Quantcast
Utah

Doug Robinson: Same-sex marriage: A topic too toxic to discuss

Comments

Return To Article
  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    Jan. 14, 2014 11:53 a.m.

    I appreciate the call for civil dialogue but that dialogue must be based on truth and reality. You cannot have a discussion if one side believes erroneous information such as homosexuality is a choice. It is not a choice. Once a person can accept that reality then a discussion can take place. I believe most people are fair minded and want all people to pursue and obtain happiness.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 14, 2014 11:55 a.m.

    If you want open honest dialogue, then start by acknowledging that marriage as it exists now is not the same marriage that has existed throughout thousands of years of history - even in the Judeo-Christian traditions marriage has changed over the years.

    If you want honest discussion, you must first be honest about what you want to defend and why.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 12:12 p.m.

    We're finally seeing pushback in areas where it is long overdue. This isn't a toxic subject; you're just used to being able to maintain an untenable position without challenge.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 12:11 p.m.

    The "If you don't agree with and 'accept' me then you hate me" assertion is the same kind of hypocritical nonsense as that used by people who insist that if you disagree with and oppose any of President Obama's agenda then you are racist.

    It is the kind of non sequitur used by all sorts of people who fear actually engaging in real argumentation. Sadly, it inhibits the kind of productive argumentation that we so desperately need as a society, as anyone familiar with the operations of the Federal government in the last decade or so can easily see.

    The whole idea behind the empirical method of science it an attempt to distance the advocacy of some proposition (aka, theory) and the investigation to determine its validity. That kind of objective, dispassionate approach to discussions of a variety of social topics is something I adore and hope will eventually, after all the other alternatives are found to be worthless, return as the preferred method.

    But honestly, knowing human beings as I do, I'm not holding my breath while waiting.

  • freedomingood provo, Utah
    Jan. 14, 2014 12:18 p.m.

    You can't discuss it? But aren't you?

    The problem comes from the inability of some to realize that living their religion in a free society has nothing to do with someone else living YOUR religion.

    With the demographics of the US changing, you better fight to keep religion OUT of politics or you are going to find yourself forced to live someone else's religion.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    Jan. 14, 2014 12:22 p.m.

    Thank you, Doug, for your balanced approach. It is possible to have good conversations even where people disagree. I love Larry Miller's approach. No matter where we stand, we can all listen more and be more empathetic.
    People are usually ok with disagreement, but want to know they are understood. I am both gay and Mormon. I live my faith and don't act on my gay feelings at all. I think I understand both sides. I see examples where people disrespect the good intentions of religious people, but I honestly feel most misunderstood by my own people in the church. The most difficult thing for me is when people can't accept that a same-sex orientation is not chosen and cannot be changed or when they insinuate that I personally am dangerous, less worthy, or spiritually weak just for having these feelings, despite the fact that I am completely faithful.
    To religious people who want to help make the conversation productive, I encourage you to follow Larry Millers's example and listen to people you know and trust who are gay. If you don't know anyone, look up and watch the Voices of Hope videos.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 12:31 p.m.

    "You can't touch this... doooo do do do".... (MC Hammer Circa 1990)

  • JoCo Ute Grants Pass, OR
    Jan. 14, 2014 12:41 p.m.

    Aren't prejudices wonderful, especially when they are institutionalized by religions or states. Prejudices allow members of a large group to feel better and more worthy while at the same time creating a second class to look down on. We could even make them wear pink stars. Until the federal government stepped in the state of Virginia outlawed marriage between blacks and whites under the claim of states rights.

    I've not seen one bit of information that says churches will be forced into performing gay/lesbian marriages. A marriage license is a government issued certificate. . . no different than a drivers license or a dog license. No religion runs the government.

    Marriage between gay/lesbian couples no more threaten traditional marriages than traditional marriages somehow threaten gay/lesbian marriages.

  • EPJ Grantsville, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 12:42 p.m.

    Cricket chirping. . .

    Where are all the shrill voices vilifying Doug Robinson as a hateful, intolerant bigot? Maybe their absence is because Doug's commentary makes a lot of sense. Respectful dialogue on any topic is possible, but it takes both sides to make it happen.

    Amen, Doug!

  • Mona Beaverton, OR
    Jan. 14, 2014 12:55 p.m.

    I miss the days of dialogue when we could engage with people of different mind-sets. Larry Miller knew how to do it; I wish I did. Now it's all labels and name-calling when your beliefs represent a traditional stance. I believe in 'live and let live' but that is no longer good enough. Others want to force me to change my beliefs, and when I don't, there come the labels and slurs. Sheesh.

  • a bit of reality Shawnee Mission, KS
    Jan. 14, 2014 12:57 p.m.

    I don't think the message from the gay community is that "if you don’t support everything they want or do, or the choices they make, then [you're evil]."

    I think there message is this: if you are against same-sex marriage, don't marry somebody of the same sex, and this: if your religious beliefs inform you that it is sinful to sell cakes to certain Americans, you probably shouldn't be in the cake business.

  • Billy Bob Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 1:01 p.m.

    This issue illustrates the difference between religious (including Mormon/other Christian), and secular viewpoints. For me and other Christians, there is no problem with saying "I hate sin but I don't hate the one doing it". There are many sins that people commit that are bad things to do, but relatively few that would make the one committing it is a bad person just because they commit a certain type of sin (drug abusers are usually not bad people all around, for example even though they are doing a sinful thing). For me homosexuality falls in this same sort of category.

    People who look at things with a secular viewpoint, however, seem to think that if I hate the sin that someone commits, then I must hate the person. That is not true. If that were the case, I would hate everyone (including myself) because I hate all sin and everyone is a sinner. This secular viewpoint is what leads to hate from the people who support same sex marriage. Few, if any LDS friends and acquaintances that I know hate homosexual people. The hate, at this point in the issue, is coming mainly from the supporters of SSM.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 1:06 p.m.

    Here's what I don't get. Let's say a baker in Mississippi refused to make a cake if the delivery address was to an LDS chapel. This newspaper would be fully supportive of the Southern Baptist owners of that bakery, since their beliefs say that the LDS church is a cult, and they don't do business with cults. Or would that be religious discrimination? Then tell me what the difference is, except that you DO choose your religion, and you don't choose your sexual orientation.

  • Yorkshire City, Ut
    Jan. 14, 2014 1:07 p.m.

    I was wondering if Larry H. Miller then changed his mind and allowed Brokeback Mountain to play in his theaters?

    Or did he stick to his guns and the Gays and Lesbians let him have his standard without more complaint, out of respect to him for his willingness to meet with them and learn about their feelings?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 1:17 p.m.

    Kalindra is right... the definition of "marriage" has changed throughout time.

    Back in the Bible era of Solomon and King David Polygamy was normal. Now it's not.

    I'm pretty sure they even had same-sex marriage at some times in the Bible, in some areas (like the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for instance). But that's the problem... Many Christians don't want to live in Sodom or Gomorrah ... and they don't want to have to leave the United States.

