Published: Saturday, April 26 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
"and that most of those who oppose gay marriage are not motivated by blind
prejudice but by deeply held religious views."Here's the
thing though... can a religious view also be prejudiced?
Opponents of marriage equality have failed, repeatedly, to provide a rational
basis for their position. Absent any credible evidence, they now fall back on
claims of "deeply held religious beliefs." Is it really
necessary to review the many compelling reasons why our nation is _not_ a
How does the Lords Prayer go. It has something about trespassing in it. I think
that fences are important.
Here's the irony my friend. If you hold a deep religious view
and someone vocally opposes that view, even to the extent that they exercise
their first amendment rights with peaceful marches you are being
"persecuted". Your word.persecute.. to treat (someone)
cruelly or unfairly especially because of race or religious or political
beliefs.Just how are you being persecuted? What unfair thing has
resulted to you from the SSM folks vociferously expressing their views?On the other hand what unfair thing has happened to the gay community because
of your deeply held religious views? Ahhhhhhhh, pretty obvious. So
who is being persecuted in this debate?
How many in this forum truly believe they will be forced to enter into gay
marriage when we cast the shackles of prejudice aside?
You can hold your religious beliefs as deeply as you'd like, but you
don't get to rewrite the law to force others to observe them with you.If you don't believe in same-sex marriage, don't get one.
You can keep your deeply held religious belief. Same sex marriage will triumph,
and we shall all have diversity.
The referenced statement seem to be saying that punishment shouldn't be the
effect of one side winning the argument. I agree. This should never be the
intent - it's neither right nor necessary. Because when society as a whole
begins to see a particular view as harmful and abhorrent, disapproval and even
stigmatization of those who hold the view is inevitable. It's just how
things work at a societal level. How do you keep this from feeling like
punishment to those being frowned upon?The statement's message
seems akin to the view that "everyone should get a trophy." It's
patronizing and condescending, and it asks adults to protect other adults from
their feelings. This is lowering our standards. The standard is:
Everyone has a right to believe what they choose and everyone else has a right
to disagree with and criticize what others choose to believe. "Deeply held
religious beliefs" are not exempt from this standard.Re: the
complaint of "persecution": What's being lost is privilege, not
rights. The parallel is not going from being free to worship to being prevented
from worshipping. It's more like going from leather car seats to cloth.
Interesting that all the posters decided to ignore the pleas of the SSM
advocates who wrote the letter to which the author is referring. They appear to
hate those who feel differently than they so much they continue with their
tirades despite the pleas of the leaders of their cause.Blue,marriage equality has always existed. When the same rules apply to all, no
one is being treated unequally. No amount of sophistry can change that.No need to install a theocracy, just accept the religious freedoms
rights guaranteed by the 1st amendment - I gather from your comments you really
resent that pesky part of the bill of rights.pragmatist,to
boycott, force resignations, sue in court, take away a business license, force
someone to participate in something with which they strongly disagree - those
are also forms of persecution.Jl,be forced into gay marriages
- not yet, but having marriages performed in our churches and temples not be
recognized is a very real danger.
Since she doesn't believe in same-sex marriages she shouldn't have
one. That said, she has absolutely no business whatsoever using her
"sincerely held religious beliefs" to violate the civil rights of other
Americans who do not believe the way she does.Persecution,
ma'am, is being denied the same civil rights that the persecutor enjoys.
"that most of those who oppose gay marriage are not motivated by blind
prejudice but by deeply held religious views."Sorry, I
can't see a difference.
@Schnee:"Here's the thing though... can a religious view also be
prejudiced?"Of course it can... For example, religions preach
against sinful conduct. People who sin may very well find themselves in a place
@Blue:"Opponents of marriage equality have failed, repeatedly, to
provide a rational basis for their position."Here's some
rational bases... allowing SSM will mean you also must be in favor/allow any
other type of arranged marriage to occur... such as polygamy, mother/son,
father/daughter/ cousins, groups of people who love each other. Maybe, even a
tree or radish as a bride.@pragmatistferlife:"So who is
being persecuted in this debate?"Polygamists, maybe?@Jl:"How many in this forum truly believe they will be forced to
enter into gay marriage when we cast the shackles of prejudice aside?"Perhaps kids who are taught in their youth that SSM is normal conduct...
which it isn't.
Deeply held religious beliefs are your right. There is no infringement to
practice these beliefs in your own personal life. But, to impose them on society
at large through a democratic political system which allegedly guarantees all
citizens due process and equal protection under the law, is not your right.
@pragmatistferlife - You make an excellent point that SSM advocates feel that
they are persecuted. However, the bakery and photographer who were nearly run
out of business over their SSM policies could have felt persecuted, too.Frankly, there's persecution going around on both sides.If a family moved away because they were offended by a SSM couple living next
door, would that be deemed persecution to the SSM couple?
@lost in DC"They appear to hate those who feel differently than they
so much they continue with their tirades despite the pleas of the leaders of
their cause."I didn't approve of the Mozilla boycott,
though that is the right of people to do something like that. Throughout that
whole thing I still used Firefox like I almost always do.@wrz"Here's some rational bases... allowing SSM will mean you also must
be in favor/allow any other type of arranged marriage to occur... such as
polygamy, mother/son, father/daughter/ cousins, groups of people who love each
other"By that argument I assume you (in order to be
"rationally" consistent) oppose interracial marriage since it's the
repeal of those bans that set up the court precedent for striking down marriage
bans now being used on Prop 8/Amendment 3 etc.
"However, the bakery and photographer who were nearly run out of business
over their SSM policies could have felt persecuted, too."Difference here is the businesses were breaking the law..they committed the
first act of persecution. The SSM folks only asked for their legal right.The guy who was "forced" to resign was made to do so by his
company not the SSM folks. They protested and boycotted but the company had a
perfect right to say so what. The company decided that the employee had done
damage to the corp.
wrz said: "...allowing SSM will mean you also must be in favor/allow any
other type of arranged marriage to occur."Not so. Gays and
lesbians are simply desirous of having a monogamous marriage with the one they
cherish, just like you. It doesn't open any doors that aren't already
open to heterosexuals: the door to monogamy.
@gmlewis;Re: the baker, florist and photographer. They are welcome
to believe "sincerely" that same sex marriages are a sin. They are in
business, however, to make money. If they provide cakes, flowers or photographs
to/of weddings, I expect to be treated just like any other customer when I enter
their place of business and request the same product they provide to everyone
else.If they can't do that, they should get into another line
of work where they won't be exposed to things that are against their
"sincerely held religious beliefs" (such a place doesn't exist).Additionally, unless they submit a questionaire to ALL customers, and
refuse to do business with ALL sinners, then they really can't use
"sincerely held religious beliefs" as an excuse for their utterly
boorish behavior of refusing to serve LGBT customers.
What if I want to marry my horse or perhaps the 12 year old next door and you
oppose my "right" to do so, is that being prejudiced?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments