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

Return to article »

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

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
The Skeptical Chymist
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@Cats and many others

You worry too much. We'll survive all of this, there won't be any "End Times" and the country will be a more loving, caring place when the Supreme Court rules that same sex marriage is legal everywhere in the US. Life will go on without all that much of a change. Parents will still love their children and most people will still choose to marry a person of the opposite sex. All that will be different is that a few individuals will now be able to marry the person they love, and they'll be accepted into the community just like the interracial couples who no longer seem quite so unusual. If you stop being so fearful, you'll discover this doesn't affect you at all, and it is a good thing for everyone.

Badgerbadger
Murray, UT

@ GZE, and all you others who oppress religious people,

clearly you spend no time listening to us, or trying to understand us, or our deep held beliefs. I doubt you would give us the time of day.

Why don't you try to be a friend to someone religious? Are you afraid you might find out that they are nice people and not monsters?

It is easier to dehumanize them, and try to get vengeance on all of them for the offenses of a very few.

@LDS Scientist

Be careful what you suggest. There are already groups of people in this country who are trying to do exactly what you are suggesting. Their great-great-great-great grandma was a slave so every white living today should be a slave to them to pay for it, or as the Black Agenda Report says, pay every descendant 1.5 million dollars, for a total of 59.2 Trillion dollars. That would certainly amount to slavery for our children, grandchildren, etc, for many generations. (No wonder Obama doesn't think 17 Trillion in debt is a big deal.)

Shoe
Auburn, King, WA

To Rondonaghe:
The First Amendment in our Bill of Rights talks about being able to "exercise" one's religion. You don't only exercise your religion in your home or at your house of worship but you are able to excise your religion in all aspects of your life, including your employment or personal business endeavor. The government has no right to cut you off in that ability to exercise it since the government never gave you that right in the first place. It comes from God and from the electorate, who allow the government to govern in our behalf. That's what a "right" is and that right should be very liberal in its application. Individual rights trump group rights and the market will determine who stays in or goes out of business without the heavy hand of government determining the outcome. Shoe.

aislander
Anderson Island, WA

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

Patriot: Latest Washington Post/ABC poll 59% support gay marriage, only 34% opposed. EVERY nationwide poll since Windsor shows voter opposition to gay marriage to be in the rapidly diminishing minority. Your denial won't make any difference. There's also an interesting article about how many opposed to same sex refuse to accept reality on this subject; it could have been written about you: google this: gay marriage opponents don't know they're on the wrong side of public opinion.

@Joemamma "There's no constitutional interpretation that allows for gay marriage except in the minds of the LGBT and the pro gay marriage advocates."

Joe, since the Windsor decision alone, at least 36 Judges have weighed in on gay marriage or gay rights issues. About half of these justices are conservative Republican appointees. EVERY decision has been for the gays. Without exception. You can try to pretend that it's just due to "activist" (translation: "I don't agree with the judge" liberal judges, but that is completely and demonstrably false. Denial won't get you anywhere.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

@Alfred ("Gays have always been allowed to marry, providing they marry someone of the opposite sex."):

Okay, let's use your "logic" for a second. There was a recent story in this paper about the Mormon Temple in Preston, England losing its lawsuit to be totally tax-exempt. England is a Christian country, but with a designated official national church, The Church of England (aka Anglican, COE). Any other denomination's houses of worship have to meet certain legal requirements to avoid property tax.

If you want full religious rights in England, to be completely tax-free, every English Mormon has an equal right to be an Anglican and attend services in their tax-free local church. Why should they need their own Temples? Equal rights for all. Not "special rights" for Mormons. Just go to the Anglican church like you're "supposed to" as a loyal Englishman.

Now, I fully support religious freedom, and I'm obviously just kidding with you, but that's exactly the equivalent logic of your position on not letting gay people marry the true loves of their lives.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

@RBB: Look at the arguments you are proposing in response to my earlier comment. By the very same token, a conservative Mormon doesn't have to marry a gay person. He doesn't have to accept a wedding invitation from his gay brother or sister. Doesn't have to buy them a wedding present. Can skip reading their marriage announcements in the newspaper, even stop buying newspapers that print them, and boycott bakeries that make them cakes. More importantly, no Mormon (nor any other) house of worship has to conduct marriages outside their doctrine and no religious cleric is forced to officiate them.