    ===

    I think Christians will find a way to tolerate same-sex marriage (IF it is mandated by the courts or the Government)... they already have in many States. But don't expect them to like it.

    If what the GLBT community is wanting and waiting for is for all Christian people to accept same-sex marriage as "normal"... it will probably never happen.

    IF they can be satisfied with the Government mandating that these marriages be legitimized... I think everybody will find a way to be OK with it, but still not embrace it as "Normal" in God's eyes.

    ===

    I think the definition of "Marriage" will continue to change as these groups get their way.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 1:24 p.m.

    As a happily-married, hetero-LDS, I understand the position many of my fellow members and leaders have take. But I do not agree with continuing to deny same sex couples the benefits of marriage equality. It seems like mingling religious influence with civil law to favor our own religious views on marriage at the expense of their rights (D&C 134).

    We can say we "love" our gay and lesbian fellow-citizens, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, etc., but it is just talk so long as we continue to support discriminatory laws that continue to make those "beloved" people into second class citizens.

    The Apostle James wisely called on believers: "Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith BY my works".

    The same goes for "love". Showing our fellow citizens our "love" without the works of marriage equality rings hollow. But there are many of us who will show our "love" BY supporting marriage equality.

    Abandoning the false notion of "supporting traditional marriage" as a euphemism for being against marriage equality is a start! I support BOTH!

    We would hope for no less if the tables were turned against us.

  • Vladhagen Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 1:40 p.m.

    The thing that I find odd is how some in the LGBT community want to rally around the concept of people living how they want and leaving everyone else alone, then turn right around and throw down litigation (the article mentioned several cases) on anyone who lives "how they want" by refusing to make wedding cakes or take photos. Part of "living how you want" might include speaking out against gay marriage. You cannot have both sides of the coin.

    Do I hate gays and lesbians? Who knows. It all depends on what you define hate as. If you mean "has a moral opposition to homosexuality," then yes, I guess it is "hate." But, I have never, nor ever will, go out and throw stuff at and abuse gays. Why would I? It is not morally proper to do so.

    @Noodlekaboodle:We once took our dry cleaning to a certain shop. We came back to pick it up and were told that it had been sent to a different place because "You are Mormons." So I went to the other business, paid for my cleaning, and have not been back to the first place. No more to be said.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 1:41 p.m.

    Lots of people don't "choose" to be tempted by a particular sin.

    Some people naturally have a bad temper and are easily prone to violence. That doesn't excuse assaults.

    Many heterosexual people are naturally attracted to members of the opposite sex who are not their spouse. That doesn't excuse adultery or fornication.

    Lots of people are easily hooked on drugs or alcohol. That doesn't excuse bad behavior with those substances either.

    Just because a person did not consciously choose to have same-sex attraction does not give them free license to commit acts that defy God's laws under the guise that they don't have any choice but to do so.

    Just like with every other sin, you have a choice whether to obey God or not, but realize that there are consequences whether you acknowledge them now or not.

  • Kaimipono San Diego, CA
    Jan. 14, 2014 1:42 p.m.

    There's a lot to like here. I agree that civil dialogue is necessary, and all too uncommon.

    However, civil dialogue has to be based on accurate understandings of fact. This piece circulates some incorrect facts. The New Mexico case was not based on marriage provisions, but on anti-discrimination laws. (New Mexico was not a state with legalized same-sex marriage.) Many of the stated fears about same-sex marriage aren't about marriage laws at all, but about anti-discrimination laws. It's important to remember that they are not the same thing.

  • SLCPorter SLC, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 1:50 p.m.

    I think Jesus was pretty clear on our marching orders in this life. He said that we should love one another as he has loved us, and that we should not judge one another. What I dont understand is how so many professed followers of Christ can, in light of these two commandments, justify all of their hate for the gay community and passing judgment on their "lifestyle." It is not my job to judge, only to love God's children -- all of them. God will take care of the rest.

    Who knows, we might just be surprised who we run into in the afterlife!

  • Reasonable Person Layton, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 1:53 p.m.

    Looks like Don Gale (KSL commentator for many years, LDS employee) has set the goal for all here.

    Read his article in the Salt Lake Tribune, about four goals for the LDS church.

    Puts all the arguments to rest, from an insider's point of view.

  • riverofsun St.George, Utah
    Jan. 14, 2014 1:57 p.m.

    Larry Miller was a great man in many respects, but according to his widow on her frequent TV spots, he did not take care of himself and died from diabetes complications..
    Now there is another lesson from Larry for all of us to remember!

  • Payito American Fork, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 1:59 p.m.

    I wonder why the tax laws that discriminate against singles vs. married is not changed? For me that would be the biggest change that needs to happen for the gay and lesbian community as well for all single people. Everyone should be on equal grounds as far as paying taxes are concerned.
    This is one of the root causes for the gays and lesbians seeking "marriage".

  • TallGuy1970 Syracuse, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 2:14 p.m.

    @SLCPorter, you said, "... justify all of their hate for the gay community and passing judgment on their "lifestyle."

    This to me is a perfect example of the toxicity Doug mentions. You say people you don't know and haven't met are hateful and judgmental. Granted, you have likely met some exactly like that, but your post is implying that all who don't agree with same-sex marriage are not following Christ. You then go on to say we shouldn't judge, but haven't you done exactly that?!

    Despite what some believe, or want to believe, it is quite possible to love a person but not love their actions. I know this because I am a father. I love my children with all of my heart. Does this mean I agree with and like everything they do? Absolutely not, but that doesn't change my love for them.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 2:22 p.m.

    SLCPorter

    Re: "I think Jesus was pretty clear on our marching orders in this life. He said that we should love one another as he has loved us, and that we should not judge one another"...

    Did he not judge the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah? And did he require his people to get out and not even look back? I think he did.

    Do you really think that today... he has changed and would now teach us to just accept it as "normal"? I don't. I can tolerate it... but don't ask me to accept it as "normal" or sanctioned by God. The government saying "It's OK"... doesn't automatically mean God says it's OK.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 2:27 p.m.

    "Part of "living how you want" might include speaking out against gay marriage."

    --------

    You may speak out against gay marriage. No one is stopping you. But you cannot speak out against it and think that you will not be challenged on what you say. You have the right to speak but do not have the right not to be critized for your statements. If you are sure of the truthfulness of what you say, it does not matter what people call you.

    If you want to listen to their rebuttals, you might learn something. Read the constitution. Read Loving v Virginia. Read the Prop 8 trial transcript. Read, talk, and learn where the opposite side is coming from.

  • Diligent Dave Logan, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 2:29 p.m.

    The LHM story is a good one about Larry. But look at how what the LGBT community does on their end to promote their own idea of what is right and what is wrong. IMO, while 'civil' dialogue should be encouraged, it is not a one way street. And, my experience has taught me that what the LGBT community and individuals not only ask for, but demand (with threats) is their own form of bullying (if they consider how they have themselves to have been mistreated to be wrong).

    But if people start calling them heterophobes (as they call those who oppose their lifestyle as homophobes), would they accept it, as it is implied those they accuse are to accept as correct the labels they try to apply to them?

