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

As has been mentioned many times, there really is no current proof that a person is "born that way". I have no proof for sure either, although I do know several friends and acquaitances that have come out and said they were gay, only to then change their minds and become heterosexual again. I mention that because I really don't believe it's the same for everyone. There are so many different factors that might trigger it, and there have been many studies that would support that (ie abuse, tramatic life experience, wanting to be accepted, experiementation, etc.). So I just can't agree with people that argue this is how they are all born, so we need to accept it. It's not a valid argument, because that's not how it is for many people.


I know comparing two groups is unfair, as the challenges and details are not the same. In fact I am totally against comparing gay rights to the civil rights movement. I find it very insulting to think that what the African-American people went through is anything close to what gays go through. Gays have every chance in the world to be succussful in school, the work-place, and to participate in whatever activity they want. African-Americans didn't have anything close to that.


Philadelphia, PA

RickLT says,
"To say traditional marriage is bigotry is laughable. Even the most debauched societies of history did not allow same-sex marriage."

The only thing laughable is your certainty.

From before Rome until the 16th Century in the Catholic world, and the 18th in the Anglican, there were no marriage ceremonies or registrations. Other than affairs of state (royalty), all marriages were common-law. We can't know with any certainty who married whom.

As for your debauchery, you need to update your history. For several years now, a number of nations have moved to extend marriage equality to same-sex couples. Currently included in these "debauched" countries are the very staid Canada, Norway, Iceland, Sweden, New Zealand, and the very Catholic nations of Spain, France and Portugal. And eight others and portions of two more.

Massachusetts may be liberal, but judging from their superior marriage-stability statistics and low divorce rate, they're far less debauched than Utah. There's no sign that the last 10 years of allowing a previously neglected minority of their citizens to also marry the ones they love has hurt society in any way.

Hayward, CA

Marriage is a GIFT from God to us; the Quality of our marriages is a GIFT from us to Him.

New York, NY

Thank you. Flattery it is. (I too admire A Quaker for her/his reasoning skills and measured tone.)

Salt Lake City, UT

The only solution is to cut marriage in half.

Yes, let’s go “Solomon’s Wisdom.” Separate church and state.

CHURCH: Sees marriage as a sacred ordinance. Like baptism, marriage also has rules (# participants, gender, age, authority).
*If same sex marriage is enforced then opposing churches must perform them. Opposing photographers, bakers, etc., would be forced to participate or get sued.

STATE: Sees marriage as an institution that allows certain benefits (taxes, medical, death, family, housing, legal protections).
*Singles vs. marrieds have different rights, so yes, we should ALL have these rights if we are citizens, even if we don’t hold romantic attachments to anyone.

Should equal rights interfere with freedom of conscience or vice versa? No.

1. Everyone should be equal (including singles). Give everyone the rights or no one.

2. Give marriage to the people where they can perform it in their private institutions, churches, etc., according to their own conscience.

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.

Salt Lake City, UT

IT'S NOT ABOUT BIGOTRY...it's about defending freedom of conscience.
*Because the equal right laws will infringe on the rights of churches and the freedom of their parishioners to follow their conscience (people will get sued for teaching and following their own beliefs in their own churches).
If you don't understand the importance of being able to follow your conscience than you don't understand the history of this struggle for religious freedom.

Why are we still fighting about this?
It's also about equal rights.
*Because according to the law, married and single citizens are NOT treated equally (as proponents of same-sex marriage have kindly discovered for all of us).

On both sides there is name calling, accusations, and trying to define why we believe the way that we believe...as if we can actually convince anyone else of it--it isn't 'what' we believe, but the protection of our right to believe that is important. Can anyone else see that both sides have valid arguments?

Don't we truly want a solution that will preserve ALL of our rights and liberties?

Salt Lake City, UT

Many are claiming that the state’s purpose for defining marriage for the benefit of children is disingenuous because there are marriages allowed that don’t produce children, or other laws that don’t benefit children. These marriages and other laws are beside the point.

A law can be genuinely enacted for a stated purpose even if all applications of the law do not satisfy that purpose. And the state does not need to be 100% congruent in all of its laws. Other laws have no bearing on the genuineness of the purpose of this law.

Legislators can genuinely define marriage for the benefit of children even if some marriages do bear children.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT


Salt Lake City, UT

Many are claiming that the state’s purpose for defining marriage for the benefit of children is disingenuous because there are marriages allowed that don’t produce children, or other laws that don’t benefit children. These marriages and other laws are beside the point.


Please understand what "simularly situated" means in regards to equality under the law.

If a couple who cannot have children naturally is denied a privilege (marriage) because of that condition, then all other simularly situated (cannot naturally bear children - including infertile and older couples) should be treated equally under the law. Since they are not treated equally under Utah's law, there is definately a problem with the 14th amendment and Utah's Amendment 3.

If a gay couple is proved to harm children by raising them in their home and is denied marriage because of that, then we must look to other situations where we know that harm can come to children and see if Utah treats those couples the same way. Look at child molesters. Can they marry and raise children? Yes. Murderers? They too can marry. Why are just gays prohibited? This is a big problem to explain.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY


We already have separation of Church and State.

Marriage is already "cut in half."

A church wedding doesn't count unless it occurs concurrently with a civil marriage.

A civil marriage (with license, witnesses, etc.) always counts, without a church marriage.

The reasons society grants legal status to married couples are manifold, but mostly because society benefits over and above what single individuals provide. Marriage creates a strong household, one less likely need financial support or abandon children, or become homeless, and more likely to care for elder relatives of both spouses, as well as to support and care for each other during setbacks that an individual can't handle.

Recognizing them as a household unit, as a vital resource for each other, lessens the burden on society, as well as recognizes that they are next-of-kin. Family.

It'a a net gain, not a cost, to society.

Your other arguments are false. Churches have discretion as to who they perform rites for, and can't be sued. Ever been to a Jewish wedding at a Mormon temple? Me neither. As for the Public Accommodations law issues, sorry, but we don't have segregated lunch counters anymore, either.

Anchorage, AK

RanchHand posted:
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?
I fail to see the relevancy of associating the gays with these subgroups. As you have all these subgroups among the gays as well.

Anchorage, AK

renatastar posted:
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.
Churches have a say, because Marriage is religious in it's origins. It's been the last 200 years or so that governments have gotten involved, tied government benefits to it and muddle everything up.

Personally, if I had the power, I'd completely sever any government connect to marriage. Let them create a whole new realm of legislated benefits which do not involve marriage as any criteria.
But, since marriage and government are now so tightly interwoven, I doubt such could ever happen. At best, we can only insist there be some comparable civil tool put in place.

Las Vegas, NV

Doctrine and Covenants, Section 134 Verse 4 reads:

4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

I truly hope that one of the amici for the same-sex marriage advoctes will cite the above scripture for the proposition that the LDS Church's current activities are wholly inconsistent with its canonized doctrine on the impropriety of religious activity that seeks to impose through the law its convictions on others.

I'm an active, believing member of the Church, and even I can see the duplicity in the Church's arguments.

Salt Lake City, UT

@Lane Myer

Thanks. Your explanation makes sense, if you frame the question as one of denying rights.

I would argue that the state is seeking to define marriage for the purpose of defining exactly what relationships the state wants to promote with a privilege; rather than seeking to deny rights.

As for laws restricting felons and sex offenders, aren’t these issues for separate legislation? Why should this amendment be conditional upon the existence of laws preventing other conditions from harming children?

Salt Lake City, UT


By seeking to define marriage no one is forcing religious beliefs on anyone. No one is infringing upon rights and liberties. No one is seeking to control conscience. No one is seeking to suppress the freedom of the soul. No one is seeking to make homosexuality illegal.

