to speak, and take them on as sexual proteges. That sounds to me more like pedophilia."

In some cases, it probably was. But for the most part, the "younger" men were teens and older. Also, it's important to remember that girls would be given in heterosexual marriages at the same ages that boys entered into these mentoring/grooming relationships. And, of course, mature adults also took part in these relationships; for instance, at times it was also encouraged in the military between soldiers, to increase cohesion in the troops.

Since homosexuality was encouraged so widely and for long a time in both cultures, obviously there would have been a great deal of variation in customs over time and place. Both the Romans and Greeks had very different ideas about sexuality than we did, and that shouldn't surprise anyone. But the take-home message is that sexuality did NOT bring down either civilization.

No H8 - Celebrate
Salt Lake, UT

"I worry greatly about the affect this will have on children. I know people will say the children raised by gay couples can grow up and be happy, but I just can't believe it. I taught school for too many years...."

@Laura, every single main stream medical, psychological, social work, and educational association (AMA, APA.. etc. etc. etc.) in the United States have policy positions supporting the outcome of children raised by gay and lesbian couples. Please do some research, as a former teacher you should have been in the know.

What matters is a health loving and stable family be they same-sex or opposite sex couples. Now you can trout out studies like Regenerus (who has a religious agenda and didn't study gay parents, but broken homes) and try to say gay parents are bad, but being a ex-teacher you should understand the difference between junk science and research the follows the scientific method supported by our main stream medical, psychological and sociological associations.

OC Guy
San Diego, CA

Doubt it will happen in Utah any time in the near future. The SCOTUS ruling on Prop 8 simply recognized California's right to appeal---or not to appeal, in this case---lower court rulings which overturned 8. The justices could have ruled that no state can restrict marriage based on gender, or they could have ruled that California erred by taking away a right that previously had existed. They did neither, delivering instead a narrow view that affected only California.

Similarly, fears that same-sex marriage will force the LDS Church to allow such marriages in a temple are unfounded. The Roman Catholic Church does not allow marriage of divorced, non-annulled individuals, and I know of no cases when someone successfully sued the Catholic Church to conduct such a ceremony. Likewise, in the states that allow gay marriage, no one has coerced the LDS Church by legal means to provide gay temple marriages (or "civil", non-temple weddings in their chapels). Religions will always remain free to set their own internal rules for their adherents.

Firefly123
Mapleton, UT

In Utah I think the fear would be making it necessary to include temple marriages, or a full Catholic marriage mass and those things can simply never happen. If this couple is happy with a secular marriage, it may be possible in this state some day-and I hope all people in Utah will welcome them-but a temple sealing is a different matter.

Christian 24-7
Murray, UT

No H8 - Celebrate

You can't speak up for throwing out traditional families and then pretend you care about them. Not buying it.

Just the facts, Maam is right on! Get government out of marriage altogether. Let each church decide for themselves.

I remind many of the posters here that there are multiple Christian churches, with varied beliefs. Non-believers' lectures as to what I believe or should believe, is the height of arrogance and hypocrisy, not to mention idiocy.

Ghost Writer
GILBERT, AZ

"Noble men and women" will eventually come to the "correct" conclusion on this, and change their way of thinking . . . Thought I was "noble" with my most heart-felt convictions -- guess not.

Contrariusest
Nashville, TN

@Christian 24-7 --

"You can't speak up for throwing out traditional families and then pretend you care about them."

It's a good thing that NOBODY here is actually talking about "throwing out traditional families", then.

"Traditional marriage" is NOT threatened by gay marriages. Heterosexual marriages will ALWAYS be in the vast majority. Nothing is going to change that. Gay marriage will add at most 5% to the total marriages -- hardly even a drop in the bucket. And certainly not anything that merits all the hysteria we keep seeing around the issue.

"Get government out of marriage altogether."

That's a fine idea -- as long as you're willing to give up all the legal rights and benefits that go along with marriage.

Funny thing, that. If you want legal rights and benefits, then the government HAS to be involved. If you give up one, you lose the other.

Do you really want to do that?

"there are multiple Christian churches, with varied beliefs."

Absolutely right! That's a good thing to remind people of, especially since many Christian denominations SUPPORT gay rights.

prinze777
Fresno, CA

@ Contrarius

What the Savior commanded us to do is to basically hate the sin, love the sinner. I don't hate gay people, and I believe that civil unions should have equal rights to there married counterparts when it comes to taxes and spousal benefits. However, this attack on faith and religious freedoms will not be tolerated.

Let us not forget that it was the "gay rights" organizations and the protest that they led that beat innocent people in streets during the California Prop 8 campaign. Let us not forget that those same organizations led violent attacks of vandalism against churches during those campaigns and ran false and misleading adds at the same time. Let us not forget the lawsuits that have been brought against the Boy Scouts of America and Catholic Charities. These were private organizations doing what they believed to be right, and they were attacked. All of these facts can been verified by the videos that were taken at the time and simple searches of public databases. Unfortunately, it seems to be easier for people such as yourself to ignore these attacks and simply say that religion is not under attack.

Marco Luxe
Los Angeles, CA

Commenters like Very Concerned use both tradition and religion as rationales for defining a state or federal law. American legal ideals as expressed by the Supreme Court have explicitly denied any role in proper lawmaking to either rationale, even though it is sometimes expressed as religiosity, family values or Biblical precepts. I'm concerned about people like Very Concerned who have a deficit of civic knowledge. Such low information citizenship can and will do damage to our country.