    I believe that heterosexuality and homosexuality cannot long co-exist. It makes for a house divided. IMO, the natural consequences of a heterosexual society openly or even just tacitly allowing a homosexual subculture to go on will eventually result in the destruction of society as a whole. But allowing other sexual perversions, like adultery, fornication, pedophelia, etc, are also deadly for civilization.

  • Kaladin Greeley, CO
    Jan. 14, 2014 2:31 p.m.

    For there to be civil dialogue you must first have all the facts straight - in other words, if you just agreed with my point of view I would consider your thoughts to be civil dialogue. hilarious.

  • Crisco B Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 2:35 p.m.

    One flaw that I see at times is that we take the concept of Jesus loving all people and exploit it to mean "condone all things that you deem immoral." We cannot teach about how much Jesus loved people and forget the fact that he also told people they were sinners. You cannot have only the Care Bear Jesus. Jesus was what he said he was. And part of that was his condemnation of sin. Did Jesus stone homosexuals? No. So neither do I.
    However, some of Jesus' largest opponents, and those to whom he addressed several sermons of condemnation for their acts, were those who sought to obfuscate and change the laws of God. Do not call Jesus into the public discourse for his words of love, then tell him to get lost when it comes to his views on sin.

  • sid 6.7 Holladay, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 2:49 p.m.

    RE: I'm LDS Two,

    Best comment ever posted regarding SSM on any of these boards.

    Hopefully it won't fall on deaf ears.

    Thank You

  • IndeMak South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 3:03 p.m.

    The world is making it unpopular to be able to voice your opinion if you are ultra conservative. Most conservative Americans are too afraid of retribution to say anything that may be seen by some as "hateful" by some. I'm not politically correct and right now I can hide behind this screen name.

    If you want to marry a refrigerator, go ahead. If you feel you need to marry someone of the opposite sex, go ahead. Who am I to judge? Don't try and tell me that I should teach my children that same same sex marriage is fine. I will never teach that to any of my children. I won't bash it or hate anyone that thinks it is ok. My traditions and understanding teach me that marriage and procreating happen between man and woman.

    If some feel it is necessary, go ahead and bash my belief. I still won't change. I still care and love everyone. I just don't love everything we all do. The same can be said for me. Be happy!

  • What I Would Tell A Friend Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 3:20 p.m.

    "JoeCapitalist2" is the one who hit the nail on the head. I have often felt that I understand very well when a homosexual person says he or she was born that way because I feel the same way about myself on the other end of the spectrum--left to my own devices, I would readily sleep with a significant percentage of the women I see. And I am happily married; I love my wife, I think she's terrific. But it has been a many-year, extraordinary effort to learn to rein my thoughts in whenever I am not with her and see any reasonably attractive woman elsewhere. And I don't think it will ever become easy for me. But I understand why one of the Ten Commandments is to not commit adultery; surely a large portion of the male population deals with issues similar to mine.

    To be continued.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 3:20 p.m.

    Crisco B

    Salt Lake City, UT

    One flaw that I see at times is that we take the concept of Jesus loving all people and exploit it to mean "condone all things that you deem immoral." We cannot teach about how much Jesus loved people and forget the fact that he also told people they were sinners.

    -----------------

    Just because Jesus was able to judge sinners (he was perfect, btw, and had perfect knowledge of them and their lives), does not mean that we should judge others. In fact, he told us not to judge. He said that if we did, we too would be judged with the same amount of knowledge that we judged others. Now that is scary. Have you the understanding of homosexuality to be able to judge whether or not a gay person should have the same rights and privileges under the law that you enjoy or not?

    I always hear people say that they love gays but hate the sin. Then they assume that gays are not righteous enough to use the title "married" with the seriousness that it implies and act to stop them from doing so. That is loving them?

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 14, 2014 3:28 p.m.

    Mr. Robinson,
    Nice try...but you still need to do better than this.

    You wrote:
    "The message from gay marriage proponents is: If you don’t support everything they want or do, or the choices they make, then you hate them and you are bigoted, homophobic, intolerant, hurtful, etc"

    You didn't offered any explanation but a confirmation of this statement in the same paragraph.

    I am a regular gay man, and I can honestly say I don't hate anyone. I love discussion of all kinds and respect all people even those with whom I disagree.

    The only thing LGBT want is the right to marry as heterosexuals do.

    Are we asking you to join us in celebration. No! we are not.

    We respect your beliefs and feelings. However, you have legislated and helped other communities to legislate to discriminate against LGBT.

    The DN published an article about being "civil". Part of that civility requires that in order to communicate we discuss issues bringing to the table facts, laws, history and any other verifiable tool. Is that too much to ask.

    Please leave your fears based on false assumptions and we'll talk.

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    Jan. 14, 2014 3:32 p.m.

    I can agree with the toxicity for sure. Unfortunately I can't hear the "other side" very easily. Whatever bullying or discrimination or isolation anyone has ever felt fades away before the fact that >I< am bullied, discriminated against, and isolated by the tyrannical hysteria enforcing changes to marriage.

    No matter how honorable or good a German, Korean, Vietnamese, or possibly even an Afghan soldier fighting back may be, the fact is they're shooting at me. I'm in a world in which I and those who have seen the truth of the Gospel proven time and again in society around us are being shot at by throngs who would destroy every chance our children have of success with many things things they call "good", but that only bring sadness and destroy financial and social freedom.

  • What I Would Tell A Friend Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 3:36 p.m.

    Had this discussion with my kids the other day, who asked how I would respond if one of them were to come to me with the revelation that they were gay. Beyond discussing obvious talking points about homosexuality that give pause to those who disagree with it (and I won't try to delineate them here because, despite their worth, I suspect my post would be censored), I pointed out that there are diverse struggles people deal with, all very real, and no one else is given a free pass because of the inherent nature of their trials. If in fact one of my own were to have these issues, it would be something to discuss intelligently and compassionately and make effort to overcome--as the rest of us must with our different struggles--rather than to dismiss as something to which they must be eternally resigned.

  • Anne26 West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 3:45 p.m.

    As a human being, I had my own set of weaknesses and propensity for sin. What is difficult for me, might not be difficult for someone else. I have sat in church meetings and felt my soul pierced with guilt because a lesson or talk was targeted exactly at what I was struggling with. I fall so short of what God asks me to be, as we all do.

    The important thing to remember is that God doesn't change his laws because we are imperfect. We can choose to follow Him and strive to keep His commandments, or we can choose to reject Him and follow after our own hearts. No one can make that decision for us, nor should they.

  • Nanook of the North Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 14, 2014 3:45 p.m.

    Too much overgeneralizing going on here. There are people on the pro-LGBTQ side who freak out and say stupid and hateful things and accuse everyone who disagrees with them of being hateful. There are many more who are calm, rational, and willing to talk with and listen to anyone on the other side who will give them the same courtesy. Meanwhile, we Mormons and those of other faiths who believe as we do? The same sentences apply equally. Yes, the more "vocal" ones are the ones that hit the news. So ignore them. Talk with your neighbours. Talk with your friends. Heck, talk with your family (I have a bunch of gay and lesbian cousins, plus a lesbian daughter). Listen, the way Larry Miller listened. Care, the way Jesus cared. And if they don't share our beliefs, then it's probably not your place to condemn or judge them; freedom of belief, remember? It applies to them just as much as it applies to us.

  • omni scent taylorsville, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 4:00 p.m.

    since two other posts brought up Sodom, let's go to what the bible says:
    Ezekiel 16:49
    "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy."
    Sodom was destroyed because they didn't help the poor and needy. That's what the Bible says. The idea that it was destroyed for homosexuality came in the dark ages (during a time Mormon's reffer to as "thr Apostacy")

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Jan. 14, 2014 4:00 p.m.

    re:JoeCapitalist2
    "Many heterosexual people are naturally attracted to members of the opposite sex who are not their spouse. That doesn't excuse adultery or fornication."

    Right.

    So why aren't cake bakers, photographers, and florists screening customers to make sure they are not adulterers or fornicators?

  • Anne26 West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 4:07 p.m.

    @What I Would Tell a Friend- One of the best comments I have read on this issue. Thank you for expressing your thoughts so well.

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    Jan. 14, 2014 4:14 p.m.

    I find it interesting that the mormon church is against homosexual marriages, yet the mormon church was persecuted in the 1800's for polygamy. It is indeed a double standard. They did not like being persecuted for living "nontraditional" marriage (polygamy), yet they are very vocal about their disdain for homosexual marriages. Don't they see that while they can have their beliefs and live as they choose, others should be given that same opportunity?

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    Jan. 14, 2014 4:14 p.m.

    The biggest problem I see for effective dialogue is the many people who refuse to understand that same-sex attraction is as innate, rich, and varied as what straight people feel.
    The LDS church’s own website states: "The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people...Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them."
    No amount of praying, preaching, legislating, or denial will change the reality that real people who we all love experience same-sex attraction. They have no more choice in how they experience the world and who they naturally find beautiful and interesting than you do. Can you imagine changing those things about yourself? People can choose to be in the closet or out, who to date and what to do in the bedroom, but they never get to choose their orientation.
    If you want to talk about gay people and what choices you hope they make, you need to realize that being straight is not one of those choices. They can be gay and celibate, gay and committed to one partner, gay and perverted, etc, but they will never be straight.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 14, 2014 4:15 p.m.

    @
    IndeMak
    You wrote:

    "The world is making it unpopular to be able to voice your opinion if you are ultra conservative. Most conservative Americans are too afraid of retribution to say anything that may be seen by some as "hateful" by some. I'm not politically correct and right now I can hide behind this screen name.

    If you want to marry a refrigerator, go ahead. If you feel you need to marry someone of the opposite sex, go ahead. Who am I to judge? Don't try and tell me that I should teach my children that same same sex marriage is fine. I will never teach that to any of my children. I won't bash it or hate anyone that thinks it is ok. My traditions and understanding teach me that marriage and procreating happen between man and woman. "

    Indemak, THANK YOU!! for expressing your feelings and giving us the freedom to marry whom we want. That is all we ask. You keep your beliefs, likes and dislikes and we keep ours.

    I repeat" that is all we ask". I wish more people were able to see it "our" (yours and mine) way.

  • EJM Herriman, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 4:15 p.m.

    Great column Doug. Still a lot of haters out there, on both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately.

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    Jan. 14, 2014 4:21 p.m.

    2 bits

    God passed his judgement on Sodom and Gomorrah, he didn't tell his church to do it for him. If he wants to destroy a whole city because of wickedness I think that many cities would have already been destroyed.

    The gay community should just start saying that their religion commands them to marry each other (just like the polygamists do) and then nobody could prevent them from doing it. That was the polygamist excuse, and still is today. 'God commanded me to do it'

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 4:22 p.m.

    @Valdhagen
    So, according to the law that is religious discrimination, and is illegal. Your reaction is pretty typical when someone is discriminated against, just take your business elsewhere. That's what most gay people do as well. There have been what, 2 or 3 suits like this against cake decorators. Do you really think that this type of discrimination only happened 3 times, and every single time there were lawsuits? Or do you think it was mostly people like you, who rolled their eyes and moved on? Out of all the gay people in America of course some are sue happy, they are still people, and still americans, it's not crazy that some of them are as sue happy as their straight counterparts. Just like i'm sure you don't want all mormons judged on Harry Reid or Glen Beck(no matter you political persuasions you don't like on of them) Why judge all gay people on 2 or 3 lawsuits?

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    Jan. 14, 2014 4:31 p.m.

    @What I Would Tell a Friend
    What does overcoming same-sex attraction mean to you? Where would you hope your kid would be at 50 years old?
    This is a very sincere question. I'm a totally faithful member of the church who experiences same-sex attraction but never acts on my feelings. I'm living life, single and celibate. I've read everything the church says on the topic, have a few close friends, family, and leaders who support me, but I don't know how to "overcome" it or even what that means.

  • donn layton, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 4:47 p.m.

    …by their fruits you will know them Mt 17:20. Fruit can be doctrines and Christians have the right to be fruit inspectors.

    Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men(1Cor 6:9)

  • KSB American Fork, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 4:48 p.m.

    Redefining marriage is not a minor cultural or policy change -- it effects everyone and all of society. We need to have a civil discussion about what that means, and Larry Miller is a good example of having civil dialogue -- it needs to continue. It is a major societal, public policy and law issue. An article entitled "What Is Marriage" was published in the Harvard Journal of Public Policy and Law. It is a good article to consider as part of a civil dialogue. The article can be located by doing an internet search on harvard-JLPP What Is Marriage.

  • Archie1954 Vancouver, BC
    Jan. 14, 2014 4:53 p.m.

    Here we have someone who is attempting to control the message, to alter the arguments, to make support of gay marriage seem somehow threatening to conventional marriage. It, of course, is nothing of the kind. It is no more and no less than the ultimate connection and commitment between two people who love each other, want to support each other and want to live as a couple, a socially acceptable unit for their whole lives. For Heaven's sake what in the world is wrong with that?

  • Ron Hilton Holladay, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 4:56 p.m.

    The same-sex marriage advocates are doing a great disservice to their cause by their shrill attacks and efforts to silence those of traditional faith. The public was starting to embrace the notion of marriage equality as a reasonable "live and let live" approach, but the militant demonstrations and litigiousness have undercut that perception and will backfire. Hopefully the pendulum will eventually reach a point in the middle where the definition of marriage is preserved but some accommodations are made for specific issues faced by same-sex domestic partners.

  • Born in Bountiful Provo, Utah
    Jan. 14, 2014 5:08 p.m.

    I commented on Senator's Reid's editorial in the Tribune recently. I asked for a civil discussion. All I got in return were messages calling me a bigot and worse. I have an opinion. I voice it civilly. I do not call those opposing my opinions names. I do not know whether homosexuality is a choice, a birth distinction, or a genetic predisposition. I know the gay population has been humiliated and treated poorly for many years. I willing accept the right to gay unions. I do not accept gay marriages. I believe in the tradition of marriage as being between man and woman. Thank you for letting me express my opinion.

