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
donn
layton, UT

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

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever. (Hebrews 13:8).

While God does not change, sinful men must change in order to enter into the kingdom of God. This “change” is from one who is a vile sinner, deserving of God’s eternal wrath, to a forgiven sinner, who now stands clothed in the righteousness of God, through faith in Christ.

It is God who provides the means whereby sinners can be changed, transformed to new creations, forgiven, justified, having an imperishable hope. What is required of men is to repent, to cease thinking and acting as they once did, acknowledge their sins, and trust in Jesus Christ.

ValiesVoter
LONG BEACH, CA

@ Flashback

The existence of "God" has not been established, let alone what any such entity's opinion is of the intimate arrangements of consenting adults.

If you have a personal concept and belief in such an entity, I say live it! love it! BE it! -- but do not try to reach into a secular constitution and legislate your version of this entity above others'.

dmcvey
Los Angeles, CA

It really doesn't matter what reasons (no matter how specious) these religions use. The fact is, they are seeking to deny American Citizens equal rights, opportunities and protections under the law. These churches will not be forced to perform or sanction marriages they don't approve of. The real concern is that, just as the Mormon Church was viewed to be bigoted for their stance against black men holding the priesthood (and that view was justified, the church has now admitted the whole thing was because Brigham Young was a bigot), their anti-gay views will be viewed as bigoted and backwards.

I don't really care how the church or its members view gay people. I care that they are trying to make their religious views the law.

frugalfly
PULLMAN, WA

It is offensive to equate the struggle of civil rights in the last two centuries with the current same gender marriage issue. To do so is offensive to those who struggled for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It represents a lack of education by the "drum beaters of the moment". Please don't clump these together. What some same sex marriage people want is a narrow specific legal status. What african americans wanted was ability to eat, have homes, education, dignity, employment, security, and opportunity. That opportunity was shut to them on every front in every facet of life and in every way imaginable.

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

No one wants to be thought of as a bigot, but most people probably are, at least to some extent. No one I know is perfect. And yes, maybe I'm a bigot, but I don't want to be.

Everyone has opinions about how the world should be. And the idea of homosexuality is just repugnant to a lot of people. That attitude is changing now, but it's not changing quickly.
Personally, I would have preferred to see the whole gay marriage issue placed on a back burner, because this nation already has more important (in my opinion) and pressing issues to deal with, and we really don’t need something like this to further divide the nation.

Well, against my wishes, the world saw fit to take this issue off the back burner and place it at the forefront. It's here, it's near, it's the Q word, and it's not going anywhere. And now everyone has to confront it.

So now what? Just get used to it I guess.

lehiaggie
Lehi, UT

In these comments I am told that I am a bigot, that I have feelings of hatred because I support traditional marriage. But deep down in my heart I feel none of that. What if I can truly care for those in the LGBT community and still support traditional marriage. They are not mutually exclusive. The only evidence I have is in my heart.

To tell me otherwise is akin to telling someone that is Gay or Lesbian that they can change the way they feel.

Fyodor Mikhailovich
Salt Lake City, UT

I would like to point out that you should identify your Lutheran church reference as the Missouri synod. The main stream of the the church, the ELCA is not joining the law suit and is in fact in favor of same sex marriage. Please be clearer in your reporting.

Tiago
Seattle, WA

This is interesting as a study in which groups the church chooses to tolerate and align with and which it classifies as the enemy.
We have huge doctrinal and even moral disagreements with some of the churches we've partnered. Some of them have called us names and actively preach against. I'm actually glad to see that we can overlook differences and see the causes that unite us. Most Mormons would be happy to have a Baptist or a Catholic at a BBQ or as a neighbor and I think that's great.
I'm surprised though that the church insists on classifying the gay people who want to marry as the enemy and fighting against them. These are also good people, who support monogamy, faithfulness, marriage, and families. Many of them are also religious. In Utah, many of them are part of LDS families. It seems like we should be natrual allies. Why are we making them the enemy?

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "Isn't this exactly what opponents of mixed race marriages said in their time?"

And, if they did, so what? They were wrong.

Now, back to the subject at hand . . . .

LGBT activists are never going to accept logic and reason. If they do, they lose.

So, they attack. They bully. They use disingenuous sophistry as their primary tactic. Just as the pro-abortion crowd did before Roe v. Wade.

But, if they think they'll actually win anything by their anti-Constitutional tactics, they should consider what the similarly collusive Roe v. Wade accomplished -- 40 years later, and we're still at war over the rights of the innocent unborn.

The better model would be the legal, Constitutional approach. It acknowledges that the legislature, not a contrived, collusive case before a dishonest, agenda-driven judge, is the proper forum in which to have the necessary discussions, make the necessary case, and arrive at the necessary consensus.

The proof is in the pudding -- America is not at war with itself over sovereign immunity, slavery, female suffrage, the legality of income taxation, succession in the presidency, or the voting age.

Turtles Run
Houston, TX

evansrichdm

Love Everyone,

Wish it could be so, but I am being told by pro gay marriage people I am a bigit for my personal beliefs.

