Quantcast

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

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
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.

Baker Boy
Westminster, CA

‘Born in Bountiful’ wrote the following “this is not an equal protection argument”.

However the federal judges in the Utah Amendment 3 case, and in the Oklahoma case, both cited the equal protection clause of the 14 amendment to the U.S. Constitution in their rulings.

The Oklahoma judge called the ban on same-sex marriage “arbitrary and irrational”.

State courts in California classify sexual orientation as a suspect class, and in Connecticut and Iowa, state courts classify sexual orientation as a quasi suspect class. So there is precedent for heightened scrutiny in those states.

Liberty For All
Cedar, UT

Read the legal amicus brief from NARTH (National Association for Reparative Therapy of Homosexuality).

Hundreds of thousands of people suffering from same-sex attraction have been fixed or improved their condition through psychological counseling, and medical treatments like Depo-Povera (reducing sex drive in males).

No H8 - Celebrate
Salt Lake, UT

“Assigning a religious or traditional rationale for a law does not make it constitutional when that law discriminates against a class of people without other reasons,”- District Judge Heyburn

Many believe what their ministers and scriptures tell them: that a marriage is a sacrament instituted between God and a man and a woman for society’s benefit. They may be confused —even angry—when a decision such as this one seems to call into question that view. These concerns are understandable and deserve an answer. Our religious beliefs and societal traditions are vital to the fabric of society. Though each faith, minister, and individual can define marriage for themselves, at issue here are laws that act outside that protected sphere. Once the government defines marriage and attaches benefits to that definition, it must do so constitutionally. It cannot impose a traditional or faith-based limitation upon a public right without a sufficient justification for it. Assigning a religious or traditional rationale for a law, does not make it constitutional when that law discriminates against a class of people without other reasons. The beauty of our Constitution is that it accommodates our individual faith, definition of marriage, while accommodating others....

Bob K
portland, OR

No prejudice? No animus? No willingness to distort evidence?

Snips of an article in the Washington Blade:

...The Mormon Church joined other major Christian groups on Monday in filing a legal brief supporting bans on same-sex marriage in Utah and Oklahoma, although they rely on a study that authors say shouldn't be used as evidence against same-sex marriage.

---"Child Trends has been diligent in noting that it is inaccurate to make conclusions about the well-being of children being raised in same-sex households based on our study on heterosexual households" Walter said. "As noted, this was not part of the study. In fact... our information was being misrepresented."

The study was also cited in the legal brief that the state of Utah filed last week before the Tenth Circuit in favor of its ban on same-sex marriage. The research also comes up in at least one other friend-of-the-court brief that was signed by social scientists and Mark Regenrus, who produced a discredited study against same-sex parenting.
----
what would Jesus say?

equal protection
Cedar, UT

@ Born In Bountiful, Fifteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.” The last case was two women in Windsor.

loaf
Boise, ID

Many people who are FOR traditional marriage DON'T hate those on the other side of the issue. We're not all "haters". Some of us are trying and want to follow Christ's injunction to "love one another". We're not better than anyone and want happiness for our fellowmen.

We feel that choosing to ACT on same-sex feelings is harmful, not in a looking down our noses way,(all of us in this crazy thing called humanity are in this together. I think all of us have gut wrenching dilemmas, challenges and heartaches, where we're faced with tough decisions) but we're trying to ask ourselves what we feel is good for everyone involved.

As I mentioned before- As a parent I know loving my children doesn't mean it's okay for them to O.D. on candy or video games even though they really want to and like to. We set limits on behavior BECAUSE we want what is best for the individual and others.

loaf
Boise, ID

To Ranch

You mentioned "choosing" to be "straight" or "gay". I acknowledged that some people feel they don't have any control over it. And someone should never be abused or hated because of it.

But just because one has feelings of attraction to someone of the same sex doesn't mean it's wise or good to act on those feelings. All human beings deal with feelings that, if acted on will result in eventual self-destruction even if at the time, seem alluring.

Anger is a very strong feeling that, if one chooses to act on, can cause people to do things that absolutely ruin their lives and the lives of those they love, causing incredible regret and pain.

You seem eager to cast away a notion of God, but even if someone doesn't believe in God, shouldn't they at least consider what the effects of their actions might be and whether or not it's the best for others and for themselves?

Testimony
Philadelphia, PA

LibertyForAll,

You really do need to read "Animal Farm" some day. By "improved by Depo-Provera" you mean chemically castrated. This was a not uncommon alternative sentence offered to sex offenders as well as to male homosexuals who offended no one other then the sensibilities of the non-participants. Alan Turing, the computational genius who cracked the German "Enigma Machine" and saved untold thousands of Allied lives in WWII was a subsequent victim of this "treatment," a treatment so dehumanizing it led him to suicide.

I'm not sure if all the old court and medical records have ever been analyzed to see how many people were castrated, lobotomized or administered ECT ("shock treatment") to "cure" them over the years, or where your supposed number comes from, but we don't still destroy people like that.

Mutilation of our fellow humans, whether physical, psychological or chemical, for simply having the propensity of falling in love with otherwise-marriageable, consenting adults that don't fit your model of who they're SUPPOSED to fall in love with, is a crime against humanity. No mainstream professional medical, psychological or sociological organization supports such physical or mental maiming anymore.

Karen R.
Houston, TX

@Liberty For All

NARTH and the Family Research Counsel both file amicus briefs for the anti-gay side. How convenient for the court. They won't have to go far if they're looking for evidence of animus.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "RanchHand" so waht you are saying is that it is ok to be bigoted towards or discrimininate against people that could pose a threat. Well, lets look at the LGBT community.