  • joe5 South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 5:11 p.m.

    Brahmabull and others: The polygamy argument is a non-argument. The implementation, at least the Mormon implementation, was one man and one woman. Each marriage was independent of the others. The women were not married to each other. Though they sometimes lived under the same roof, their relationship with their husband was uniquely theirs. Indeed, some of the relationships were platonic. The only difference between those marriages and many today is that the partners did not have their first marriages interrupted by death or divorce.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 14, 2014 5:28 p.m.

    Let's compare and contrast the harm being done to each side, in this "toxic" discussion.

    On the one side, people are being called bigots. But, this doesn't curtail their right to speak their minds. It may hurt their delicate, self-justified righteous egos, but not their civil rights.

    On the other side, people are being accused of criminal activity (not true), subversion of society (not true), and are the active focus of a fear and hate campaign. They are being harassed, discriminated against and worse, but not for attacking anyone, just for living. When they complain about the harassment and ill-treatment, they are now being called intolerant. Meanwhile, they are being denied actual rights, those of property, guardianship, next-of-kin and survivorship by not being able to legally register their life partnerships. Not to mention housing and employment.

    Now, where shall we compromise between "yes" and "no?" I would suggest that it's right here in our separation between Church and State. Everyone can have their own way, but only on their own side of that line.

    Allow civil marriage for same-sex couples. Your temples are still sacrosanct.

  • Cleanliness Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 5:30 p.m.

    I think the comment about both sides of Jesus ("Crisco B.") is an interesting one. Lane Myer points out various attributes of Jesus (such as his cognizance of one's inner soul). I am not suggesting that any of us have that knowledge. But Jesus knows my soul, he knows what I understand about eternity. So I think that for me personally, I am going to be mighty careful about promoting marriage privileges for gays. It does not mean I hate them, it just means that I do not want to jump on the bandwagon of being politically correct.

    That being said, same gender attraction is massively complicated. People (read "members of the LDS Church") would do well to stop placing blame one way or the other as to why people experience same gender attraction. Who knows. There is not a hard and fast reason. Leave it at that. You will save yourself a lot of trouble. There are lots of wandering souls on all sides of the issues.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 5:36 p.m.

    @Ron Hilton
    "The public was starting to embrace the notion of marriage equality as a reasonable "live and let live" approach"

    A poll released today by SurveyUSA found that same-sex marriage support-opposition is 48-48 in Utah.

  • SoCalChris Riverside, CA
    Jan. 14, 2014 5:49 p.m.

    "So why aren't cake bakers, photographers, and florists screening customers to make sure they are not adulterers or fornicators?"

    These service providers had no problem with gay clientele. They had gay clientele.

    They did not want to participate in a same sex wedding ceremony. Using your comparison, it would be like requiring them to participate in some kind of celebration of adultery or fornication.

  • jasonlivy Orem, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 6:18 p.m.

    I get tired of hearing that the homosexual lifestyle isn't a 'choice'. There really is no other way to define it.

    Live the way you want to live. That is up to each individual and we live in a country where we can pursue happiness as one of our inalienable rights. You won't see me treat you any other way than the way I want to be treated. But to deny it's a choice is at the least disingenuous and at the worst simply wrong!

  • Just one more opinion Pleasant Grove, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 6:53 p.m.

    As fascinating as these debates are to read, I personally don't see there is no way to resolve this to satisfy both sides. The believers have been told and believe that homosexuality is a sin, same sex marriage is a sin and these came from God, and if they wish to go to Heaven then they are to support this belief, no compromise. Why risk going to Hell to please someone you don't know? Makes sense to me. So, as much as those who support or want same sex marriage and other's to see it there way, good luck, but I personally believe a good number would rather chop their foot off than displease God.

    Many of the same sex marriage supporters want proof, and guess what? This is a matter of faith, there is no proof. Let's say that my pastor told me that on July 17, 2017 God would smite everyone who practices homosexuality, same sex marriage or didn't vote in favor of traditional marriage only would be crushed by two ton honey mustard pretzels? Why, he's God, go ask him. So, to believers, good luck, but without proof, don't hold your breath.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 6:56 p.m.

    I love the story about Larry Miller, but after reading it a couple of times, it seems rather one sided. You see, I happen to know some of the people from the "other side" who met with him. They dedicate their lives to creating civil dialogue and work towards better understanding. I wish their names were mentioned as well, because they are just as important in the story about coming together to work out our differences.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Jan. 14, 2014 7:14 p.m.

    So...hmmm. If gays just want to be understood, how does a conversation about it start? Do those with the same gender attraction start the conversation? What do they say? Or do the straight people start the topic. How are they supposed to start the conversation?

    Straight person asks, "So do you prefer men or women? How is that going for you?"

    Or

    Gay person says, " Hey guess what. I'm romantically interested in my own gender. Isn't that great?"

    Awkward! Honestly, aren't these things supposed to be personal? For one thing, straight people don't want to know about gays' romantic interests. Really. We'd rather just not know. And I would bet gays don't care much about straight interests either.

    Another problem is heightened sensitivity on both sides. In trying to communicate, there should be rules that no rhetoric can be used. "Hater", "sinner", "bigot", "You're on the wrong side of history", "traditional marriage", etc should be banned from any and all conversations. And Proposition * should not be allowed to be brought up. Time to put that one in the past and let go of grudges.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 7:15 p.m.

    @ Kalindra

    OK; marriage as it exists is not the same throughout history - because through much of history polygamy was accepted,iIncest was common to keep bloodlines pure and both are more common biologically, religiously and socially than gay marriage.

    @ a bit of reality/Noodlekaboodle/truthseeker

    Your comparison of refusing to sell a gay wedding cake to discriminating against religion is a perfect example of bullying.

    There is no evidence that any of the people who have been harassed by menacing lawsuits have refused service to gays - they merely refused to make a specific product (cake or photograph) that violates their own philosophy - which is is exactly like a kosher deli not selling pork, a feminist bookstore not selling playboy or the Utah Pride Center not providing ex-gay information; while otherwise accommodating gentiles, men or straights. If a Baptist owned business does not sell the Book of Mormon - that is vastly different than not selling anything to Mormons. Confusing the two is disingeuous

    How does one have a civil dialogue with intellectual dishonesty?

  • WireNaut Lehi, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 7:17 p.m.

    In the end, it does come down to choice and trust. Do you trust Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father enough to choose to follow their plan of happiness, regardless of the difficulty and personal sacrifice? That question has not changed, and each of us need to answer it for ourselves in the context of our biology, passions, life's daily demands, personal history, rank, health and wealth (or any lack there of). "Forsake family for Christ's sake, receive hundredfold" (Matthew 19:29 and Luke 18:29-30).

    Being gay / lesbian may not be a choice, but following Christ is, and although I would occasionally like to not have all the rules and commandments, I believe the boundaries and structure are there for our benefit, and so I choose to try to keep them, even at personal sacrifice.