Piret
Clifton, NJ

I think we've made some progress since the time of the "mesopotamians" - or should we still be doing everything they did? By the way, I've never heard that statement before.

aislander
Anderson Island, WA

Prinze777: "I believe that civil unions should have equal rights to there married counterparts when it comes to taxes and spousal benefits. However, this attack on faith and religious freedoms will not be tolerated."

You want to have it both ways. You believe in equal rights unless it means equal access for gays to the CIVIL contract universally called "marriage". I'm sure you understand that nothing in these developments will even remotely require churches to recognize or perform gay marriages.

This is entirely a matter of equal treatment under civil law. In what universe does gay marriage cause ANY infringement upon religious freedom? Quite the opposite. MANY denominations DO support gay marriage. Therefore, denying gays equal access to civil marriage contracts not only denies gays their constitutionally guaranteed equal treatment under civil law, it denies the many churches that DO support gay marriage THEIR religious freedom to marry gay couples.

The only religious freedom YOU lose is nonexistent...the freedom to impose YOUR religious beliefs upon others; your "right" to discriminate against gays.

I'd wager you claim to support our Constitution. It must be so very inconvenient for you to learn that it applies to gay citizens too!

JanSan
Pocatello, ID

I think that "gay marriage" will eventually come to Utah because of the large gay population in Salt Lake and because EVERYONE that has a different opinion then gays are just horrible homophobic bigots, as we are constantly being told and made out to be.

As an active LDS, I see this as a sign of the times that we are in and as we have been counseled from our leaders the "Big and Spacious" is getting bigger all the time and many will chose to follow the path of the world.

I stand with my Prophet!

I will be nice and respectful of all people, legal just rights should be for all people - but to me marriage is and always will be between a man and a woman.

BarkforSark
PROVO, UT

I always enjoy when people say I'm on the wrong side of history. That's fine. I'd rather be on the right side of God than the right side of history.

deseret pete
robertson, Wy

God will never recognize same sex marriage no matter what the courts say or the populace.To claim a union of the same sex as marriage is to degrade those who have followed God's law and left father and mother and have cleaved unto their husband or wife.You can call it whatever you want other than Marriage.Marriage is between a man and a woman as degreed by God.Any law by man will not change that.Those of us who support marriage between a man and a woman have rights also.

very concerned
Sandy, UT

The only thing that the GLBT have in common with *other minorities* is their claim that they are biologically tied to homosexual behavior: It is an uncontrollable genetic drive, and therefore should be protected by law. That seems to be the unspoken central assumption of their argument. If this were true, then I could see homosexuality would logically require equal protection under the law.

I am not convinced. The scientific case seems to me to be inconclusive of that. Even though there is some research suggesting there is biological same-sex attraction, that does not mean homosexual relations are uncontrollable or desirable.

That central philosophy (uncontrollable and biological) is a far cry from the fact that there are people of obviously different skin color, or of different creeds, religions, or nationalities, who obviously need protection. In other words, homosexual behavior is not as cut and dry as the GLBT community would like us to think. They would have us think there is no recourse.

I am not advocating violence. Nor am I advocating un-Christ-like behavior. I am trying to champion abstinence outside the bounds of traditional marriage as the basis of a happy society.

George Vreeland Hill
Beverly Hills, CA

I believe that gay marriage will be in every state.
America is more accepting to it and more and more people are waking up to the fact that you really can't vote to deny rights to people based on beliefs, opinions or whatever.
Also, it will be very interesting to see the divorce rates among same-sex couples a few years from now compared to heterosexual couples.
It could shake up the thinking of marriage.

George Vreeland Hill

5th Amendment
Salt Lake, UT

re: "..it will be very interesting to see the divorce rates among same-sex couples a few years from now compared to heterosexual couples" - Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the nation.. State marriage eligibility is not based on the lower divorce rate because of the stability SSM brings to marriage.

Very Concerned said "The only thing that the GLBT have in common with *other minorities* is their claim that they are biologically tied to homosexual behavior: It is an uncontrollable genetic drive. I am trying to champion abstinence outside the bounds of traditional marriage.." - Can you explain the biological, genetic, endocrinological factors of your own sexual orientation? Do you have an uncontrollable genetic drive? If not, what makes you think you can explain someone else's? Your free to champion abstinence for any marriage scenario.. but not dictate your own brand of religion in civil law.. Episcopal, Unitarian, Quaker, Reformed Judaism, Buddhism, all honor or perform same-sex unions. Arrogance is thinking you have authority over someone else's religion or God.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

Dear DN monitors I have written three comments about two diferent subjects. I have tried not to be offensive (it is not in my nature offensive)Yet, my comments are not posted. I have to doubt your maturity and impartiality.

5th Amendment
Salt Lake, UT

re: "..I always enjoy when people say Im on the wrong side of history. Thats fine. Id rather be on the right side of God than the right side of history." - Funny, folks said the exact same thing about 'mixing of the races' and what their God had intended at the time ani-miscegenation laws were struck down.

I ask "Whose God or religious view should take precedence in civil law??"

Yours, mine, someone else? Should we all vote on which religious view should be the law of the land? Perhaps their is room in our country for diversity?

to comment

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