Comments about ‘Gay marriage debate is changing how Americans settle differences’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, March 7 2014 10:45 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Somewhere in Time, UT

I cannot believe how fast this country is sinking into degradation. It is accelerating at warp speed. I can't believe I am living in the country in which I was born. Of course this was all foretold in the scriptures and, no matter how obvious it is, so many refuse to see it. We truly are in the last days and I wonder how much time we have left.

Mesilla/USA, NM

I'm sorry that fundamentalist Christians, those who espouse the literal interpretation of the Bible, feel put upon for having to live in a secular society, where the laws of the State require equality before the law. This means that their practice of religion be confined to their churches, their families, and their private selves. Once they take their religion out into the larger civil society, they should realize that their rights end at the nose of others who may not believe as they do. If they open a business in this secular society, where there is separation of church and state, they have to serve everyone equally. It is discrimination when they choose only one group (LGBTs) to deny service to. If they denied the same service to everyone across the board, then it would not be discrimination, but no telling how long they would stay in business.

W Jordan, UT

There's no constitutional interpretation that allows for gay marriage except in the minds of the LGBT and the pro gay marriage advocates.
The only reason why so many federally appointed judges are buying it is because it was planned that way.. Elena Kegan, Ginsberg, Sotomayor and countless other activist judges that usually force their ideology on the rest of us when opportunity presents itself.
The Obama administration appointed judges in the states have been schooled on how to move the progressive agenda forward
So the judicial system siding with the LGBT has nothing to do with constitutional logic or what's in the best interest of society or this country and more to do with moving a political agenda forward. While they force some to accept that which they repudiate there will be backlash for it, research history on you'll see. mark my words!!

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

On this anniversary of Joseph McCarthy
How are the smear campaigns of the hard left any different?

The slightest disagreement makes one a sexist racist homophobe

Karen R.
Houston, TX

@ LDS Scientist

Ranch's post doesn't say what you heard.

@ intervention

I agree. Some religions are asking for special status: the right to be exempt from the Golden Rule while in the public sphere. You could perhaps say that we do them a kindness when we insist that they rise to the same standards of civility as the rest of us.

Queen Creek, AZ

@Scientist Your comments imply that society has no need for people of faith, or the faiths themselves. When Atheists are the world's leader in humanitarian aid, helping the needy, the sick, the afflicted and bringing hope to mankind in the name of David Silverman, I might be willing to concur.

Honolulu, HI

I agree with point of view Mat is taking in this piece; especially the following comment he made at the end of the article "Mormons had plenty of opportunities to treat gay people with real charity and far to often chose intolerance." You may ask, as an active member of the Church, how have we not shown charity towards gay people? I will tell you; by the way you have characterized homosexuality as a perversion. In fact, gay people have no choice in their sexual orientation. Until the Church comes full swing on this, nothing will change.

salt lake city, utah

"There will never be a gay marriage majority of states in the US. Nice try."

Can't wait to pull this one out in 5 years.

"These so called religionists and secularists who like to cherry pick the scriptures and freedoms they want but ignore the points they don't remind me of a saying. something about they despise those who do good,call good evil and evil good."

Here's the point, the law, including the constitution is not a religious document dependent on scriptures for it's interpretation or enforcement. Both are in fact secular, civil documents meant to bind together and govern all kinds of people and all beliefs.

Believe as you will but as Quaker said "Religious rights end at the boundaries of our persons, our homes, and houses of worship. In a civil, secular society, it should be no other way."

Othello, WA

"It used to be -- my private life is none of your business (I agree). Now it's -- I have a Constitutional right to society's approval of homosexuality."

Exactly right SoCalChris! The gay lobby agenda is only about forcing society to accept their repulsive activity. The "civil rights" claim is only a smokescreen to hide the real agenda. Millions of Americans have their "civil rights" violated EVERYDAY in areas unrelated to gayness, and nobody seeks to make special laws and court rulings for them. This assault becomes much easier to accomplish, as the gay crowd becomes more vocal and visible. Almost 100% of us have a friend, a cousin, a sibling, or some other close relative who has decided they are gay. The gay agenda plays on the sympathies of those of us who are weak, unthinking and gullible. The other aspect is religion. There are many who have no interest in the gay marriage argument, but see a opportunity to attack religion. They become gay agenda allies, because they hate religion. I think these situations are what the Lord uses to judge us. I chose to be seen as standing against perversion, not negotiating away my beliefs.

Draper, UT

I'm not sure why the religious right feels such paranoia regarding this positive trend of giving equal status to the LGBT community. I'm a straight, married, LDS man, and my marriage is not at all threatened if my gay neighbors are granted the privilege of legitimizing their relationship.