    Our biology, passions, personal history, life’s daily demands, rank, health, wealth (or any lack there of) are the context in which we cultivate and demonstrate our discipleship to Christ.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 14, 2014 7:26 p.m.

    @jasonlivy: I think I know what's wrong with your message. It's that phrase "homosexual lifestyle."

    BEING homosexual isn't a choice. I've heard a number of LDS here describe people as "struggling with SSA." Interesting choice of words, but it obfuscates the reality. Repressing oneself, denying yourself love and companionship, doesn't stop anyone from BEING homosexual. Once they realize they "struggle with SSA," they've actually realized they ARE homosexual.

    Those people will never be able to maintain a normal heterosexual relationship, never find romantic attraction in a member of the opposite sex. That's just how it is. There's nothing to fix or cure. The "choice" you are describing is a choice of hiding who you are, or of living openly with integrity and finding a compatible partner.

    So you're right, if you translate "living a homosexual lifestyle" to "coming out." That's the only choice they can make: life or the closet. For those who can't make that choice, and especially among teens in hyper-religious families, we see far too many suicides.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 7:47 p.m.

    The marriages of LGBT couples does nothing to denigrate traditional marraiges.

    @Mona;

    Nobody is telling you you can't live your "traditional" beliefs or making you live by ours. What we're saying is that you can' t make US live your beliefs.

    If a business owner isn't going to deny products/services to ALL those who violate their religious conscience (adulterers, fornicators, Sabbath breakers) and target only LGBT couples, then they really aren't concerned about their "religious conscience", they're just targeting gays.

    @2 bits;

    "Many Christians don't want to live in Sodom or Gomorrah ...."

    --- Too late: “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

    @JoeCapitalist2;

    I don't believe in your god. Why should I have to live by it's laws?

    @Crisco B;

    Jesus condemned the religious in his time more than any other group.

    @Tell A Friend;

    Overcome? There's nothing to overcome. I'm normal as I am. I perfect as I am. I do not need to change to suit someone elses criteria.

  • Calif PETALUMA, CA
    Jan. 14, 2014 8:49 p.m.

    The top comments are enjoyable. Glad to see this discussion on the DesNews.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Jan. 14, 2014 9:11 p.m.

    @ Quaker

    "Those people will never be able to maintain a normal heterosexual relationship, never find romantic attraction in a member of the opposite sex. That's just how it is."

    Not true. You may desperately want that to be true but it isn't. There are many people who have same gender attraction but have happy fulfilling marriages to the opposite gender. It takes some work and effort to change the way they think about marital intimacy. But it can and has been done. Most with same gender attraction don't want to do the work or have any motivation to. But there are some who have religious convictions that spur them on to put their homosexual feelings in their proper place and refuse to make it their whole identity. They take a dispassionate approach to those feelings and don't "feed the hungry dog". There are others who aren't necessarily religious but don't want to live by those attractions and have learned to suppress them. You say that giving in is the only choice with integrity. I say integrity comes from living according to ones' values.

  • Stephen Daedalus Arvada, CO
    Jan. 14, 2014 9:12 p.m.

    @Counter Intelligence
    “There is no evidence that any of the people who have been harassed by menacing lawsuits have refused service to gays…”

    AND

    …from Doug Robinson’s column: “In Oregon and Colorado, bakers refused to bake wedding cakes for gay couples because it was against their religious beliefs [and the one in Colorado was] ordered to make the cake by a judge.”

    Neither statement is true.

    The Colorado case involved Masterpiece Bakery/Cakeshop, in Lakewood, CO. Masterpiece Bakery’s owner admitted that it refused service to at least three gay couples over the course of several years, as a matter of policy. Given such admissions, it was a slam dunk for the Colorado Civil Rights Division to hold that Masterpiece violated Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Statute, which bars places of public accommodation – such as a bakery – from discriminating against customers based on race, religion, gender, and sexual-orientation. Given the stipulated facts, the judge upheld the ruling, but quite contrary to Doug Robinson’s mis-characterization, Masterpiece was not ordered to “make the cake” the couple originally requested. Instead the judge ordered Masterpiece to stop violating state law by discriminating against gay customers.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Jan. 14, 2014 9:31 p.m.

    @ Stephen

    The baker, photographers, etc were not refusing to serve gays. I just bet they would sell them a donut in a heartbeat. Or I would bet if that lesbian wanted a portrait of just herself done, the photographer would have absolutely no problem doing that.

    These business people were refusing to participate in a gay marriage. It's a totally different situation and disingenuous of the judges to not distinguish between serving a person and participating in a ceremony that is offensive to them.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 14, 2014 10:13 p.m.

    "On one hand, you have a group of people who have been marginalized and bullied throughout history and desperately want to be recognized."

    No Doug you got it wrong we gays want all of the 1000 tax breaks that you get,is that so hard to understand?

  • frugalfly PULLMAN, WA
    Jan. 14, 2014 10:30 p.m.

    Marriage and sexuality are moral issues not just legal ones. Government and church have a right to weigh in on such. They won't always agree but they deserve a voice in the public arena on such issues. Many gay people don't want gay marriage and don't believe in gay marriage. They just don't believe in marriage period. Many heterosexuals don't believe in marriage either. The real question is: Is a life long relationship between man and woman which has the potential to create the next generation of society worth special recognition? Is the benefit to the development of children of having a father and mother enough to warrant special recognition and status of such marriage?

    If not, then I say just do away with all legal or governmental acknowledgement of marriage and let people do what ever they want. Lets be honest the homosexual crowd isn't hurting the reputation of marriage as much as the heterosexual crowd who divorces at will, unfaithful with their pattern, abandoning responsibility, creating children outside of marriage. Let marriage be a religious thing performed and endorsed by religious organizations and keep the state out of such.

  • WestGranger West Valley City, Utah
    Jan. 14, 2014 10:39 p.m.

    The comments are in themselves a reflection of the polarization Robinson describes in his article. Unfortunately, our times will be remembered as a time when passion overcame reason, civility and open dialogue. There are many who sanctimoniously rebuke those who disagree with them. They feel that they have the right to bully others into submission in the name of their own cause. Many people have been terrorized, demonized and destroyed. Unless all sides unite against this fascism of thought and expression, tomorrow the price well may be a loss of freedom for everyone.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 14, 2014 10:43 p.m.

    @O'Really: I hope and pray that you are not one of those people. I can't imagine how miserable maintaining such a false life must be.

    The gay men and lesbians (by the way, they prefer "gay women") that I know are just as attached, happy, and suitably matched to their mates as I am to my wife of 30+ years. They could no more forge a similar attachment with the opposite sex than I could with my same sex.

    What you call "working to change," I fear is forcing yourself to live a lie. Worse than that, aren't you deceiving your poor partner? Marriage for many couples is difficult enough under the best of circumstances. About half of us get divorced as it is. Why go into something doomed from the start?

    Being honest about who and what God made you to be, and who you're romantically attracted to is what real personal integrity is. Disguising yourself to imitate someone you're not, is just deceptive. And either temporary or self-destructive.

