Quantcast

Comments about ‘Utahns call for civility in contentious same-sex marriage debate’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, Jan. 11 2014 5:10 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
cambodia girl
Phnom Penh, Cambodia

I believe, the problem people who are opponents of this issue have is when their voice has been stifled and their vote has been cast aside. That is what happened in California with Prop. 8. The vote was taken, the people spoke and yet, it was cast aside by some judge who wants to do his own will instead of the people.

Yorkshire
City, Ut

LDS can be kind and sympathetic. But they should not be required to agree with the advancement of same-sex and SSM in order to considered 'civil'

President Monson has said (and has been quoted recently by Elder Oaks) "Let us have the courage to defy the consensus, the courage to stand for principle. Courage, not compromise"

Esquire
Springville, UT

While civility on this issue is a laudable goal, I don't know if it is inherently possible. The Church has spent a lot of effort to influence government policy on what they see as a religious issue, which puts the pro-SSM folks in a very defensive position on a matter they see as a fundamental right on the same basis as others in society, an issue that deals with the closest personal feelings a person may have. Again, the only solution is to separate the governmental and legal functions from the religious aspects. Give all the same legal rights, and leave the concept of marriage as defined by the various churches to them. How the sacrament of marriage is defined by a church is up to the church, and people may choose to affiliate or not. That is the essence of freedom of religion. In the end, LDS Church members must stop rolling out religious arguments against SSM, that it is a terrible sin and so on, or the tone of the dialogue will never change. The Church really cannot decry SSM as sinful and then expect itself not to fall under criticism of those with contrary views.

nycut
New York, NY

"...it's not just marriage they're looking for but normalizing the act of homosexuality."

Newsflash: there is no "act" of homosexuality. There are people who discover their sexual and romantic attractions to and who go about living their lives, including their sex lives. It's so normal that there are gay people everywhere. Living their lives.

Some religious people think it's a sin when gay people do that.. So what. Some religious people think it's not.

The secret gay agenda (cue scary organ music) is to normalize the act of minding your own business.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

@ wer
You wrote:
"In truth, the SSM folks want to transcend the mores so that what they say and do is "tolerant" and what anyone they don't like says or does, needs to be eliminated. Loss of reputation, job, income, anything and everything is acceptable"

I see you infiltrated our last "secret" meeting. I'm glad you forgot to mention the worse threat of all...... that once we get equality we will demand "the right to redecorate " all public buildings. Those colors have to go. (Sarcasm...just in case)

JWB
Kaysville, UT

In 1919 until 1945, there was an effort to systematically get rid of various types of people that were on a list of some officials. Those included one of the tribes of Israel, a race, and certain types of individuals. That isn't what this country was made for. The racial, cultural and religious groups that have been included in extermination is not good for a country, as we all know.

The discussion should be amicable. God has his rules and government is for the welfare and benefit of society, not the exclusion of a people that some disagree with. People love to get to this country and even this State of Utah due to freedoms.

We are to love our neighbors, whoever they are, not selectively exclude them. God is the Judge and has told us to love everyone, no exclusion.

There is enough vitriol in the world.

We have to do our best. Some consider our school teachers evil when 99.99% are outstanding and doing good for society. Some believe other groups are evil when those groups are doing their best for society.

Kindness should begin with all of us.

windsor
City, Ut

Esquire said: "The Church really cannot decry SSM as sinful and then expect itself not to fall under criticism of those with contrary views."

I believe the LDS Church does not call SSM sinful-they only say that the same-sex sex that goes on, in or out of SSM, is what is sinful.

The Church also labels many other things as sins--yet persons who engage in these activities give no notice or thought to the LDS Church that is taking a position against their lifestyle or activities.

So the logical question--Why is it that those of the same-sex community are so infuriated with same-sex being called a sin, while persons living in the many other categories--also labeled as sin-- don't say a word or give a hoot what the LDS Church thinks??

Mayfair
City, Ut

@ nycut
New York, NY

"...it's not just marriage they're looking for but normalizing the act of homosexuality."
Newsflash: there is no "act" of homosexuality.

Sorry but there IS an act of homosexuality. It is called same-sex.

I imagine the LDS Church and others who are against SSM would be all for SMM if it were undertaken for love, companionship, sharing a home, federal benefits, tax purposes etc.

There is just that 'other part' ....the part which you say does not exist.... the "act".

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Owen
Heber City, UT
I love Utah. I love the Constitution. I love my gay brother and his partner. I love the gospel. There are so many ways to start the conversation. It seems one good way would be to admit that perhaps gender roles, relationships and procreation beyond our limited existence are beyond our limited understanding. When we seek to understand rather than be understood we'll make progress toward commandments to love one another.
•9:56 p.m. Jan. 11, 2014
[Agreed!, Great comment]

What in Tucket?
Provo, UT
I think most people are now accepting the idea of a civil union and that the use of the term marriage is inappropriate. Since the term marriage has been taken over by the gay community we need a new term for heterosexual unions. If some churches want to perform unions of gay couples that is their privilege.
7:27 a.m. Jan. 12, 2014

[We already have one, it’s called “Sealings”.]

Esquire
Springville, UT

@ windsor, while I think you really missed my point, it would be ludicrous to say that SSM is OK as long as there is no sexual activity. That's a first. Not even the Church advances that notion. Along with marriage comes intimate activity. You have to be the first one I've come across that takes a contrary view.