However, the fact remains, I must pay war taxes. Observant Jews must put up with cars driving through their neighborhoods on the Sabbath and other disturbances caused by commerce in violation of the Bible's insistence to "keep the Sabbath Holy."

You are going to have to put up with your neighbors living their own lives in accordance with their own consciences. It doesn't mean you have to invite them to dinner or go to their parties, although in the interest of true Christian spirit, I wouldn't discourage either.

brotherJonathan
SLC, UT

Why must it be called a marriage? It is a civil union.
Allowing other citizens the right to chose for themselves what lifestyle they would embrace is not the same as teaching their choice as a recommended way of life to your children. So we walk a delicate path of protecting individual rights of choice and defending our own right of choice in our schools and other places of gathering.
Tolerance for others rights with respect for our choice when it comes to teaching our own children the principles of a happy fulfilled life, obeying the commands of our conscience. Because of the fact that children are impressionable and do not have founded psychological beliefs in experience and outcomes, we who have the responsibility to nurture and guide belief structure have the ultimate say in what should be and not be taught as a viable lifestyle for them until they are adults. Homosexual partnerships without science intervention cannot produce offspring, this is the facts. So nature has female and male as a parent structure and is the natural means of raising young humans to adulthood. Beyond those facts this is fairly new territory, protecting freedom of choice for both.

Big Joe V
Rancho Cucamonga, CA

Another big lie "a substantial minority of Americans, most of them religious, still committed to the older view of marriage."

The majority of Americans are pro family, pro life, but they are suppressed and their voices are not heard by design of the liberal press. The only viable tactic the left has is to tell the lie loud enough and repeat it over and over till the weak and low information individuals give up and give in. It is being advanced through corruption and influence at high levels because when the people vote it is to support traditional marriage. If they are such a minority than then why have they been successful most of the time it has come to vote?

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

Does a County Clerk have the right to refuse to issue a marriage certificate to a Gay couple based only on his "sincere religious beliefs?" The Arizona Bill had a provision in it saying that he could. The idea was that the couple would have to seek out another clerk or another County.

I suspect if a county clerk refused to issue a marriage license to a Latter-day Saint couple because Mormonism offended his "sincere religious beliefs," there would be outcry by this newspaper.

The suggestion that in the past such exemptions existed and are now gone is simply wrong. Despite the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Mormons were not required to allow Blacks to have temple marriages. The same will true of Gay Marriage.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Cats
"I cannot believe how fast this country is sinking into degradation. "

Committed monogamous relationships. Yeah, same-sex marriage is such a degradation...

@RBB
"Muslim is not forced to sell pork "

The correct analogy would be a store selling pork to Christians but refusing to sell it to Muslims.

Billy Bob
Salt Lake City, UT

The only thing I am worried about is the potential for the LGBT activists to take it to the next level once they have achieved their goal of making homosexual marriage legal everywhere in the USA. I am worried that they will try to make it so that churches will be forced to perform same-sex marriage or be faced with penalties, such as losing their tax exempt status. This, of course, would be wildly unconstitutional, but there will be those in the LBGT community who pursue this route. If the LGBT activists would be satisfied once same sex marriage is legal everywhere, then I would not actively oppose it (although I also still would not actively support it).

And for those of you who say that my worries are baseless because no one currently is trying to force churches in to doing things against their will, if I didn't have a word limit I could give you many examples throughout history of causes that started out with good intentions that were brought to far and ended up with consequences that were unintended and/or not considered when the fight for the cause was first started.

BYU_Convert
Provo, UT

I don't understand why so many people are upset on this subject anyway. Gay marriage is not a novel concept, and so many of the Christian world blame people who are gay for bringing the downfall of the family and ruining their lives. When in all reality, the downfall of the family began back in the Book of Genesis, and people's lives were ruined the day Cain slew Abel.

It's unfortunate to me though to witness first hand the backlash of the gay marriage issue against people who are gay or sympathize with the LGBT community by Christian-minded individuals in America. Christians claim to hate the sin but love the sinner, and yet very few actually do that. There is a major fallout in understanding by Christians toward the LGBT community. There is so much concentration on what goes on in the bedroom of gays, that Christians aren't too concerned that gay people are human beings created in the image of God and loved as much by God as they are despite their incredible life trials in comparison to their heterosexual counterparts.