    @Frugalfly: Atheists and mixed-religion couples need civil marriage.

  • jasonlivy Orem, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 10:50 p.m.

    Quaker

    I have a hard time believing the ONLY way people with homosexual tendencies will be truly happy is if they come out of the closet and live a homosexual lifestyle. What a narrow view of life that is! Fortunately that is not the case...

    The truth is that following the commandments of God and obedience to His laws are what leads to pure happiness. We all have tendencies that are contrary to His laws. The purpose of this life is to develop discipline, to humble ourselves, to call upon God in our moments of weakness, and find the strength to press forward irregardless of our 'natural man' desires.

    One of my favorite scriptures concerns the Tree of Life. Here we learn there are many paths to take. Most lead away from God and eventually to misery and wo. Only one path leads to the Tree of Life which is the pure love of God. And the only way we can get there is by keeping his commandments.

    There is hope for people with SSA and that is through the loving embrace of our Heavenly Father. This is the greatest message of all!

  • REALLY-WOW SLC, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 11:49 p.m.

    I have to admit that their are some great comments and strong points that have been discussed here. Especially about natural tendencies.

    I will also say that I think they momentum is going in favor of traditional marriage. To many people understand the importance of a marriage between a man and a women, and the longer the gays fight against it, the more people will jump on board to fight it. A very small percentage of non gays read these articles, and the longer this draws on, the more resistance the gays will have.

    My advice would be to accept a civil union and call it good. Just take the inch and be happy, don't try to take a foot.

    There have been a lot of educational argument against SSM. New and different one every day, that have very valid points.

    The arguments for SSM are the same and are getting old.

    The gays have to understand that this is a religious viewpoint and beliefs that are super strong and if they think that we religious people will be ok with it are absolutely crazy and up in the night.

  • Midway Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 11:49 p.m.

    You are all missing the issue:

    The issue isn't about the right of gays to marry - that right has always existed. Yes - even for a gay marriage - nobody is suggesting that police cars and swat teams show up to prevent a private gay wedding.

    The issue is the government recognizing gay marriage and thus changing the definition of marriage. Since a law passed by the government is force, then society is forced to accept it. Even though other solutions existed, such as civil unions.

    Since I don't like to be forced to do anything, I oppose the government forced redefinition of marriage, even though I could care less if two gay people get married.

    When the government forces this upon the people, public entities such as schools, businesses, adoption agencies, licensed marriage counselors, (the list goes ON AND ON) MUST (at least eventually) be FORCED to accept gay marriage as equal to heterosexual marriage. A sexual education class taught in an elementary school will eventually be forced to tell 5th graders that gay love-making is equal to heterosexual love-making and thus confusing the minds of young children.

    Government equals force.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 11:54 p.m.

    @Just One More Opinion
    " Let's say that my pastor told me that on July 17, 2017 God would smite everyone who practices homosexuality, same sex marriage or didn't vote in favor of traditional marriage only would be crushed by two ton honey mustard pretzels?"

    Hmm... you know, if we play our cards right we might be able to trade some same-sex marriages for some pretzel salt.

  • cjf Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 11:53 p.m.

    Since when did a wedding cake grow skin?????

  • canvas1 San Tan Valley, AZ
    Jan. 15, 2014 12:04 a.m.

    It is a fact many who struggle with same-sex attraction experienced arousal at a young age, be it from abuse or mutual fondling with another youth out of curiosity. They are not born gay, but will struggle with very confusing feelings sometimes leading to a gay lifestyle and sometimes not.

    My son was molested repeatedly 15 years ago when he was 7 by a neighborhood 14 yr old boy. We found out about it when our son was 13. He experimented as a preteen in gay acts because of it.

    The problem is the gay agenda, and other secularists movements, is attempting to eliminate any right or wrong aspect of sexual activity and that is dangerous. I believe my son as well as his 14 yr old perpetrator are victims of this.

    I believe that the gay movement has been high jacked politically to further advance a front targeting the religious foundation of our country and culture. They will not just stop or be satisfied with a redefinition of marriage.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 15, 2014 6:00 a.m.

    @O'Really, re your donuts v. wedding cake comment:

    So, let's say there was a restaurant that served a wide range of authentic Chinese food, but only to Chinese people. And a White couple walks in and wants to order Peking Duck and Shark Fin Soup. People all around them are enjoying dishes like those and equally exotic. And the waiter tells them, "No. That's not for you. You're not Chinese. How about some Chicken Chow Mein and Egg Drop Soup? That's all White people can eat here."

    How would that be? Fair? Legal? (By the way, something like this actually happened to me. It hurts.)

    If a baker sells wedding cakes to the public, they're not allowed to pick and choose who they sell them to on the basis of a protected class characteristic. They can't refuse to sell to divorcees, senior citizens, or to blacks, women ("Have your husband come in. We'll sell to him."), or Moslems, Mormons, or Jews.

    "Here, have a donut. Now go away."

    @jasonlivy: People with SSA are gay (unless they're bisexual). Maybe some can live a lie, but it's still a lie.

  • Stephen Daedalus Arvada, CO
    Jan. 15, 2014 6:22 a.m.

    @O'really: "The baker [was] not refusing to serve gays. I just bet they would sell them a donut in a heartbeat. ...These business people were refusing to participate in a gay marriage. It's a totally different situation and disingenuous of the judges to not distinguish between serving a person and participating in a ceremony that is offensive to them."

    The owner of Masterpiece Bakery conceded he refused to serve gays, so I am genuinely confused by your statement to the contrary. You may not be aware but Colorado does not recognize gay marriage, so there was no gay marriage ceremony for the baker to participate in, thus be offended by. The gay men who brought the civil rights claim against Masterpiece were already married in a different state by the time they arrived at the bakery door. Did the mere the idea that two men had been legally married elsewhere offend his religious sensibilities? Perhaps. Did that motivate his refusal to sell those men products that he sold other people? Perhaps. But in Colorado and most states with long standing anti-discrimination laws, religious belief is not and has never been a defense to discrimination in public accommodations.

  • What I Would Tell A Friend Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 7:24 a.m.

    @Tiago,
    I responded to you, but my post hasn't yet been either approved or denied, while I see some with later timestamps having gone through. I do hope the monitors see fit to post it, because a lot of thought was put into it and I think it answers your sincere question fairly well. If that comment doesn't get approved (I started it out saying I hoped it wouldn't be rejected, BTW), my apologies to you. I unfortunately am not in the position to spend a lot of time again, trying to be frank and deliberate, while at the same time playing the guessing game of what will be permitted to go through. In that case, I think the monitors will have done this discussion a disservice.

  • VirgilBrasscock SANDY, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 8:21 a.m.

    Um, being gay and in the LDS faith are mutually exclusive. If you are gay, you are not flawed oh ye faithful, run for your lives. Seek the truth and it will set you free even right here in Utah!

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 15, 2014 8:25 a.m.