By defining marriage Utah is simply defining what relationship it will promote with the benefits of a legal status of marriage.

By supporting this legislation the Church is promoting a measure that they feel is good for families and society; in accordance with the mandate in the Proclamation to the World.

(Granting same-sex couples protections and freedom from discrimination is a separate issue that should be pursued in a way that does not change the definition of marriage.)

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO


"Granting same-sex couples protections and freedom from discrimination is a separate issue that should be pursued in a way that does not change the definition of marriage."

Remedial legislation regarding protections and freedom from discrimination doesn’t address the central issue of establishing legal recognition of spousal relationships between members of the same sex. Some opponents argue that broadening the scope of legal marital status beyond present restrictions effectively redefines marriage. That view is not shared by many proponents of same sex marriage. That’s why Federal Court review to resolve the matter is looking increasingly inevitable and perhaps desirable.

Huntsville, UT

@The Owl;

Quaker said it way better than I did. Those so-called "chaplains" who refuse their duty to our service members are doing everyone a disservice. If they don't want to serve all members in our armed forces, get out. They can go act in their church in any manner they please, but the military chaplaincy is NOT a branch of any church, but rather an amalgamation of all of them.

@Liberty For All;

The "proclamation to the family" is not law. It has no relevance.


Once again, the Christian god is not the only god in this nation. He has no more relevance than any other god.


You are the one who is incorrect. Anyone harming others suffers consequences of their actions. LGBT are NOT those criminals you are comparing us to. You are once again being offensive and the DN allows you to post your offensive comments. Yes, your church is bigoted toward gays, they've done everything they can think of to oppress and deny civil rights to LGBT.


WHEN did you choose to be straight?

Born in Bountiful
Provo, Utah

That we as a society have become accepting of homosexuality does not elevate a lifestyle to a protected group status. What other group or lifestyle will seek to take advantage of the same claim? Can society not say that we will uphold certain values? This is not an equal protection argument. Nudists cannot claim that they have the right to enter public places, such as courthouses, with modifying their behavior. If you want certain rights in our society then you have to act a certain way. A US citizen can carry a gun. Others cannot legally carry a gun in this country. Both groups are people, both groups are entitled to certain rights, but not all rights while in this country. There are a myriad of other examples. Society can protect itself and can enact laws that some people will never like.

Vince here
San Diego, CA

All this rhetoric of preserving traditional marriage.

Suppose for a moment that LGBT marriage stopped tomorrow - for whatever reason and through whatever means - that it was banned.

Then what?

Would traditional marriage then, be saved?

It would be the restoration of what, exactly? Back to some make-believe world where things are ideal?

Banning marriage from LGBT couples has the effect of placing energy and resources where it need not be. Preserving traditional marriages - let's say - if we speak about heterosexual couples will only result in doing exactly that - preserving traditional marriage for heterosexual couples.

What need is there to ban LGBT couples' marriages when heterosexual couples want to preserve theirs?

Ban the Smith Family from getting married because the Jones Family wants to preserve their marriage. Huh? The whole time, the Smiths do not want to marry the Jones, but the Jones feel their marriage threatened. Is anyone touching the Jones' marriage?

Preserve marriage and look after the Jones' marriage, but don't ban the Smiths from getting married.

Baker Boy
Westminster, CA

Whenever I see in these comments the word “homosexual” as opposed to “gay”, coupled with the term “lifestyle” I know immediately that the person writing them is going to be expressing disdain towards gay persons, and gay rights in general.

The term ‘lifestyle’ is particularly offensive because it suggests that gay persons ‘choose’ to be gay. Let’s get something straight: it’s not a lifestyle. It’s a life!

I would ask anyone at what point he or she ‘chose’ his or her sexual orientation and would any straight persons call their lives a ‘lifestyle‘? The notion is absurd, and again, offensive.

So, please all of you who may support amendment 3, try to treat with some respect those who might be gay and don’t support it.

to comment

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