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
mcdugall
Murray, UT

The "traditional" version off a single man, single woman marriage is contemporary version of marriage. The word "traditional" is nothing more than a code word for bigotry, just as some NFL teams use the word "distraction" as another word to mask bigotry. It is beyond me that so many people would put so much effort into denying people the right to form a civil union, because in the eyes of the courts and governments, that's all a marriage license is.

Ranch
Here, UT

@evansrichdm says:

"If you are going to force gay marriage on us ...,"

--- The moment that someone tries to force you to gay marry, I'll be the first horse in the cavalry to your rescue. Until then, nobody is "forcing" you to do anything except accept others rights.

@Virginia Reader;

And what if your "god" isn't?

EDM
Castle Valley, Utah

@johnthomasjones 9:31

"Are the State's interests in responsible procreation and optimal child-rearing furthered by prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying?"

Thank you. This is the simple question that completely destroys the State's argument.

tethered
Salem, OR

Is there ANY leader of ANY religious group who will publicly acknowledge that religion and faith isn't solely biological and can change over time?

After all, if people could not change their religion, then how come Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Catholics, Lutherans, and Baptists have various forms of missions...

Whose goal is to convert other people into THEIR religion!

Yet these legal briefs filed by religious groups rely on the fact that are "a protected class", while noting that homosexuality is not "a protected class".

This is a clear case of Protectionism... The groups who have legal rights, trying to block others from attaining legal rights.

And intermixing religion & law to further their unique status.

WHICH IS CHANGEABLE, yet blocking other mutable characteristics from being protected!

Values Voter
LONG BEACH, CA

". . . opposition not due to bigotry" ?

LDS leadership, many (though not all) Mormons, many (though not all) Utah voters and most of the organizations that signed on to this brief are in the very unfortunate position of having their own anti-gay statements, arguments and actions already out there. So many past anti-gay statements and attitudes are congealed in print, searchable at the click of the mouse, that trying to un-ring the animus bell at this point, simply can't be done. (I appreciate that a good team of lawyers would work vigorously to counter the perception, though).

Personally, I try not to use words like "hate", "bigot", "homophobe", etc. -- not that those words don't fit in many cases, it's just that it tends to halt conversation and is not very productive.

Cole Thomas
Salt Lake City, UT

Perhaps next you guys could ban taking the lord's name in vain? I mean, if you're going to force the rest of us to abide by your religious beliefs, why not go all the way?

Maybe we could also ban tattoo parlors? I mean, if a kid sees someone with a tattoo, that could send the wrong message, right? And as we've established, it's all about the kids with you guys. We gotta protect the kids. From EVERYTHING!

U-tar
Woodland Hills, UT

Every day, it is all gay. Can't we stop with the stories? How much do we have to endure?

Eliyahu
Pleasant Grove, UT

@KarenR:
"The brief also expresses concern that a finding against SSM bans “would necessarily declare that Utah and Oklahoma voters hold views on marriage that are irrational or bigoted,” and that this would “malign their deeply held convictions” and thus “demean” them. "

As you point out, it's a poor argument. Change the subject from SSM bans to integration and the states from Utah and Oklahoma to Mississippi and Alabama, and consider whether the idea of "maligning their deeply held convictions" about race would be a good reason to sustain segregation. People always have deeply-held conviction about many things. Unfortunately, those convictions are sometimes incorrect or wrong. Essentially, the brief is asking the court to make a ruling in one direction to keep from hurting someone's feelings. Imagine the derision the Supreme Court would have been subjected to had it sustained segregation to spare the feelings of the good white folks of the south. It boggles the mind that a licensed attorney would put forward such an argument in apparent good faith. Had he done it in law school, the professor would have given him a failing mark and laughed in his face.

Utefan60
Salt Lake City, UT

I find it quite amusing that many of these letters tout traditional marriage in Utah and years of "long held tradition". Doesn't anyone ever remember polygamy? Thousands of Mormons are the products of this "traditional marriage"! Lets not forget our history OK?

My forebears had multiple wives which acted as single parents while they were breeding new populations. They were neglected in many cases, placed in poverty and ignored for years at a time. They managed to survive. I guess an LBGT couple raising good well adjusted children really isn't so bad.