GZE
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Badger, I do not want to oppress anyone. I believe every single person has the right to make decisions about their own lives. Isn't that what agency is all about? I promise not to tell you that who you can or cannot marry or who you can or cannot love. I only think that you should do the same. Allowing others to make their own choices and live with the consequences of those choices is a basic building block of all religions.

No one wants to take your religion away from you. We simply don't want you to try to apply your beliefs to the lives of others.

I belong to no church but I come from a religious family. I respect their practices. I take my mother to church and act in a reverend and respectful manner. I am kind to everyone. Do not act as though you know me.

Meckofahess
Salt Lake City, UT

The Scientist

You say "The author misses the most obvious outcome: those few religious people who stubbornly insist on discriminating against gays and lesbians will become less and less relevant. They and their organizations and their Churches will fade into obscurity".

Sadly the DN allowed your insulting comment. So perhaps now they will allow mine? You are sadly mistaken, religious folks have been around for a long time and we have found ways to worship the creator of heaven and earth and to ascend our allegiance to him. Sin is still sin by any other name and so are the outcomes of sin. You can change the name of sinning, but you can't change the consequences. We who abhor the acts of deviants will find our ways to differentiate truth from error in our time.

Meckofahess
Salt Lake City, UT

@BYU_Convert

The fallacy of your logic is that "agency" as you attempt to define it cannot justify running counter to the laws of God. Lucifer utilized his agency and what happened to him? He will end up on the wrong side of eternal history and on the outside of eternal progress. Those of us who are LDS that are tempted to put aside our standards to placate the sophistry of the gay community may very well find ourselves on the same side as he who was disobedient from the beginning. Moreover, there is much more at stake here than the agency of the gay community. The gay community is trying to change the laws of society to accommodate what has always been defined as indecent and inappropriate behavior (such as legalizing a gay person's rights to enter into a female locker room if they define themselves a "female identity". I do not believe society can abandon the principles of morality and survive intact. You might want to consider those consequences.

dmcvey
Los Angeles, CA

The Arizona Law didn't protect religious people--it singled out gay people for discrimination (which is already legal in Arizona). The states where someone has been sued for discriminating against gay people are states that have nondiscrimination laws that include gay people. It's dishonest to frame it as persecution of religious people.

The fact is, just as those who discriminated against blacks and wouldn't serve them at lunch counters are now viewed as hateful, so someday shall those who continue to treat gays as second class citizens. That's just the way it will be. And it can't come fast enough.

Meckofahess
Salt Lake City, UT

Since there are quite of few (at least they claim to be LDS) on this forum who favor a position contrary to their Church when it comes to gay marriage; it will be interesting to see what the leaders of the Church have to say about such stances by members in the next conference. Perhaps it is time to include a question about our affiliation or sympathizing with groups who are opposed to the doctrines of the scriptures and the Church as a qualification for a temple recommend?

slcdenizen
t-ville, UT

There is an elephant in the room regarding "Christians". Where does Jesus mention homosexuality? Before dusting off the Bible, it's not there. It's stuck in obscure verses surrounded by ignored rules in the Old Testament. If I choose to work on Sundays, should I fear for my life? How many amendments have been put forward to ban the consumption of shellfish? Those of us who support LGBT rights are not infringing on the rights of Christians because many of us who have studied the Bible are still scratching our heads as to why homosexuality receives such attention and condemnation.

Perhaps the argument for "christian" rights would be taken more seriously if an equally strident effort were made to curb wealth accumulation, poverty alleviation, or condemning strict adherence to rituals while ignoring the spirit of the law. Those were specifically mentioned by Jesus and often go completely unmentioned by the same groups complaining about their inability to denounce homosexuals without fierce objections.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@Meckofahess
"Perhaps it is time to include a question about our affiliation or sympathizing with groups who are opposed to the doctrines of the scriptures and the Church as a qualification for a temple recommend?"

[Latter-day Saints are free to disagree with their church on the issue without facing any sanction, said L. Whitney Clayton of the LDS Quorum of the Seventy. "We love them and bear them no ill will."]

The "issue" refers to Prop 8. There's nothing in church rules against supporting same-sex marriage as the law of the land (what the reaction is to someone advocating for the church itself to perform it... that's a different matter that I lack the answer for).

1aggie
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Meckofahess:
"Those of us who are LDS that are tempted to put aside our standards..."

Nope

Matthew 22
"Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt alove the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt alove thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

to comment

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