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
RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Two For Flinching" but gay marriage and a hetersexual marriage are not equal, and can never be equal.

In a hetersexual marriage, their children and the children in their neighborhood can see that it is a man and a woman who are distinct and different from eachother. Plus, according to recent research, the ideal situation for raising kids is by their biological mother and father that are married.

With gay marriage, children see a couple that are the same as eachother, no distinction or differences beyond personality. Then, according to studies, this is just an approximation of a family lead by a hetersexual couple. The children perform equally in school, but are more likely to consider themselves gay and engage in risky sexual behavior.

The differences are quite significant once you get beyond the superficial things being said about gay marriage. This is not seprate but equal. This is a case of separate and distinct.

TheTrueVoice
West Richland, WA

@voiceofreason1234: it is posts like yours that lead many to reply in less than civil terms.

Two of your assertions indicate a fundamental lack of understanding regarding how this legal process works. Judge Shelby was not "soon afterward overruled by a higher court". A "stay" was not granted to the state, neither did the 10th Appeals Court grant a stay. A stay was, however, ordered by SCOTUS while they fast-track this case before the Supreme Court. But Judge Shelby's ruling has NOT been overturned, and in fact, most reasonable judicial scholars already see the handwriting on the wall here. The current stay will be vacated once SCOTUS finds for the plaintiffs later this summer.

Your other contention that "a majority of the population voted" against marriage equality indicates a lack of knowledge regarding constitutional civil rights. The United States is not a pure democracy; we are a constitutional republic, which means the rights of the minority can not be "voted upon" by the local majority population. This is key to understanding why marriage equality is about to become Law of the Land: it is not a religious issue, it is a civil liberty matter.

Kaladin
Greeley, CO

Yes, SSM will eventually be allowed under the Constitution. No, that doesn't mean religious folk are awful because they stand up for their beliefs. Yes, we all need to be kinder to one another. No, we don't have to agree.

sid 6.7
Holladay, UT

These sometimes intense discussions are good for our community. The anonymity of the internet gives us the options to say how we really feel without fear of repercussions and the dialog is sometimes direct and to the point. I would rather see it in here than seeing tempers flare and possibly creating a violent situation in the streets.

This issue is a far more complicated subject than this State has ever seen. On one side sit a group of people who just want to be accepted and loved for who they are. They want the same privileges straight people enjoy, they want love, to build homes, raise families and enjoy life. On the other side sit a group of people who live and die for their religion. They donate money and time to ensure their religion remains strong. They are the largest Charitable organizations in the world and their core belief is the marriage between Man and a Woman. Their lives revolve around the creation of a family unit.

An intense subject indeed.

In the end God will make the decision and I am sure he will provide a path for all of his children.

nycut
New York, NY

@Mayfair:
Reducing someone to a “sex act” is not only rude, it misses the point. Whatever sex someone has or does not have is none of your business, nor does it define them, or their rights.

Further, to suggest gay people don’t undertake marriage for “love, companionship, sharing a home, federal benefits, tax purposes” and the myriad of other reasons that people marry is willfully ignorant of the lives of the human beings on this planet.

Karen R.
Houston, TX

I'm always amazed at how oblivious religionists can be to how their message sounds to those who don't believe their version of "the truth." Some of the things uttered against LGBTs in the name of a god or a belief system are downright..."Uncivil" is the kindest and least accurate adjective I can think of.

The outrage and resentment I feel within as I respond to some of these messages is merited. The voices of LGBTs and those that love them have been squelched by religionists for centuries. It is no wonder that hearing these voices is a little disturbing. This is how deaf people feel too when they can finally hear the world around them.

iron&clay
RIVERTON, UT

I was just ready to take down a note that was posted on our refrigerator this season from Howard W. Hunter's Christmas message back in 1994.

"...mend a quarrel, ..dismiss suspicion and replace it with trust.... Give a soft answer, ...Manifest your loyalty in word and deed..... Forgo a grudge, forgive an enemy. Apologize.

...Try to understand. Examine your demands on others. Think first of someone else...

...Be kind. Be gentle. Laugh a little more...Welcome a stranger. ..Take pleasure in the wonder and beauty of the earth. Speak your love and then speak it again..

..There is no celebration that compares with the realization of the true meaning of Christmas--with a sudden stirring of the heart that has extended itself unselfishly in the things that matter most."

I read this note again and it gave me pause. I think I will leave it where it is ...

a_voice_of_reason
Woods Cross, UT

@Impartial7
You said
"When you target a group of people, try to deny their civil rights & brand them as sinners, don't be surprised if the response is not so polite."

