Comments about ‘LDS Church, other faiths say same-sex marriage opposition not due to bigotry’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Feb. 10 2014 8:00 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Huntsville, UT

davs says:

"I only ask that my beliefs and opposition to same sex marriage be treated with respect also."

--- Your beliefs are one thing; using them against other American citzens is quite another. I will not respect your beliefs if you're going to use them to deny me equal civil rights.


They don't understand the word "all"; to them it means "only those we like".


When did you "choose" to be straight? Were you born that way? If so, how come it's so hard to understand that we're born this way?


As religion "encourages the lie" that gays are sinners.


You didn't address the issue of poor people (not good for children) being able to marry; felons (certainly not good for children) being able to marry; spouse/child abusers (not good for children) being allowed to marry. Why only the gays?

Meckofahess says:

"Why can't people get along without pushing their beliefs on others? The majority of Utah's citizens do not want the minority gay community forcing their beliefs on them!."

LOL. You're just fine with you pushing your beliefs on us though. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Huntsville, UT


Sex offenders harm other people. We ARE NOT sex offenders or addicts and it's very offensive for you to compare us to them. Polygamists already have the right to marry one person. The right to marry the person of our choice is not a "new" right, it is one you already enjoy and we are soon to enjoy as well.


Would you be happy if we required you to marry someone of the opposite sex? No? Then why demand we marry someone of the opposite sex?

New York, NY


Your comment included:

"People who consider themselves good-hearted (who obviously are in many ways) find themselves characterized as small-minded and bigoted, not recognizing they've behaved in small-minded, bigoted ways - expressing ignorance and prejudice, rushing to enshrine their religious views in exclusionary laws targeting the object of their prejudice - are hurt by charges of mean-spiritedness."

"While arguing the *right to their beliefs* exempts them from charges of bigotry, they fail to see that those *beliefs* are the REASON for their bigotry. This creates pathos. Like fish that do not know what water is."

I'm not sure whether I'm insulted or flattered that you used my words to express an opinion we share. I do think it's polite to add something like "As Nycut said in a related post..." when you quote someone else so extensively.

us, CA

So when evangelicals and Baptists cite the Bible in calling out the LDS church as being heretical because of flawed doctrine and the work of the devil and, I might add, the LDS church doing the same of other faiths citing the same Bible, does that mean they are all doing it with love and admiration for one another...especially when calling for prejudicial behavior towards one another?

Bountiful, UT

Almost ten years ago, my son told me he was gay. I prayed, fasted, and attended the temple weekly, hoping for his "change." Well, the change did happen. But it was my heart that changed. I completely love my son and his partner, and I know God loves them too. So, stop the needless prejudice. It's okay. Let them marry.

Auburn Hills, MI

The religionists don't seem to understand the legal argument. It's not about what marriage is, but rather, can the state let some, but not others, marry. Those folks not allowed to marry cannot be denied the right to marry unless the state has a rational public purpose in doing so. I can see where opting for a procreational argument seemed like a good bet, but it doesn't explain why senior citizens and other infertile couples are allowed to marry.

Why would a state not allow a gay couple raising children to marry, but would allow a childless senior citizen couple to marry? It sure doesn't seem like the state of Utah doesn't really have the interest of children at heart in this.

Centerville, UT

Laura Bilington,

Actually, what I stated regarding the anatomic and physiologic impossibility of two women joining together to conceive a child, or two men joining together to conceive a child, is accurate. It is absolutely impossible, and not meant to be. We were not created for such a relationship. It has never happened, and will never happen.

In this life nothing is perfect. I suppose 5% of heterosexual relationships are unable to have children. It may be more or less than that.

But I can guarantee you that 100% of homosexual relationships are unable to bare children.

Gay marriage proponents like to point to the scientific techniques of artificial insemination or other medical techniques that make it possible for gay women to carry and bare children. However, I maintain that it is not meant to be.

I suppose it is possible for science to attach an arm to a tongue and have it thrive there. But it is not meant to be that way. And though same may want that, it doesn't make sense.

Again, 100% of gay marriages are unable to conceive and bare children.

New York, NY

@Meckofahess asks:
"Why can't people get along without pushing their beliefs on others? The majority of Utah's citizens do not want the minority gay community forcing their beliefs on them!
Why must the gay community intrude on the rights of others who wish to live differently than they do? We need to live and let live and not try to force peaceful citizens to accept amoral and objectionable beliefs."

Good question. But you've got it backwards: Amendment 3 doesn't say "only gay people can get married-- no heteros allowed.”

But yes, why DO people keep pushing their beliefs on others?

Live and let live means people marry who they love, and raise the family they want the way they want.

OK, so you don't like the neighbor's petunias. Well, they're none of your business and they're not growing in your yard.

That's the "live and let live" part.

Mcallen, TX

Adultery opposition not due to bigotry either.

Some people can't draw the line between right,and wrong.

Pathetic! No wonder our society is having problems!

Farmington, UT

Those who are defending traditional marriage say the words that they aren't bigoted, but then they want to give one group of people a different set of privileges than they want for themselves.

