Published: Friday, March 28 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
"We believe homosexuality defies the purpose of our creation and offends our
Creator." The assumption of the writer is that homosexuality is a voluntary
condition that is contrary to the laws of the Creator, so it can and should be
discouraged in a variety of ways.But what if homosexuality is
inborn? In other words, what if gays and lesbians are "born that way?"
That means they are the way God made them. And the writer's logic falls
completely apart.And the Jim Crow reference is completely accurate
in anticipating the treatment to gays and lesbians anticipated by the writer.I believe the traditional family is best - heterosexuals married with
children. It's what we know best. But what are gays and lesbians supposed
to do with their lives? To deprive them of family is a cruel matter.Many once believed Jim Crow was ordained of God. It took a long time to get
past that travesty. Let's not repeat it.The writer should set
forth in detail the discriminatory measures anticipated to be directed against
partners in same sex marriage.We need empathy on all sides.
Many Christian and Jewish denominations support same-sex marriages - to infer
that their doing so is false scriptural doctrine is insulting and weakens your
point - you are asking for tolerance and respect for your belief system while
refusing that same tolerance and respect to other belief systems. Additionally, it is fraudulent to suggest that those who follow the Sikh
belief system oppose same-sex marriage and would object to participating in
celebrations of same-sex unions. While it is true that a Sikh leader issued an
edict banning same-sex marriages, he does not have the authority of the Pope or
Mormon Prophet so it is not binding. Monogamous same-sex relationship are
strongly encouraged. Which brings me to the final problem with this
editorial - it is not just same-sex marriages that are the issues for people
such as the author - they object to participating in anything celebrating
same-sex monogamy - to pretend otherwise is disingenuous. This
entire editorial is deceptive. If you are going to claim religious
high ground, you should at least try to not violate one of the 10 Commandments
while making your point.
Ms. Updike's article makes the false assumption marriage is primarily a
religious concept and her comment, "people who adhere to a traditional
morality will be able to live according to their conscience," sums up her
antagonistic view toward same-sex marriage (SSM) by equating SSM with
immorality. We are speaking of changing civil laws that are not the purview of
any church. Her article could have been written in 1967 during the inter-racial
marriage debate. Her comment, "This is why individuals must have a right to
deny offering services" smacks of an earlier time.The courts
decide how far the First Amendment religious protection umbrella extends. I
doubt it extends to baking an identical cake sold to only straight couples. "We may be pushed out of certain industries, ostracized from certain
circles, and confined to a legal ghetto." Sorry, no tears, no
cheek-turning. Ms. Updike will be able to practice her religion, not be evicted
from her home, not be fired from her job, be able to be on her husband's
insurance policy, and to visit her family member in the hospital. The least her
baker friend could do is sell a cake to a gay couple.
This article touches on two issues. SS Marriage and the treatment of gay
people.The second one is certainly a much tougher issue.The first one? If you don't believe in SS Marriage I think that you
should not be forced to marry someone of the same sex. But, I still cannot see
how it affects you or me otherwise.
I wonder if this letter writer has any idea that when she lists all the benefits
of marriage as a social institution and then transitions to stating her
personal, subjective beliefs for only a certain type of marriage that she
unwittingly undermines her own position and makes the legal argument for
marriage equality. The reason conservatives have and will continue
to lose legal battles regarding SSM is because they are essentially saying,
"marriage is so great and provides so many benefits but we want to restrict
those benefits to only the specific types of marriage that we subjectively deem
worthy." I'm sorry but there is no religious test to obtain a marriage
license and your personal moral convictions do not matter. The Constitution
governs America, not your religion.
I grow increasingly weary of these types of articles. Dnews, don't you have
anything better to publish? These articles offer absolutely nothing
new to the debate. And it only makes us Mormons look worse. It's simple, you cannot discriminate based on religious beliefs. We
Mormons, of all people, should be sensitive to this. Just over 100 years ago we
were abused, discriminated against, and kicked out of the east because of the
"religious beliefs" of others.I have some good advice to
some of these business owners who don't want to use their creativity for
gays: get out of the service industry. If you can't take
serving all, then get out. Find something better to do with your life. Or move
away to a country where religious law and discrimination reign.
Denying services that are offered to the general public will lead to a total
breakdown of society. Would I be able to deny service because someone is
wearing a religious garment that is contrary to my beliefs? Would I be able to
deny service because a customer with 8 kids comes into the shop and I don't
like big families? Would I be able to deny service if I don't like
anything at all about anyone who comes through the doors? Take these
hypotheticals and magnify them a million fold. This is the exact wrong approach
and is totally contrary to the teachings of Christ as I read them. Has
Christianity now gone non-Christian?
Considerate, has to be a shared idea by everyone. We have a state, we vote for
our laws. [ Truth in taxation, we don't], that's besides the fact. If
that is the law. A federal judge shouldn't come in and change the laws.
That's rude, inconsiderate, that's abuse of power. Bad manners.