It could also be said, "When you target a group of people, try to deny their rights to engage in the political process & brand them as bigots, don't be surprised if the response is not so polite."

Wouldn't a better solution, as the article suggests, be to respect another's fundamentally different views and allow this issue to move toward its resolution. You can shout all day that you're right and I'm wrong, and you can try to do it in the most offensive way possible, but I'm still going to think I'm right and you're wrong - and on top of it I'm likely going to feel less compassionate toward you. Tell me respectfully why you feel the way you do and I still am not going to agree with you, but at least I'll understand your point of view, and I may even try to find common ground in the areas where we both find compromise acceptable.

Meckofahess
Salt Lake City, UT

Sadly, it appears that the gay community is only interested in re-defining the definition of marriage between a man and a woman to "marriage between opposite or same-sex couples" with little or no willingness to consider "civil unions" for same-sex partnerships.

It also appears that the gay community does not want the religios or morality point of view to be included in the discussion of this important matter.

Sadly, it appears the gay community would exclude the voice of those who hold that the foundations of our nation were built upon a moral and religious foundation. According to Mark David Hall, Ph.D. these values were part of the fabric of America's foundation: "and while America did not have a Christian Founding in the sense of creating a theocracy, its Founding was deeply shaped by Christian moral truths. More important, it created a regime that was hospitable to Christians, but also to practitioners of other religions".

Only an approach which respects the views of all will result in the gays achieving the acceptance they covet.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@windsor
"I believe the LDS Church does not call SSM sinful"

Correct me (anyone, not just windsor) if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure an LDS member entering a same-sex marriage is grounds for excommunication (or bars them from being baptized if they're a non-member), isn't it?

@Redshirt
"the ideal situation for raising kids is by their biological mother and father that are married."

Statistics don't apply to individuals. You're either going to be a good parent or you're not. Would you use statistical averages to ban people of a lower-average SAT scoring race or religion from marrying? How about barring people from Mississippi from marrying since that's the poorest, most obese, highest STD state in the nation? Why is the average argument only ever used to deny same-sex couples (especially when studies show two parent households do better on average and you want to stop these households from becoming two parent while single people can still adopt in this state)?

mauister
Wailuku, HI

A lot of the pro no SSM proponents' arguments are based upon a belief that God does not want SSM and that is their argument, period. Those same proponents would likely take offense at the suggestion that God really doesn't have an opinion about SSM. They would also be offended, no matter how politely stated, that those whom they believe speak for God so that we can know without a doubt God's opinion regarding SSM really don't speak for God. Heated discussions can remain civil when arguments are based upon rational thinking and rational logic. Very little civil rational discussion can be done in response to the argument that my Dad is right and your Dad is wrong, end of discussion.

TheProudDuck
Newport Beach, CA

The tactic with which gay supremacists will likely have the most success in redefining marriage, is the tactic of defining belief in actual marriage as evil bigotry, so that ideologically sympathetic judges will impose by judicial fiat what would be less likely to be won by reasoned debate and the consent of the public.

This tactic -- which is by its nature incivil -- is too powerful not to be used. Accordingly, it *will* be used. The only question is whether the traditionalists will match their self-declared enemies' incivility. The answer is no. With a few exceptions, the traditionalists will engage in a civil manner with an enemy that has no intention of being civil -- and they will lose. But at least the losers can feel good while they lose.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

Meckofahess

You wrote:

".. it appears that the gay community is only interested in re-defining the definition of marriage between a man and a woman to "marriage between opposite or same-sex couples"

You got it! That is right.

You wrote:

"It also appears that the gay community does not want the religios or morality point of view to be included in the discussion of this important matter".

Here you are only partially right.

No citizen should have his/her "civil rights" subjected to religious beliefs specially if the citizen doesn't share those religious beliefs.

Regarding morality; our argument for Same Sex Marriage is based on "Secular Ethics",
requiring that all citizens of this Republic should enjoy the same rights, privileges, responsibilities and protections that the state offers. Not providing equal treatment under the law to all citizens of the republic should be considered immoral.

P.S. We have gone over this many times before, Marriage has been declared a "right" by the SCOTUS.

SammyB
Provo, UT

I read the comments with hope that the article would engender greater respect. I was happy to see that most LDS responders really tried to be civil. I was sad to note that more than half of the supporters of gay marriage basically rejected the need to be civil and found excuses to justify that position and also disappointed to see how many 'likes' those comments received. Thank you to SSM supporters who were civil.

How do we go forward if most of one side is trying and the majority of the other side refusing?

I'm not saying gay marriage supporters should change their views but does it have to be contentious?

And for those who accuse me of being contentious by pointing out what we can all read here...civility doesn't mean not calling a spade a spade. Many comments justify the refusal of civility and that is simply a fact that we shouldn't hide from.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Schnee" your analogy is incorrect. SAT scoring has no correlation to marriage.

Even your Mississippi idea is lame because they already have a low marriage rate right now, what would banning marriage do?

The point is, that when looking at marriage, you have to look at the benefits and harm to society. Just like SAT statistics are used to identify at risk groups, statistics on families and risky behavior within them can be used to help ensure that problems are avoided.

Since you like analogies, how about this. If a parent was known to be abusive, would you leave a child in that house? I would say probably not, because statistics show that if a parent is known to be abuse they will most likely continue the abuse until an intervention is taken.

The same for same sex marriage. Children raised by same sex couples are at a greater risk for harming themselves when they are teens or young adults. Right now society frowns on changing people's sexual orientation, so all that we can do is encourage good behavior, which is marriage of hetersexual couples that are the child's biological parents.

Mr. Bean
Phoenix, AZ

@Mlawrence:
"Marriage equality will not change the number of gay people who have children..."

I guess we'll just have to get used to the way two women have children together.

"...it will however eliminate the discrimination that hurts children in gay families every day."

If you think not being married hurts children, just tell them you're married. Draw up a piece of paper that says so, if needed.

@a900rr:
"How can there be common ground when one side desires same sex marriage, while the other does not?"

As above, just get out a piece of paper, an nice pen and ink and scroll your own marriage license. After all, marriage is just a contract between two people.

@Kaladin
"Yes, SSM will eventually be allowed under the Constitution."

Then so must all other marriage combinations be allowed such as polygamy, incest, sibs, geezers/girls, etc., to be fair. Can you imagine Judge Sotomayor allowing that stuff?

@sid 6.7:
"In the end God will make the decision and I am sure he will provide a path for all of his children."

She has already... called repentance.

nycut
New York, NY

@Windsor
"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?"

Lots of us don't give a hoot what the LDS church thinks. We care what it DOES-- which has been to mobilize against gay people for the sole purpose of keeping them from being treated equally under the law.

Gay people had to fight institutionalized injustice every step of the way just to do what others take for granted: meet, date, have sex, marry, adopt, raise families-- facing derision, physical harm, arrest, job loss and legal discrimination just because of who they are.

Animosity toward gay people has caused tragic loss of human potential-- destroyed families and lives. Keep it up. Gang up and vote on who's a sinner if you like.

We'll be over here, relying on this country's guiding principles of justice to prevail where religion has fallen short.

You don't have to like gay. You don't even have to understand it.

sid 6.7
Holladay, UT

Meckofahess

I appreciate the value you place on the Founding Fathers and the Christian values instilled in the Constitution. In regards to this part of your previous statement

"More important, it created a regime that was hospitable to Christians, but also to practitioners of other religions"."

I agree as do you with the above statement.

Based on 1 Samuel:

18:1:And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

Samuel 1:26, where David says:

I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women

I am going to form my own Religion based on the above Scripture. Clearly SSM is encouraged in the Bible.

Now then, since we are in agreement on being able to worship how each individual see's fit, it is now a religious rite for SSC to marry.

Based on your above statement you certainly you agree, right?

How's that Constitution workin for ya?

Meckofahess
Salt Lake City, UT

@sid 6.7

Thanks for the laugh - I needed that!. So I stand by my quote "More important, it created a regime that was hospitable to Christians, but also to practitioners of other religions".".

Religion certainly does not favor SSM unless you twist the truth.

sid 6.7
Holladay, UT

Meckofahess:

It doesn't matter if my new religion is true or not, what matters is my new religion believes based on the Scripture I listed that SSM is of the Bible. Without any doubt can you prove me wrong? Therefore, by your logic regarding the Constitution it is a Constitutional rite that same sex couples have the ability to marry.

The bottom line is this Meck, religion is a belief and none of it can be proven. You can't twist the Constitution to suit your personal beliefs nor can you vote away the rights of others based on a personal belief. From prop 3 forward that is what this whole situation has been, personal beliefs. Many people on here talk of morality but really how moral was prop 3? Let your heart guide you on that one.

The Constitution was written with the intent of protecting all of Americas citizens. God fearing or no in the Constitutions eye's we are all entitled to legally marry.

Please don't do us the injustice of now arguing if gays can get married we should be able to marry relatives, animals or non living objects.

to comment

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