Comments about ‘Traditional marriage advocates rally over lunch in Orem to make voices heard’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Jan. 8 2014 6:05 p.m. MST

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

"Lets assume "John" is raised by two women, who is going to set the example for John when it is time to learn what a man does?"

And what, pray tell, does a man do?

There's a difference between believing the nation should have same-sex marriage, and believing the LDS church should have same-sex marriage.

"gay marriage advocates propose to extend the benefits of marriage to gay couples with no reasonable expectation of the assumption of anything more than minimal obligations"

You're the ones who want to ban them from adopting... (I assume raising children is the obligation you think they're lacking...)

"we're going to use that power of marriage to alienate that child's relationship with their mother and father.'"

Single people can adopt in this state and none of you care.

South Jordan, UT

LDS who support SSM do not understand the plan of salvation.
- Most will ultimately fall away from the church.
- Some will stay in and seek to counsel God because of the greater wisdom they think they have. In essence, they will have rejected God regardless of their geography on Sundays.
- Some will stay in and go through the motions because of habit or family pressures or some other reason but without gospel comprehension above a superficial theoretical level.

Salt Lake City, UT

@Thid Barker
"You can vote, but your vote will be overturned by activist judges legislating from the bench."

Was it activist judges who overturned interracial marriage bans?

@Breathe Deep
"How can you support the Prophet and be for gay marriage? "

I imagine, speaking as someone now outside the church, they think that it's rather hypocritical to attack others' marriages when the church was attacked for their non-traditional marriages 150 years ago and that freedom of religion allows for a fair amount of letting others do what they want. I would bet that most of those who support gay marriage and are LDS still oppose the LDS church marrying same-sex couples.

How about you google "slippery slope logical fallacy".

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Good for these people and others throughout the US who recognize that marriage should be strengthened rather than redefined.

When the people lead, the leaders will follow!

St.George, Utah

The scenery here is breathtaking, Utah isn't as crowded, the air away from the cities is clean.
If you want a place of diversity, free thinkers, acceptance, open conversations, a place to teach your children tolerance......
This is NOT the place.

Bob A. Bohey
Marlborough, MA

I think it's appalling that in this society people teach the values of discrimination to their children by opposing equal rights to same sex couples. All in the name of family values and :Christianity to boot. It gives the appearance of extreme hypocrisy.

Eureka, UT

So one part of their argument is that marriage is a state responsibility. The problem with that is how can one state say it's OK for marriage equality (same sex marriage) to be legally recognized both at the state and federal levels in terms of property, taxes, and other rights and then that couple move to another state, like Utah, and it be illegal. Even during the civil war if a slave left Mississippi and was in Ohio he was still a slave if he was with his master and still a slave even if he escaped his master. So while it's easy now to be against slavery, then it was a federal issue even in areas where slavery was illegal. Utah is not it's own country but part of a federal union. What is done in one state will effect other states and what is legal in one state will need to be supported in other states. Just think about drivers licenses. A drivers license from Mass. is still legal in Utah. Marriage licenses and ceremonies should be the same way. It's part of being in the United States.

Bakersfield, CA

What a schizo state of affairs for a state that owes its founders full appreciation because they acted on their religious beliefs and created The Deseret- in direct contravention of Biblical and American law... (No, polygamy was never "commanded", just allowed. Read the text carefully.)

But there's nothing that my beloved Mormons can't fix with a revelation reversal. So I ask two questions:

1- If the Prophet received a reversal on homosexual marriage, would all active LDS just acquiesce?
2- Why is Utah still averse to its polygamous married/cohabitating families?

'Cuz that's the next shoe to drop...

Salt Lake City, UT

I fail to see how Gay Marriage hurts anyone. The argument against seems to be "its our club, and we don't want those people in it."

Salt Lake City, UT

Excuse me. Same-sex marriage will not teach our children about love and open minds. Our children already know about love and have open minds! They know the difference between a family that has a mom and dad and kids and they understand that is different than a same-sex partnership. We should reinforce with our children to love everyone, including those who are different from ourselves, but we must never betray our sacred heritage and the legitimate legal right to recognize our traditional family structures. Now is the time for Utahns to let their voice be heard on this important and sacred trust.

New to Utah

Once again the same 50 same sex advocates who post their opinions quickly after any group or
event supporting traditional marriage to demonstrate they have clout. I'm working full time but
took the time to attend this rally. There are twenty five couples my wife and I associate with and 100% of them support traditional marriage but many are busy working productive members of society and can't always go to these meetings.

It appears that there is strong support for gay marriage in Utah but I feel if amendment three was on the ballot it would have a similar result.

Simple Truths
Salt Lake City, UT

The more the anti-gay crowd rallies against marriage equality, the more traction marriage equality will have. Every point they raise is either based in misunderstanding or plain old fear. People see through the anti-gay arguments even if the people making them don't.

I'm LDS; my son is gay, and his partner is a part of our family. We learned that the differences in our beliefs don't have to separate us. Years of watching my son and his partner build a life together makes it impossible for me to see any advantage in denying them freedom to marry. It will only make our family stronger. And making up laws like silly Amendment to force people to act one way or the other is pure poison to the principles of faith. I will always regret voting for that ten years ago. I've sure learned a lot since then.

Here, UT

@Cherilyn Eagar & bjensen;

What about OUR religious freedom? That doesn't matter because it differs from yours?

You women need a good dose of reality. Your superstitious beliefs DO NOT get to violate the US Constitutional freedoms of LGBT American citizens.