Say No to BO
Mapleton, UT

It's nice to see the Family Proclamation back in the good graces of the Church.
Or is it just the PR department trying to walk the thin line?

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

Mayfair

"I imagine the LDS Church...would be all for SMM if it were undertaken for love, companionship, sharing a home, federal benefits, tax purposes etc.

There is just that 'other part' ....the part which you say does not exist.... the "act"."

-----------------

But Mayfair, that "act" will take place whether or not they are married. Stopping same sex marriages will not stop any of those sins that you are so worried about. These couples are already living together and now want that union recognized by their government. I do not think your argument holds water.

What argument would you use in front of the Supreme court? Anyone? What would you say to convince them that Prop 3 does not make gays second class citizens?

I have been watching these boards for 6+ years. It is interesting that now that gays are winning votes, legislatures and judgments, everyone here is now talking about civil unions. Now they want to compromise. Before, there was no way! They were sure they were right (no matter what the constitution says) and on God's side. What a change. I have no doubt that if you can adjust to civil unions, you can to gay marriage too.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

@Mayfair: Sorry, and most respectfully, but you are wrong. If you're describing an act, surely you need to focus on the act itself. Otherwise, you're simply expressing prejudice against a certain class people. If one couple is allowed to do something, and have it considered part of their marital rights, why shouldn't another couple be treated the same?

Every icky thing you think that gay people do, are the same icky things that some percentage of "normal," straight, heterosexuals do in their own love lives, at least part of the time. As there are way more heterosexuals than homosexuals, the preponderance of icky/unnatural acts performed at any given time belongs to us heterosexuals. Thank goodness "Lawrence v. Kansas" keeps the government from snooping in any of our bedrooms. If it is the acts themselves you decry, then not allowing same-sex couples to marry isn't going to make them go away. If it is the people you decry, you must find a way to come to terms with your own prejudice. God tells us to love our neighbors and to leave the judging to Him.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

JWB
Kaysville, UT
In 1919 until 1945, there was an effort to systematically get rid of various types of people that were on a list of some officials. Those included one of the tribes of Israel, a race, and certain types of individuals.

8:32 a.m. Jan. 13, 2014

============

Yes --
Liberals,
Communists,
homeless,
Jews,
Illegal Immigrants,
and of course
the Homosexuals...

recognized by their concentration camp symbol of the Pink Triangle

Mlawrence
Salt Lake City, UT

Perhaps the road to civility might begin with addressing the rhetoric and denouncing some of the talking points.

1. Defending Traditional Marriage: There is nothing to defend it from, traditional marriage is not threatened. Those who support marriage equality support traditional marriage as well.

2. The will of the people. The rights of the will of the people end where the individual rights of the citizens begin. We can't have it both ways.

3. Children are better off with a mother and a father: This has nothing to do with children, gay people have children because they want to have children not because they are married. This whole argument is moot and irrelevant. Marriage equality will not change the number of gay people who have children, it will however eliminate the discrimination that hurts children in gay families every day. You cannot claim to be pro-family and promote government sanctioned discrimination against families who don't meet your definition of a family. That dog simply wont' hunt.

Mark Lawrence
Director
Restore Our Humanity

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

Just add it to the list of other legal "sins" --

Smoking
Drinking
Gambling
Coffee
Tea
swearing
R rated Movies
SSM

You can choose not to sin, even if it is legal.
It doesn't impact Religious rights in anyway.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

I know!

Let's talk about how LGBT are 'Abominations, Unnatural, Perversions, who are going to burn in a lake of fire fore all eternity because of what I believe'…

that will be civil!

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

Article: "Erickson, who has taught at BYU, and her husband, Michael, have periodically written about marriage. She said he insisted they read _a_ book about gay people before writing a word." [emphasis added]

Please tell me that this is a misquote or the reporter's oversimplification of a much more nuanced and complex statement by Ms. Erickson. While I greatly appreciate the Ericksons' desire to learn about gay people to cultivate empathy, this does not come from reading a single book. What book did they choose to enlighten them on the LGBT experience? There is a vast literature out there on the subject, from fiction to memoirs to scholarly psychological and sociological studies. Most major universities have entire departments devoted to gender studies. Have they no gay friends or colleagues with whom they could discuss the topic?

While I entirely disagree with the Ericksons on SSM, I respect them for making some small effort to learn more about a subject that I assume is alien and maybe even a little repellent to them. However, I encourage them to seek out some actual human beings and not rely on the printed word for understanding.

City Girl 21
Utah, UT

Just different.

Women are still discriminated against.
Many children rarely have rights.
Ethnic folks suffer.
Jewish members feel pain.
US citizens are not treated well in parts of the world.
While males have discrimination.
Gays face discrimination.
Mormons have a heritage of persecution and have been discriminated against by angry mobs who murdered leaders and burned homes.

The list goes on.
Who isn't on this list at least once if not dozens of times?
Who doesn't feel pain?

At some point getting out of the emotion of fear and hate to find solutions that can and will work would be worth our while.

a900rr
St. George, UT

Many state they want 'common ground' for Utahns.

How can there be common ground when one side desires same sex marriage, while the other does not?

One side or the other is invariably going to lose....

to comment

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