I'm a firm believer in the 11th Article of Faith. There is room for a lot of diversity in this world and I'm secure enough in my own beliefs to not feel threatened.

West Richland, WA

Nice use the phrase "their erotic and romantic activities" to infer moral disapproval. As if heterosexuals never have erotic and romantic activities. Please.

It is unfortunate that fevered dogma will not allow otherwise sensible adults to come to grips with the fact that this legal battle is over. The days of state-sponsored bigotry have have come to a close, and these dehumanizing bans are being properly dismantled across the land.

Past time for some new 'revelations' that can be used to soothe the angst caused by cognitive dissonance.

liberty or ...?
Ogden, UT

Some of these comments which accuse me and others of being discrinminative just because I accept a different standard of morality then they do are interesting to say the least. News flash people your whole talk of discrimination is a mute point. Because the minute you accept any standard of morality or opinion whether religionist or secularist you are discriminating against somebody elses belief.So we are all guilty people. this is why truth matters. "When you eliminate the impossible (falsehood) whatever is left however improbable must be the truth" as Sherlock Holmes would say. At least people who espouse faith claim an external authority for their morals which secularism can neither prove nor disprove it can only accept or reject. If GOD exists and gave the moral standards people of faith claim then even if the whole world accepts it you might as well be denying gravity exists while your plummeting off a 400ft cliff. The world has done this before where their morality was different from the one. I believe his name was Noah and in the end it didnt make them right and him wrong. they were just fools.

Saint Louis, MO

The claims in a comment from the Quakers is eye opening. The issue in a comment in regard to religion being bigoted would go all the way back to Moses and his breaking of the golden calf of Ba'al.

Sandy, UT

Quaker, your argument misses the point. During a time a war a Quaker can declare conscientious objector status and not fight. A Jewish store is not forced to be open on the Sabbath, Muslim is not forced to sell pork and a Hindu or Vegan is not forced to sell hunting supplies. I do not care who are sleeping with (as long as they are an adult). My objection is that gays and lesbians want to force people to participate in their lifestyle events whether it is baking a cake for their wedding or requiring a doctor to do in vitro on a lesbian couple. Just as a Quaker is not forced to go to war, anyone who finds homosexual conduct objectionable should not be forced to participate in any way in a gay wedding. I have friends and relatives who are gay. I would bake them a birthday cake, but not a wedding cake. Likewise I would not cater a swingers convention or a party for the Church of Satan.

If you want to do something that others find objectionable, you shouldn't expect then to participate in your event.



How does a business person, say a florist or baker, determine whether or not his customer is an adulterer, marrying his mistress?

Aren't we all sinners?

Salt Lake City, UT

It's pretty easy to see how one goes from opposing same-sex marriage to supporting it since a quarter of Americans have done that the past 10 years (well technically some are just young people replacing old people who passed away)... but how would one go from supporting same-sex marriage to opposing it? That's why gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states, it's extremely rare for anyone to switch to being against it.

salt lake city, utah

" I wonder how much time we have left."

It depends on how old you are.

New York, NY


Your comment contains a disturbing contradiction. You say you treat people with love and respect, then equate gay people with "sexual promiscuity" and "perversions of the family unit" incapable of "true or lasting happiness."

Yet gay people are no more or less promiscuous than straight people. They do get married, form families and find lasting happiness.

Accusing them of "emotive reasoning," you claim you are attacked, bullied, marginalized, denied humane treatment, called names, silenced, and censored by fanactics reminding you of communists and anarchists. My goodness.

But are you really treated this way by your friends and neighbors? People seeking legal marriage and to be treated fairly in public life? People who, in addition to your name-calling, are subjected to actual bullying, physical attack, legal marginalization and real institutionalized discrimination?

Better to take people at their word when they say they love each other, that gay is the way they are, that their marriages are meaningful, that they love their families, that their religious choices are as personal as yours, and that your opinion on how they live their lives is truly irrelevant to getting along.

This is how you treat people with love and respect.

Ogden, UT

@Alfred 11:03 p.m. March 7, 2014

Gays have always been allowed to marry... provided they marry someone of the opposite sex.


I've seen that argument before -- in the 1960s. Only then it said "Negros have always been allowed to marry . . . provided they marry someone of the same race." It didn't work then, and was soundly rejected as being unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in a unanimous decision (See Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)). It wasn't a sound argument then, and it's not a sound argument now.

Ogden, UT

@LDS Scientist 9:34 p.m. March 7, 2014

Are you suggesting that vengeance is a sound basis for public policy? By that logic, we should enslave white people because they once enslaved African-Americans.


You appear to be suggesting that trying to gain and protect one's civil rights is somehow "vengeance." Let me give you a hint -- it's not in any way vengeance. It's justice.

to comment

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