Bakersfield, CA

1- If you factor out all Biblical religion, it makes no difference and "hurts" no one.

2- If the God of the Bible is the true Creator, the Loving Father, the Holy One of Israel, you'll find out soon enough who is hurt.

3- Utah has been creating its own religion and mandates from its inception. It certainly can redefine marriage once again if it chooses.

4- This is a Biblical battle for Christians, Jews and Muslims of deep literal, Biblical convictions. Period. If you aren't in those groups, you won't ever "get it", so don't try.

5- Bestiality is legal in Holland. Marriage and property wills to the "pets" are next.

It's the natural right of the non-religious to work to rescind old religious laws. Conversely the traditionalists also have lobbying and legal rights to petition their preferences, also.

And the world goes 'round..,

Salt Lake City, UT

Marriage has been universally acknowledged throughout history as a legal contract between a man and a woman in which there is emotional and sexual fidelity, along with childrearing. But homosexual marriage would change this. Since marriage is also a moral issue, redefining marriage is redefining morals. Furthermore, marriage is an extremely wide-spread practice within any society and has many legal and moral issues attached to it. So, when marriage is redefined, the society is dramatically affected. Legalizing gay marriage means changing the laws of the land. The ramifications are vast and we are seeing the effects of homosexual legal "rights" affecting housing, education, the work place, medicine, the armed forces, adoption, religion, etc. Are all the changes good? That is hotly debated. But we have to ask, is it morally right to force all of society to adopt the morals of a minority? Of course not!

St Louis, MO

"The perfect way to raise children is in an intact family with a female mother and a male father. History has proven that for centuries. Eroding that model further will continue to bring societies down."

Kinda sorta true, but hopelessly simplistic. You know what else is proven? Children of alcoholics are more likely to become alcoholics. Children of the grossly overweight are likely to be grossly overweight and have health problems. Children of a chronically cheating spouse are more likely to engage in extra-marital affairs. Let's legislate all that stuff . . you know, actual harmful behaviors/conditions . . out of existence.

One thing that isn't proven by any data produced by any reputable source? That having gay parents makes you more likely to be gay.

The "erosion" of the "perfect family model" is an alarmist fantasy. Of all the variables to consider when looking at the likely success or failure of a couple as potential parents, their sexual orientation is wayyyyyy down on the list.

All you "Go read the Proclomation blah blah blah" types have going for you is fasting and prayer. Good luck with that.

St Louis, MO

" . . gay marriages or other unions, as many social professionals fear, might have untold consequences to our children and others."

Unintentionally hit the nail on the head, you did. SSM "might have untold consequences." In other words, no-one has any idea what those consequences will be, when they would happen, and how they might affect anyone. One can always start yelping about a "slippery slope" when talking about any social issue. Legally barring an action or behavior based on murky theories (read: guesses) informed by religious belifes about future developments is not the answer.

I'm pretty sure about one thing . . SSM won't affect my marriage. Well, that's not true . . it already has. My wife and I disagree on this issue, and it's been a point of contention. But why somone else's marriage would "devalue" or "threaten" my marriage or that of my children, I can't possibly imagine. Neither can any of you, without stretching your predictive abilities well past the point of plausibility.

Copy Cat
Murray, UT

Listening ear-

The "Church" did not spend trillions on downtown projects. You, and so many others, have no clue how much a trillion is. The richest of the richest of this country don't hold a trillion dollars between them. The largest corporations in the country could scrape up about 1 1/2 trillion if they sold all their properties and pooled all the money.

The "Church" doesn't have even 1 trillion, not even close.

Your blind hate is clouding your ability to see the facts.

USS Enterprise, UT

To "I M LDS 2" it is nice that you support what you see as marriage equality. That is also a nice scripture from the D&C. However, you are wrong. Modern prophets have also stated documents stating that LDS Church members should support laws that define marriage as between a man and a woman.

The official church statement, titled "Church Statement on Definition of Marriage", states that "we encourage all people of goodwill to protect marriage as the union between one man and one woman, and to consider carefully the far‐ranging impact for religious freedom if marriage is redefined. We especially urge those entrusted with the public good to support laws that uphold the time‐honoured definition of marriage." It sure sounds like they want political leaders to retain the definition that marriage is between a man and woman only.

You should also read "The Divine Institution of Marriage" on the LDSNewsroom. They not only explain why they supported California's Proposition 8, but also explain why gay marriage and why just living together is a bad idea for society

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

To those who are bleeting, "Traditional Marriage," I say, SHOW ME THE DOWERIES.

This phrase, "Traditional Marriage," doesn't mean what you think it means. Through much of Western history, marriages were arranged, between families, and the "lucky couple" had no say in the matter, and sometimes never even met until shortly before the appointed day. It was a business transaction, and the woman was property to be negotiated, and her property became the property of the man. Traditional marriage was not a lot different for some women than being sold into slavery.

But, of course, that's not what you're speaking about today. Today, you're trying to define it as, "Marriage restricted so that homosexuals can't marry."

Meanwhile, while you've chosen your supposed justifications for this limitation:

Sterile heterosexuals can marry.

Unchaste heterosexuals can marry.

Unfaithful heterosexuals can marry.

Old/infirm heterosexuals can marry.

No one is required to bear children.

50% of heterosexuals divorce.

Anyone can cohabitate.

Unmarried people can have any kind of consensual sex with adults they wish.

Any fertile women can bear children out of wedlock and 40.7% of births are.

In sum: False rationalizations don't justify discriminatory treatment of homosexuals.

to comment

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