New York, NY


To our comment, I would add that people expressing bigoted viewpoints seldom benefit from the observation that their viewpoints are bigoted, since those viewpoints most often stem from low-level prejudice that they haven't yet examined. It's always a struggle to help someone see their own blind spots without alienating them completely.

"I support traditional marriage" is an easier position to stake out than "I need to examine my actual knowledge of gay people and their lives."

I have some hope that comments on these boards help with that.


I agree holdtotherod, it's great to see churches standing up for their beleifs.
The world may be going topsy tervy, but we knew it would happen... *sigh*

Social Mod Fiscal Con
West Jordan, UT

I support Marriage Equality. All adult men have the right to marry an adult woman who consents to the arrangement, and all adult women have the right to marry an adult man who consents to the arrangement. Because nearly all people on the planet fall into those two categories, equality has been met.

The definition of Marriage has been pretty well set for the last 2000 years. Only in the last 15-20 have we seen dictionaries start to change it. Even today, the vast majority of law dictionaries still retain the 'man/woman' definition.

It's like the US has stepped into a Twilight Zone episode where words no longer mean the thing they have always meant. Next we should change the definition of "car" to include things that have a low melting point, or the word "water" to mean "a sharp metal utensil used for descaling a fish".

The vast majority of "Rights" granted through the marriage contract can be obtained through other legal vehicles. Which leads me to believe that this fight is not about 'Rights', but about a group of people wanting society to condone/accept their lifestyle and behavior.

Salt Lake City, UT

@procuradorfiscal: Thanks for the response. A pink herring maybe. SB89 is relevant to the amicus brief argument that limiting marriage to male-female couples furthers state interests.

From the amicus brief: "A gender-neutral marriage definition unavoidably changes the message and function of marriage by altering it to serve the interests of adults. That would be a case of those in power (adults) using law to bring about change that is self-serving... But we do agree that changing the legal definition of marriage would alter the way society views marriage, making it adult-focused rather than child-focused... Transforming marriage into a relationship primarily directed at adults... will further deepen the devastating effects.. with the devaluing marriage as a child-centered institution." pp. 17-19

By mandating sterility as a condition to marry, SB89 decouples marriage from procreation. It creates a gender-neutral marriage definition stamped with the state's own imprimatur (the couples may be male/female, but by mandating sterility gender doesn't matter any more). In other words, it says gender-neutral marriage furthers a state interest. The state can no longer claim otherwise with a straight face and the amicus argument fails as irrelevant.

West Richland, WA

@nycut: 100% guilty! Yes, we are in 100% agreement, mea culpa :( Honestly, I wasn't sure if I was ripping off A Quaker words, or nycut words. Between the two of you, you both about have this discussion handled!

Erm... I'm going with flattery. :)

Baker Boy
Westminster, CA

I sent the following comment earlier in the day today, and received a message from you that the message was being held for further scrutiny. I'm not sure why, and I haven't seen it posted:

While the Mormon, Catholic, and other faith traditions may not see their support of amendment 3 as bigoted, the increasing acceptance of gay persons throughout America and in several other western nation, makes it more difficult for those opposed to total equality to make their case for denying it to gay people.

It certainly doesn't help those opposed to full equal rights that current controversies such as Russia's harsh laws aimed at gay people, are in the news, especially at the time of the Olympics. It certainly doesn't make Vladimir Putin look very good.

Nor does it help that several countries in Africa and the Middle East sentence gay people to exceedingly harsh punishments, up to and including the death penalty.

It also doesn't help that the arguments against same-sex marriage and other full equality measures have not been proven to be terribly convincing, especially in the light of Constitutional protections.

The die is cas

Park City, UT

The Constitutional Amendment 14 must be respected - and has been ruled unconstitutional. UCLA Williams Legal Institute has statistics for SSM divorce rate which is 1/2 the rate of those divorces from traditional marriages. Nice comments 10CC - makes perfect sense - cute couples at 80 years wouldn't be allowed to be married due to non-bearing child state - great points.

Pittsburgh, PA

I think it's time for god to come down from the heavens to clarify this mess. Does he want gay people to be treated like second class citizens here and be persecuted, tortured and killed abroad? If he hates homosexuality so much, why does he keep creating homosexuals? He needs to stop sending these mixed messages.

Marriage should be a civil contract regulating property onership, taxes and benefits. I have no idea why churches think they have a say so over it.

I know it. I Live it. I Love it.
Provo, UT

Wilf 55,

1 - We love others, even if they don't return it
2 - We find agreement, seek after good things, etc
3 - We try to build friendships, not burn bridges
4 - Christ established a doctrine of peace, not contention

If every time someone didn't like the church we reacted with contempt, we would lose our way. It may not be the way the world does things, but it's our way.

layton, UT

RE: RanchHand, “You're just fine with you pushing your beliefs on us though. Hypocrisy at its finest.”

Your view is significantly affecting the moral and the retention of the military.

Over 2,000 Evangelical Christian military chaplains says its members will not perform homosexual “wedding” ceremonies. The Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty said that it is joining the Catholic Archdiocese for Military Services to say “no” to the September 30 Pentagon directive authorizing military chaplains to do homosexual “marriages.”

They have decided to leave the military. No American service member should be forced to deny their religious beliefs.

to comment

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