Noodlekaboodle
Poplar Grove, UT

Question LDS people. Why is gay marriage different? Plenty of things you don't believe in doing are 100% legal. Coffee, liquor, pornography, cigarettes, tattoos, piercings on men, more than one ear piercing on a woman and R rated movies are all legal, but your church has said that you shouldn't do that stuff. What is so different about gay marriage? I don't see rallies at Wal Mart trying to make Folgers illegal, Utah doesn't seem to have a problem taking the money I spend at the State Liquor Store, even though it's against the LDS religion. So what is so different about this one issue?

O'really
Idaho Falls, ID

The actual facts, all religion aside, is that men and men, women and women don't go together biologically, physically, or anatomically. Never have, never will.

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

David, you stated “In a homosexual relationship, anatomically and physiologically is it simply not possible to have children. It is not meant to be.”

This quote is eerily reminiscent to what was said at the trial of the mixed race couple, Richard and Mildred Loving, “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

When marriage equality is the law of the land, your reasoning is going to sound as quaint as the judge in Virginia did in 1968.

Kiboo
South Jordan, Utah

I'm with U-tar - gay eagle scout, gay football player, gay rights activists and on and on and on. You want to be gay, fine, be gay. I don't care. But the incessant stories about gays is getting really, really old.

jcobabe
Provo, UT

How instructive to see what proponents can list as examples of traditional cultural practice. They seem to be quite familiar with deviant practices that have been outlawed or are unpopular, even in aberrant small social groups.

It would seem obvious that those who advocate change to traditional standards bear the burden of proof that what they are proposing is a substantive improvement.

I note instructive parallels with "Modest Proposal" by Johnathan Swift in 1729. Swift clearly understood that none of it was to be taken seriously. The problem with the modern advocates that oppose traditional marriage standards is that it seems they fail to recognize the satire of their arguments.

desert
Potsdam, 00

@ tethered

An excellent point you are making there. And remember churches have legal status due to governmental approval, you do not.

You need to be better recognizable as an organization.
This issue goes back to political partisanship, it is void from the beginning.

I am not for your cause, but I can not recognize your voice as you are not belonging to some defined organization. Your "community" goes beyond recognition.

1A-all the way
SLC, UT

@airnaut quoted -
big·ot·ry
/ˈbigətrē/
noun
noun: bigotry; plural noun: bigotries.
bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

---

"I don't know --
Seems like it fits the definition precisely."

For which side??? sounds like the gays intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself. (not including the laws of the land)....ouch, that one turned on you :-0

Anyone can tell which side has more hatred toward the others by what is being said on here.

Heres another pointless argument..."Are you married when you cross state lines? We can't allow state-by-state non-recognition of marriages or you, yourself might end up divorced by driving to California or someplace other than where you were married." No comment necessary :-0

And don't get people started on the similarities of the civil rights movement.. You do not want to go there, dont even think about bringing that up. That would be shameful on you.

Have a nice day..I know I will, because I love living in the state of Utah. :-)

DRay
Roy, UT

Understand that each side of this issue is pushing their own sense of what is right and wrong. Wisdom is often lost in a "think tank" where every possibility is not just sorted through but is considered of equal value. Wisdom knows, for example, why everything that is liquid should
not be called water and licensed for human consumption. In this way discrimination is essential to preserve human life. "same-sex marriage" should not be given license or sanction.

Justizia
SPRINGVILLE, UT

Thanks to all those who wrote and filed amicus briefs. The LBGT community I'm quite sure will target those who have stood up for their beliefs. For tolerance to them is only a one way street. It takes courage to know you are going against a vocal group that only tolerates what they want to hear and then retaliates with words of hate while claiming they don't. The gay groups want so much to make this about them rather than about the definition of marriage. They want to play the victims and say their "rights" are being abused. If the courts allow the definition of marriage to mean nothing, why can't anyone claim the "right" to marry? Why not groups of people? Is there any reason to limit it to two people? Why not minors? Why does it have to even be with other humans if "love" is the only requirement. I've seen people who really love their pets.

Jan Jones
West Valley City, UT

Isn't this exactly what opponents of mixed race marriages said in their time? It has nothing to do with bigotry. It's just the way it's always been, and what the Bible advocates.

Flashback
Kearns, UT

A lot of heterophobic people on the forum today as well as a lot of apostates. You don't want God to have a voice? That's fine but he should have one.

to comment

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