It's not the books that guide us; it's God. When God speaks, nothing
else needs to be said. God has clearly and definitely spoken about same-sex
sex. He has clearly and definitely spoken about marriage, about the fact that
it is between a man and a woman.The only argument that some
homosexuals have is that they don't believe in "my" God, as if
unbelief in an eternal law changes that law. Other homosexuals tell us that we
need to "forgive" everyone. That is true, but they leave off the fact
that before any of us can be forgiven by Christ, we have to change. Absent that
change, Christ is bound by the eternal laws that His Father has set.It is impossible to accept something that many of us consider to be sin
without abandoning our religion. Accepting the act is not the same as showing
kindness to the "actor". We are commanded to love all "actors"
no matter what their "sin", but helping them celebrate a ceremony that
gives credence to a sexual "act" prohibited by God is not required.
@Laura Updike;" I am waiting to learn whether people who adhere
to a traditional morality will be able to live according to their
conscience."--- Please provde the scriptural reference where
your god commands you to deny services to "sinners" in order to
"live according to your conscience"."...it was an
attempt to create a conscientious objector status for people who don’t
want to participate in or lend their creative powers to same-sex
celebrations."--- Should we allow bigotry in the public square
then?"...same-sex marriage is not a building block of society.
It’s an affront to our consciences."--- You feel
"affronted"? What about the LGBT couples you denigrate?"Should we employ our creative skills toward something we find
fundamentally immoral? "--- Isn't bigotry
"fundamentally immoral"? Jesus said "Do unto others..."."This is why individuals must have a right to deny offering
services."If you won't serve every customer, do not go into
business. Your choice.
"We may be pushed out of certain industries, ostracized from certain
circles, and confined to a legal ghetto."Oh, you mean like
religious social conservatives did you gay people?
Re: Mike Richards "It is impossible to accept something that many of us
consider to be sin without abandoning our religion." So the irresistible
force meets the immovable object. What are we going to do? Rip our society
apart? It's possible, this conflict happening on top of a collapsing
middle class. Was Putin right when he said we would fragment within 10 years?
The question in debate here is very simple but very important. Does individual
religious freedom extend to the market place (society as a whole) through the
conscience of a business owner? Or does individual religious freedom end at the
boundary of the individual person? The whole question only arises
because of a nasty intolerance that is endemic to modern religions. It's
an absolute intolerance for anything they personally object to. By absolute I
mean modern persons of faith have come to believe that any contact with
"evil" regardless of how remote or benign taints their relationship with
God. Odd that Jesus walked amongst the sinners but if I bake a cake
for a gay wedding I have offended my conscience and God. No one would claim
Jesus condoned the sins but it's clear he wasn't offended by the
The more I listen to the arguments from SSM opponents the more they appear to
come accross as mean, spiteful and unchristan. I'm torn between having
sympathy or anger towards their prejudice. I truly feel sorry that giving
somebody equal protection and consideration who believes and is different than
them, bothers them so. In the past, my prayers and hopes were for the LGBT but
now I think they must be for those whose fears, prejudices and beliefs seem to
consume their souls.
"How are people of traditional faiths supposed to act in this
environment?"I don't know. Maybe you should just try
minding your own business and allow consenting adults to live their lives.
@marxist:"What if God made them that way?" God gives weaknesses
to us so we will come to him and learn that he can carry our burdens. We are
not victims of our genes. We can obey Him in spite of what we are born with.
Those born with genes for addictions need not succumb to alcohol and drugs. God
has the power to strengthen them and help them be obedient.
@pragmatist:Baking a cake for a gay marriage has to do with lending
legitimacy to a sinful lifestyle. Jesus invited sinners to a higher ground
asking them to repent and change. He didn't walk among them in a statement
of condoning how they lived.
@ Mike Richards, since when did we live in a theocracy? Who gets to decide?
The majority? Then I guess you were OK with Missouri back in the 1830s.
Those arguing for traditional marriage are willing to do some giving and taking.
You won't find the same from the gay/lesbian side. Traditional marriage
advocates favor civil unions for gays and lesbians. Let's hear from gay
and lesbian advocates as to how they can show tolerance for traditional marriage
advocates whose beliefs are just as strong as the other side.
I am somewhat sympathetic towards people who genuinely (and without bigotry)
hold this view… let’s assume for the sake of argument they exist.However, the author seems a bit confused as to what it means to be a
conscientious objector. In the context of war (where this is typically applied)
a conscientious objector can be excused from duties that will involve direct
killing (infantry), but he is not excused from supporting the war effort of his
nation. Usually they are assigned duties like medic or a behind the lines
function.If this is correct and the analogy holds, then a
conscientious objector towards gay marriage seems to be on solid ground when he
asks not to be forced to have a gay marriage (i.e., if you don’t believe
in gay marriage, don’t marry someone of the same sex). But he
cannot use that status as a means to discriminate in the operations of a
business both serving and deriving it’s livelihood from the public.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments