Comments about ‘Advocates rally and 'roar' for anti-discrimination bill’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, March 5 2014 7:00 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

How come I can't marry my sister or my parents? I never said I was going to have sex with anyone. I love them a lot. Why can I not get recognition for being committed to the people that I love?

Or is marriage only about sex. I can understand if a man and a woman get married which is a relationship where one would expect as a natural part of the relationship that they will have sex. So there could very well be children involved. The wife will have to give up her career to bear the children and to care for them. The children are the next generation so we give this relationship benefits.

Now if two men or two women have 'sex' somehow, why do they get a recognition that I don't get loving my parents. Why does them having 'sex' make their relationship so much more special and valuable to society than my relationship to my siblings, or my parents? I am a legal stranger. I am a new kind of second class citizen.

Salt Lake City, UT

I believe the issue at hand is the anti-discrimination bill, not gay marriage.

Values Voter

@Chris B,

So -- your claim is that you're a flying purple dinosaur? That's a rather extraordinary claim. I would say that requires some rather extraordinary evidence. In the absence of any extraordinary evidence, (or any evidence at all), I would take your claim about as seriously as I take the claim that Santa Claus exists -- except I've actually received verifiable gifts from Santa Claus, so my belief in him may be more justified.

Sandy, UT

FatherOfFour, Your analogy does not hold up. There is no law which prevents you from hiring a homosexual. The proposed law says you have to hire, rent to, etc., homosexuals, transgenders, etc. whether you want to or not. Do you want a man, who decides he wants to be a woman sharing a bathroom with you female employees. I know many women who are not comfortable with that. If they decide to leave, there is nothing I can do as an employer. I lose good employees because the guy wants to be a girl.

What about if your 6'3" 270lb salesman suddenly wants to wear miniskirts and lipstick? He should be free to do what he wants at home, but I should be free to associate with whom I want and I should not have to hire someone who will turn off my customers so I can validate his lifestyle choice. Your rights do not trump mine.

Sandy, UT

@Values Voter - you're right. And it would similarly take some extraordinary evidence that a man who has been determined to be male by competent medical professionals to prove he is a female.

It's not rocket science. Most 3 year olds know the differnece between male and female.

Ted H.
Midvale, UT

ChrisB - Stick to the political articles and stay away from sports. You're the man! My wife has the right of privacy in public locker rooms. So do my daughters.

New to Utah

Sen Steve Urquhart in my opinion seems to identify more closely with the Utah Democrat Party than the Republican. He advocates similar legislation as Obama. He should consider switching his party affiliation. Perhaps he has forgotten that 2/3rds of the voters approved the constitutional amendment favoring traditional marriage. Judge Shelby,ruled from the bench that he knew better than the people which the Supreme Court finally blocked. It is time to cool down
and see how things unfold. Utahan's don't approve of discrimination as whole but they also have a right to determine the laws they want to live under.

West Richland, WA

@Tekakaromatagi: "How come I can't marry my sister or my parents? I never said I was going to have sex with anyone. I love them a lot. Why can I not get recognition for being committed to the people that I love?"

This represents a complete logic failure.

This argument is simply a "straw man", a common type of informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of the original topic of argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

So your straw man fails, at least to those who understand that your proposed consanguineous relationship with your sister/parents is still viewed as incest, which is ILLEGAL in this country. That is just one reason it fails.

The other reason your straw man fails is that your relationship with your sister and parents are already defined by law: they are your immediate blood family.

Values Voter

@ Ken,

It's all so simple for you, isn't it?

Let's take your hypothetical 3-year-old. As this child grows and matures, should his/her understanding remain the same (on this or any other subject)? -- should it remain fixed, black & white, binary? or should this child be let in on the fact that the subject is more complex and nuanced than he/she was capable of understanding at 3?

As far as "competent medical professionals" go, judging by your comment, I'm not sure you know what they've said on questions of gender, human sexuality, etc. Here are 3 well-known persons who may challenge your understanding. Look them up:

1.) Carolyn Cossey XXXY (Klinefelter’s)
2.) Julia Child XY (CAIS)
3.) Caster Semenya

Ted H.
Midvale, UT


You contradict yourself.

"The bill will not open up our restrooms, dressing areas, shower facilities, and locker rooms to anyone who simply decides to identify as the opposite gender" but then go on to say: "if an employer has reason to believe that an applicant's or employee's gender identity is not sincerely held, the employer may require the applicant or employee to provide evidence of that gender identity"

According to the bill, yes, if someone identifies as a certain gender they would be allowed in that restroom/locker room. So how is that not opening to anyone who decides to identify as the opposite gender.

But more than that, as Chris so correctly points out, what does "identify as" prove?

What if I identify as the owner of your home?

What if I identify as the President of the United States.

See how silly this is?

Seattle, WA

@New to Utah - "Perhaps [Sen. Urquhart] has forgotten that 2/3rds of the voters approved the constitutional amendment"

This article is about an anti-discrimination bill that the legislature has refused to hear this session even though it is widely supported by Utahns. It is not about same-sex marriage.

In February, the Deseret News reported the following:
"Utahns overwhelmingly favor a statewide nondiscrimination law, according to a Deseret News/KSL poll this month.
The survey found that 72 percent of residents say Utah should make it against the law to fire someone from a job solely because they are gay or transgender. It also showed that 67 percent favor a law that would make it illegal to deny a person housing solely because they are gay or transgender."

Sen. Urquhart is representing the people of Utah.

Cottonwood Heights, UT

From LDS General Conference:

"Another friend served an outstanding mission, followed by rigorous academic training. He hoped to have a family. His trial of faith: feelings of same-sex attraction. He wrote me, "...Living [the law of chastity] is a challenge, but did we not come to earth to confront challenges and to show God our love and respect for Him by keeping His commandments?"
"Trial of Your Faith", Elder Neil L. Andersen, LDS General Conference, October 2012

"Young people struggling with any exceptional condition, including same-gender attraction, are particularly vulnerable and need loving understanding—not bullying or ostracism."
"Protect the Children", Elder Dallin H. Oaks, Conference, October 2012

That said,

"Today, in place of some traditionally shared values is a demanding conformity
pushed, ironically, by those who eventually will not tolerate those who once
tolerated them."
"Repent of [Our] Selfishness", Elder Neal A. Maxwell, Conference, May 1999

"Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.
- Alexander Pope (1688–1744), Essay on Man, Epistle ii, Line 217
Conferences: 10/1979, 04/1989, 04/1993, 04/2006, 10/2002 and others

Sandy, UT


Bringin up those rare cases(which I've never denied exist) is disengenous and frankly hurts your argument unless your basis for supporing people who are one gender but claim to be another is presence of such physical ambiguity because as we both know not all people who are confused about their gender have such physical ambiguities.

It all comes back to what is the definition of male and female. To present cases that dont fit into the definition widely used doesn't help unless you are presenting a new and better definition.

So what is it values? If you dont like the definition of what makes someone a male and what makes someone a female that most people use, propse something new.

But you havent.

And again, "whatever someone says they are" is not a better definition. Medical professionals get things wrong sometimes. No one argues that.

But to Chris's point, if competent medical professionals say Chris B is a human and not a dinosaur, I'm going to trust the doctors even if Chris "identifes" as a dinosaur.

So, propose a new defintion of male and female if you'd like.

Cambridge, MA

To "Tekakaromatagi" it is worse than that. Imagine you have a roommate that you love, but are not interesed in having sex with, and trust to make medical decisions for you if you were incapicitated. Why is it that you can't claim your roommate as a dependant for health insurance, and why is it that you can't have the same protections that the gays now get? Is the fraternal love and commitment for your roommate any less valid than the gays?

West Richland, WA

@RedShirtMIT: "Imagine you have a roommate that you love, but are not interesed in having sex with, and trust to make medical decisions for you if you were incapicitated."

I realize you are being facetious, but if this was a genuine concern, I have three word for you: "power of attorney". Problem solved.

"Why is it that you can't claim your roommate as a dependant for health insurance?"

Primarily because that is ILLEGAL, unless your roommate is *actually* your full-time dependent, and you declare him as such on your IRS 1040 form.

"and why is it that you can't have the same protections that the gays now get?"

Erm.... you realize "the gays" currently have no protections, right? That is the what SB100 is all about.It will correct the situation where "the gays" are not afforded the protections you currently enjoy right now.

Example: you can not be fired Utah for simply being heterosexual. But your gay co-worker can be fired just for being homosexual. The two of you are currently being treated unequally under the law. SB100 seeks to correct this inequality.

Heber City, UT

The Maxwell quote shared above perfectly illustrates why anti-discrimination laws are necessary: the majority has a natural tendancy to discriminate -- even thought they once may have been subjected to it themselves. "Today, in place of some traditionally shared values (like equality) is a demanding conformity pushed, ironically, by those (in the local majority) who eventually will not tolerate those who once tolerated them (the national majority)."

Values Voter


So to be clear, you have a definition of male and female, it's widely shared and it's so simple even a 3-year-old can understand it.

My whole point is that the binary understanding of "male" and "female" maybe doesn't serve us so well. I maintain that questions of "male" and "female" are scientifically (and socially) complicated. Answers to those questions might involve endocrinologists, gynecologists, experts in internal medicine, experts on gender and even psychological experts.

Also, when you add up the constellation of occurrences and situations that might make determining true gender problematic, it's not even all that rare.

Finally, before one even gets to definitions, one might have to sort out questions like -- is someone fully male or fully female? if not, what should society's approach to that person be?

Midlothian, VA

Article states "My parents tried to show me that their relationship was normal, and I learned that," Smyth said. "But the rest of the world showed me that there was discrimination..."

Teaching that same-sex marriage is not what God intended is a religious right. It is not discrimination. I agree that people should not be turned away from housing, and other essential needs, but I will still teach my children that marriage is between a man and a woman. I do not discriminate against people who believe otherwise, we both should have the ability to believe what we believe is true in our hearts.

university place, WA


My spouse and I cannot have children; we cannot "unite the sperm and egg...." The argument you offer for continued marriage discrimination is fallacious so long as you continue to support and allow folks like my spouse and I to marry. Further, your "it's about children" argument impugns my relationship with my opposite sex spouse and I take great offense at that.

Salt Lake City, UT

Noah preached for 100 years while building his ark, but it didn't do any good. Indulging in evil was the cause, none of that whit is purported by artist license.
That night in Sodom, they were yelling outside Lot's door demand access to his male visitors.
It's not the piece of paper they want, it's acceptance of their chosen life style. If the government capitulates to them, then they will be 'knocking on our doors' next.

to comment

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