++++
Well if a person believes other people do not deserve to be treated as equals based on some inherent trait of those people: color, ethnicity, nationality, sex, or sexual orientation, then what would you call it.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

From the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa: "The statute, the court found, is under-inclusive because it does not exclude from marriage other groups of parents—such as child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent felons—that are undeniably less than optimal parents. If the marriage statute was truly focused on optimal parenting, many classifications of people would be excluded, not merely gay and lesbian people. The statute is also under-inclusive because it does not prohibit same-sex couples from raising children in Iowa. The statute is over-inclusive because not all same-sex couples choose to raise children. The court further noted that the County failed to show how the best interests of children of gay and lesbian parents, who are denied an environment supported by the benefits of marriage under the statute, are served by the ban, or how the ban benefits the interests of children of heterosexual parents. Thus, the court concluded a classification that limits civil marriage to opposite-sex couples is simply not substantially related to the objective of promoting the optimal environment to raise children."

Utah's case is in trouble.

riverofsun
St.George, Utah

Doesn't this get confusing?
Those on this forum who say "we must listen to God about marriage", mystifies many of us.
We hear that marriage should only be between one man and one woman.
According to the LDS scriptures, Pleural Marriage was initiated for the LDS by God. This was the norm for LDS people in the 1800s.
Although it is "not on the earth now", doesn't it say in Doctrine and Covenants scriptures that Pleural Marriage will be the way marriage will be in the after life for those who are have "followed God's word"?
Isn't this why the numerous polygamous off shoot groups who left the LDS Church abound here in Utah?
Because of this, one would think that LDS people, perhaps, would have a more open mind about the term "marriage?
Wow, this gets confusing!

Turtles Run
Houston, TX

lehiaggie wrote: To tell me otherwise is akin to telling someone that is Gay or Lesbian that they can change the way they feel.

+++

No it is much different. Homosexuals were born that way. The desire to not want everyone to enjoy equal treatment under the law is a learned behavior. A behavior that can be unlearned with education and understanding. A person cannot change their sexual orientation no matter how hard they try.

evansrichdm
west jordan , UT

Ranch,

Let me be claer,

It is being forced on me that I got to accept gay marriage as socially acceptable or else I am a bigit, am I right with that line of thought. Now as far as my God base on the Bible, Book of Mormon has made it clear in those writing that being gay or acting on gay feeelings is worng.
Old Testment
Leviticus ch. 18 vs 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Pretty clear on that one, but hey you tell God that he is wrong. Tell if he changes his mind on this one.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

donn,

"....It is God who provides the means whereby sinners can be changed, transformed to new creations...."
______________________________

Looks like both sides are waiting for the other to be transformed into new creatures.

Marriage between a man and a woman is not diminished by broadening the scope of traditional marriage to include a group that is presently denied. In time, the country will shed its more irrational fears regarding some of its citizens.

ValiesVoter
LONG BEACH, CA

@lehiaggie

You used a key phrase: "They are not mutually exclusive."

Why do you feel your support of traditional marriage competes with and necessarily excludes same-sex couples from the institution of civil marriage?

I support traditional marriage (although the word "traditional" feels like code to me). I revere the marriages of my parents, siblings, and other relatives & friends, yet I see no conflict with also celebrating the marriages of gay couples. For me, it is a matter of embracing the full humanity of gay people. I think the past stigmatization and marginalization of gay people is a bad thing and I'm glad even the LDS church seems to have recognized this.

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

"The accusation is false and offensive," according to a 53-page court brief. "In truth, we support the husband-wife definition of marriage because we believe it is right and good for children, families and society. Our respective faith traditions teach us that truth. But so do reason, long experience and social fact."

I agree. When people communicate or observe across a cultural barrier they have to keep an open mind. If you see something that doesn't match your cultural paradigms be open minded enough to conclude, "Well this is different. Maybe I can learn something from being exposed to diversity." What happens instead is people say, "Well this is different. Something is wrong with those people!" It is the heigth of cultural intolerance to conclude that someone's religious or cultural beliefs are the result of them being bigots.

People have learned nothing from 25 years of diversity.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@evansrichdm
"Old Testment
Leviticus ch. 18 vs 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Pretty clear on that one,"

That's why I never tell men "no, of course that dress doesn't make you look fat".

What's the point of quoting one piece of Levitical law when so many other pieces of it are ignored by Christians today? (And for good reason, who'd want to be in charge of kicking women out of town for a few days each month?)

MDurfee
OREM, UT

The issue isn't about equality. It is about using the boogeyman of discrimination to shout out religious voices and stances on morality. It is about forcing everyone who disagrees with their morality or lifestyle to shut up. A law limiting marriage to one man and one woman doesn't keep anyone from loving each other or having a relationship, or even raising children. It does keep them from suing business owners for discrimination if they so much as utter a word of support for traditional morals or refuse to participate in gay ceremonies. Business owners who even dare state support for traditional marriage are being boycotted, threatened, and sued all across the U.S. (Case in point, Chic-Fil-A) If you don't believe it, try reading the news.

Ted's of Beverly Hills
Las Vegas, Nevada

It seems to me, more than anything else, the Church is adding it's "testimony" in defense of true marriage not strictly, nor primarily, for the sake of political posturing, but to show obedience to the Being whose footstool this earth truly is.

to comment

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