First, there it the higher rates of domestic violence within their relationships. Next, you have the high rate of gay or bisuxuals in positions of authority abusing children.

If you think the LDS church is bigoted towards gays, why is it that they specifically tell the local leaders that they are to accept gays into full fellowship in the church? They don't expect anything out of the gays that they don't expect from every other member. If anything, they bend over backwards to make gays feel accepted. (You probably will now complain about members, but that is just a strawman argument becuase the members are not acting in accordance with church policy or doctrine.)

sharrona
layton, UT

RE: RanchHand/AQuaker said, "chaplains" If they don't want to serve) all members in our armed forces, get out.”

Southern Baptists have nearly 1,500 chaplains more than any other denomination or faith group. There are 234 priests are active duty chaplains. About 25%t of all personnel in the armed forces are Catholic, 8% of military chaplains are Catholic. LCMS, 214 and Mormon 75. Plus other Chaplains that would not perform gay marriage, or the great majority would be forced to “get out”.

Your view would devastate the military, especially the frontline troops.
And
Same-sex couples account for less than half of one percent of couples in the armed forces and “such a small group cannot be allowed to mandate policy for all.”

RE: renatastar:.. we are created in God's image[spiritual],…why does *he keep making gay people?

Rom 5:12 , just as sin entered the world through one man(Adam), and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned. The fall of man.

Mt: 19:5 (Jesus) a man will leave his *father and *mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’=*Children

Baker Boy
Westminster, CA

RedShirt stated the following about gays:

“First there is the higher rate of domestic violence within their relationships. Next you have the high rate of gays or bisexuals in positions of authority abusing children.”

Whenever I read such a statement, I would like to see some source to validate that claim, and not just any old source, but a citation from a reputable study by a trusted source.

Otherwise, why should any of us believe what RedShirt is asserting?

Testimony
Philadelphia, PA

@sharrona, lamenting the potential loss of "torn" chaplains:

Being a military chaplain is not volunteer work. It's a well-paying gig, and if you accept the gig, it's a duty. I'm sure there are plenty of other ecumenical-minded chaplains who would love the chance to serve our troops, ALL of our troops, for an annual pay of $56,900 (including "subsistence allowance").

There are at least two-dozen denominations to recruit from, chaplains who not only don't object to performing same-sex marriages, but may have even done one or two already. More importantly, chaplains from these denominations are more likely to respect and honor the religious heritage of ALL of our troops, unlike the reports we're hearing of those Evangelicals who tell them they're going to burn in purgatory if they don't convert.

If you can't do the job, get out of the way. There are others waiting to sign up.

waikiki_dave
Honolulu, HI

To state that you oppose marriage equality, but hold no animosity toward gay people is equivalent to saying in the days prior to 1978, that you support the Church's position that blacks should be denied the priesthood, but you have no prejudice or bigotry against African americans. If you support a policy that denies another person to have the same rights as you, then you are bigoted and prejudice against that person or group of people. End of discussion.

waikiki_dave
Honolulu, HI

Bigotry = Intolerance = Prejudice; look it up in the dictionary. If you are the benefactor of a civil right (marriage), but support a policy that denies other people that same civil right, then by definition you are a bigot. Don't try to sugar coat the topic and justify your exclusionary attitude by saying you love the sinner, but hate the sin; if you want to promogulate the belief that marriage is only between a man and woman, then keep it in your place of worship and out of the public courts.

Eliyahu
Pleasant Grove, UT

The fact that something was done a certain way for a long time isn't a very good reason for insisting that we do it that way now. For about fifteen hundred years, the Catholic Church pretty much had Christianity to itself, providing the basis for the same "tradition" argument, but I don't see any of the Christians who make that argument here deciding that it's a good reason to change their religion and join the Catholic Church. For that matter, until Christianity showed up on the scene, Judaism was the norm. I'd continue, but I think you can all see where I'm going with this argument. Bottom line is that things change as society evolves. If it didn't, we'd be riding camels,wearing robes, and buying our wives with sheep or herding sheep for our future father-in-law (who might well worship idols) in exchange for one of his daughters.

Azazael
Salt Lake City, UT

Suppose that the federal and state governments decided that home ownership is valuable to communities and society at large. Suppose that they created tax exemptions for mortgage payments to promote home ownership.

Allow that there are protections like inheritance rights that are granted to homeowners and not to renters.

Now suppose that renters wanted to change the legal definition of home ownership to include renting. Suppose they claimed that their civil rights were being infringed.

What is the most logical solution? To redefine home ownership and mortgage? Or to address the specific rights that renters ought to have?

(Before anyone says that these two are not analogous because home ownership is a choice, I assert that for many renters home ownership is not affordable, and thus not an option.)

Eliyahu
Pleasant Grove, UT

@Donn:
You seem to misunderstand the role of chaplains in the military. They aren't there just to minister to their own flock. They provide their services to all of the troops in the command where they're stationed. In Korea, I (a Jewish medic) often played the chapel organ for our Catholic chaplain while he was conducting Protestant services. In many ways, the military is a unique situation as compared to civilian life. We looked out for all of our people and tended to their needs; not just our own. In combat, I've said last rites for a Catholic soldier and in a civilian assistance mission, baptized a baby for a woman who had just delivered it. (For those unaware, the Catholic church believes that it doesn't matter if the person performing these things believes in them, just so it's done properly.) The point is, a chaplain, like a medic, isn't there to take care of his own needs, but those of the soldiers. If he can't take care of someone's religious needs, his duty is to find someone who can; not to abandon his calling.

CBAX
Provo, UT

The state should be able to marry any two consenting entities.

Churches should marry those who God says should be married.

Gays get their rights

Others get salvation.

gg

to comment

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