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
4word thinker
Murray, UT

Should single people be permitted to marry themselves? Then their children will be blessed by living in a married home. But how does that help the children? Or the adult?

Calling single people married is completely silly. Yet if we redefine marriage to include same sex couples, why not include single people too?

Both are equally silly and should not be done.

Eugene, OR


Do you mind explaining how people who hold religious beliefs would be forced into "second class status"?

They'll still be able to marry whoever they like and have as many children as they decide on.

They'll still be able to raise those children based on whatever moral tenets they choose.

How will legal recognition of same-sex couples prevent from happening that in any way?

In fact, with the exception of knowing that you can't use the law to force others to live by your beliefs, how will two men or two women marrying affect you at all?

Cole Thomas
Salt Lake City, UT

Words are meaningless. Actions are what count. Saying it isn't bigotry doesn't magically make it so.

Do you have any other religious beliefs you'd like to force upon the rest of us, Mormons? Perhaps you'll want to band drinking coffee next? Maybe shopping on Sundays?

Farmington, UT

Hey now Sal - don't go bringing the concept of "immorality" into the debate. If there is actually such a thing as immoral behaviour, then the LGBT gang's obfuscating arguments of "we want our rights" become moot.

Regardless of how they want to phrase their arguments in order to obtain their "right" to "marry," if their behaviour can be ultimately still be defined as "immoral," they will never win in the poll of public opinion.

And in my opinion, sexual contact between LGBT persons is immoral.

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

@ Badgerbadger

It's funny how you know that same-sex parents harm children, when not a single lawyer has been able to prove that point in court.

Constitution Is King
Brigham, UT

If 49 states voted to ban Mormon temple marriages, I wonder how many Mormons would be defending those 49 states' "Rights": to do something that is clearly against the US Constitution? Banning gays from marrying is clearly against the 14th amendment of the US Constitution. States do NOT have the right to overrule the US Constitution.

Constitution Is King
Brigham, UT

When LDS folks defend their own religion, does that mean they are attacking traditional Christian religions?.... NO it doesn't mean that.
When Gay folks defend their right to marry, does it mean they are attacking traditional marriage? ... NO, it doesn't mean that.

Grand Forks, ND

I just don't understand how you can be LDS and support gay marriage. Does this mean more and more church members are doubting the Proclamation to the World, church leadership, revelation, etc.? Aren't these things that church members should live their lives by and believe in?

The real conflict I am trying to understand as related to gay marriage Utah is not between religious vs. non-religious but between religious vs. religious.

Wilf 55

I find it sad that my church, the Mormon church, cooperates with churches that, for the rest, despise my faith as blasphemous. It is an illusion to think that the Mormon church will gain respect from these other institutions and be recognized by them as a truly Christian church. Perhaps in Utah and a few other states for opportunistic reasons, but never on a worldwide level. Moreover, all of this costly, temporary cooperation is for a lost cause.

cambodia girl
Phnom Penh, Cambodia

"More focus on satisfying adult needs will not benefit vulnerable children." How true that is. It is all about the adult needs. Why wouldn't the Gay and Lesbians want children to be raised by a mom and a dad? They had that opportunity.

Gay marriage - The thought makes reason stare!

Bob K
portland, OR

Why, why, why, why?

So much fuss over a small number of taxpaying citizens attaining their rightful equal rights?

As every court has found, all the legal arguments boil down to:

A-- Religion-based objections (not constitutionally relevant)

B-- Desire of some citizens to hold onto negative opinions of other citizens (not nice)

Let's get real, folks, please!

The big problem is that some religions have doctrines which do not allow equal status to their own members and children who are born Gay, and have COMPLETELY lost sight of what Jesus
Christ would say and do. He would welcome the Gay people, His children who have been persecuted and oppressed, and toss out the "religious" folks who refuse to repent of their part in that.

The meaning of the story of the camel, the needle, and the rich man:
---When you get so full of how right you are, how virtuous you are, how much better you are than others, how your church has the right to control society, heaven is NOT where you are going.

Los Angeles, CA

Its always bigotry when equal rigths are denied!

Harwich, MA

Equality, human rights and religion never mix.
This is a constitutional issue not a religious one. Just because the Church has an opinion doesn't mean it's important or worth listening too when constitutional issues are involved.
I'm always astounded at the "pick and choose" mentality when it comes to scriptures.
Let's look at the same book that mentions homosexuality that is so fervently rendered as the word of God.
Exodus 35:2 :
"For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy day, a sabbath of complete rest to the LORD; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death."
Shall we gather up a militia and start executing everyone that work on Sundays?
The Bible says so. It must be true.

City, Ut

The inconvenient truth too hard for the for LGBT to accept is that those who oppose SSM do not do so because of:

Religious belief or religious control

The truth is hard to accept and hard to bare.
To claim it is these other reasons is easier for them.
And so that is why they do it.

Johnny Moser
Thayne, WY

I wonder if those on either side of the debate who are so strongly certain and confident that the other side is going to lose have considered what they will do when they are wrong and the courts decide against them?

What will the LGBT and the Rainbowers do if the SCOTUS decides they are wrong and it is really a State's Right issue?

What about those religious organizations and those on the other side of the argument?

Sadly, the "I'll burn the mothers down" attitudes and riots in the streets people don't seem to be in the religious camp; so whose being the bigot and whose being unreasonable?

Far East USA, SC

We hear the right claiming. "Marriage is between one man and one woman. It has been that way for centuries. It is Gods will"

Coming from the religious in Utah, doesn't that ring a bit hollow? Didn't your church founder "change" the definition?

It is like everyone on here "conveniently" forgot that when making their marriage argument.

Provo, UT

I find the argument "marriage should be between one man and one women because that is how it has been for centuries" to be quite compelling. There are many cultural practices that have persisted for centuries, because they have been found to have merit. We do not need to debate about the societal value of marriage, since the historical evidence and legal precedent is so overwhelmingly in favor. The burden of proof would seem to be upon those wishing to invent something new. Let the proponents of redefinition iterate things we have done as human beings for thousands of years that aren't the right thing to do. Supporters of traditional marriage will keep on demonstrating the lasting benefits.

sandy/USA, 00

I just don't understand why supporting traditional marriage has to be tied to opposing gay marriage. How does gay marriage harm heterosexual marriage? There are no shortage of licenses available. Many heterosexual marriages have zero procreation opportunity, so that is not an issue. What am I missing? What harm is it if two adult women marry? Giving them normal legal protections associated with marriage does not diminish or limit those same protections enjoyed by traditional married couples. Just because traditional marriage is best doesn't mean non-traditional marriage is harmful.

Lafayette, IN

Societies have had marriage well before Christianity existed, all over the world. The institution provides a stable situation in which children can grow. Since man-man marriage will have no expectation of a drop in the sex-partners per year count, the stability portion of marriage will cease to be meaningful.

Potsdam, 00

First understanding what LGBT community is saying is very important.

They don't like to be molded into a setting, which is bewildering and strange to them.
It is up in the head to fight about the definition of marriage, and one line of view will not change the other to comply.
They are in despirate need to equalize the law for SSM, because the whole world is demanding to put on a "social revolution", why come short of that?

Second the people of Utah are afraid that political mainstream is going to endanger safety for their children and education. They want to stick to what is known and not reconsider their family values each morning over and over again.

Conclusion. The miracle or solution to this fight is in the change of mind, as people have set their mind on what they think definitions of marriage should be. You cannot change the mind of the people, unless to offer them something instead.

A Roundtable such as in Syria would be a good idea, and that to be for a while.
Pushing each other into corners will increase the tension over time.

to comment

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