    Those who defend the gay lifestyle by telling that Jesus' admonition to love one another justifies them have totally overlooked his admonition to those whom he healed when he instructed them to "go and sin no more". Twisting words will not promote understanding and acceptance. Redefining "marriage" will not promote understanding and acceptance. Denying God and mocking His doctrine will not promote understanding and acceptance.

    I spent many years servicing an account in San Francisco. The manager of that business was gay. He was one of the most decent men that I have even known. That business always bought me lunch, so the manager and I would walk to various restaurants near their business. Many times we were "greeted" with cat calls and wolf-whistles from gay men on Shotwell Street, where the business was located. The manager apologized to me for their behavior. He said "decent men would't act that way". Therein lies the key. Decent men act like decent men no matter the circumstance, no matter what they feel, no matter what they believe. They are decent.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 9:04 a.m.

    re: ".......because it propagated the species and was judged to be fundamental to the health of any culture; if you believe that every child deserves both a father..."

    If you want to believe the earth is square and not round you are free to do so, but you cannot codify your belief in the rules of navigation.

    How many times do courts need to show how irrational it is to believe that heterosexuals won't be able to procreate if homosexuals are allowed to marry. Or the best one of all, that homosexuals cannot reproduce or have families! Hint: Homosexuals use the same assisted reproductive technologies that heterosexuals can freely and legally avail themselves. Or yet another falsehood, that marriage law is the the legal tool that will insure a child has a mother and father. Wrong again, try adoption and reproductive law. Marriage law does NOT control or determine whether children have mother and fathers in homosexual households, never has and never will.

    So no, deeply and strongly held irrational beliefs do not deserve respect or coddling, they must be corrected, with the force of law if necessary. Facts are your friend, not your enemy.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 9:09 a.m.

    I have always wondered about the inclusion of the 'B' (Bisexuals) in the GLBT community. It seems to undercut the argument expressed here and elsewhere that a sexual lifestyle is not a "choice".

    If I understand the term correctly, a person is bisexual if they are attracted sexually to both members of their same gender as well as members of the opposite gender. They must thus choose which gender they will pursue. They could be just as happy in a traditional marriage as in a same-sex marriage.

    So why include them? Doing so seems to me to weaken all the arguments about "I was born this way so I have no choice".

  • Universal Truth Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 9:25 a.m.

    I would like to refute an idea I hear a lot regarding this topic, which is that what one person or group does should be their business because it has no effect on anybody else. In reality, yes, it does affect others. Why? Because ideas are far more powerful than most recognize. Here is a very simple analogy: A teenage boy and girl live in a culture where it is entirely unacceptable to engage in "marital" relations before marriage. So they wait, both change, and either end up marrying different people or are much more mature when they finally do get married as young adults. On the other hand, if the same two grew up at the beginning of a period wherein people were saying it didn't matter what they did or when they did it, they might give in to curiosity or urges and end up getting married too young, getting divorced, or becoming single parents. Which is the better situation for any offspring? I am guessing I am not the only person on this discussion for whom this is an actual issue. I suspect this applies to most on the opposite side of the discussion as well.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 15, 2014 10:30 a.m.

    @Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    I spent many years servicing an account in San Francisco. The manager of that business was gay.

    ========

    And yet I find it ironic how you support a cake maker's right to NOT provide business to someone who is gay, simply for being gay.

    Double standard?
    Practice what your preach?
    Integrity?

  • IMAN Marlborough, MA
    Jan. 15, 2014 11:57 a.m.

    @Universal Truth: Respectfully, yet another invalid argument. Finding something unacceptable and actively denying a minority groups constitutional rights of equal protection are entirely two different things. Why is that so hard for those with religious convictions to understand? Keep your beliefs, the same constitution that protects this minority group also protects you and your religion from having to marry these folks. The same constitution even protects your right to say it is immoral but under that same constitution you and your religion can't force anyone to accept your beliefs as the last word on the subject. Period, end of story.

  • Universal Truth Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 12:26 p.m.

    @IMAN,
    There wasn't a lot of respect in that "respectfully" made argument. Many would see the reasoning with a very simple analogy, but sometimes something more direct is required. So...

    You want to make it a religious argument. I said nothing about religion, but rather the effect ideas have as collateral damage, so to speak. Would you deny that many more people are choosing a homosexual lifestyle these days than a few decades ago? Would you deny that is due to the effort to get homosexuality recognized as a normal lifestyle? The truth is that someone I know or care about is much more likely to choose that kind of lifestyle these days than it was in the past. One of the huge problems I have with that--and you can call it religion if you choose, but I don't see it that way--is that the man who chooses that lifestyle actively denies himself the chance at being a biological father, raising his kids with the biological mother. You might not think that's a big deal; I think it's about as close to the core of human experience as one can get.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 12:41 p.m.

    Open Minded,
    Who supported a cake maker's right to NOT provide business to someone who is gay, simply for being gay?

    Who cares if somebody won't give you a cake? There are plenty of people who make cakes.

    That's not a big deal. That is about the most trivial part of this I can think of.

    I don't understand why somebody wouldn't sell them a cake, but it's their business. Are you proposing legislation that requires everyone must sell cakes to people they don't want too? Seems like there's better ways to handle that trivial issue.

    Businesses can not serve me for any reason they want really. But there are seriously bigger issues out there than whether I can force somebody (by law) to give me a cake.

    The focus on the cake issue is silly.

  • IMAN Marlborough, MA
    Jan. 15, 2014 1:01 p.m.

    @Universal Truth: " Would you deny that many more people are choosing a homosexual lifestyle these days than a few decades ago? Would you deny that is due to the effort to get homosexuality recognized as a normal lifestyle?" I can neither confirm or deny your first question and it is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion if I or any one else could. Your second question is also irrelevant to the discussion because "normal" is a relative term. So, that someone you know or care about would chose to reveal to you that they are homosexual or in a same sex relationship speaks less (to me anyway) to people choosing a life style than to the long over due recognition that the discrimination and bigotry our LGBT brothers and sisters have suffered will no longer be tolerated and the constitution guarantees that regardless of any religious or other point of view.

  • IMAN Marlborough, MA
    Jan. 15, 2014 1:06 p.m.

    @Universal Truth" " One of the huge problems I have with that--and you can call it religion if you choose, but I don't see it that way--is that the man who chooses that lifestyle actively denies himself the chance at being a biological father, raising his kids with the biological mother."

    By the way, do you recognize that what you wrote above is also a false assertion? Maybe not likely,but not impossible. Think about it.

  • B-BALLER SLC, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 1:20 p.m.

    This is what bugs so many people about your arguments, they make no sense......

    Open Minded Mormon
    Everett, 00
    @Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    I spent many years servicing an account in San Francisco. The manager of that business was gay.

    ========

    And yet I find it ironic how you support a cake maker's right to NOT provide business to someone who is gay, simply for being gay.

    Double standard?
    Practice what your preach?
    Integrity?

    There is none of that. He probably would sell him the cake IF He was the cake maker, but He wasn't. He respects the right of the cake maker to make that decision himself.

    Just something the Gays need to understand about rights. They (gays) feel that they have a right, well so does everyone else.

  • REALLY-WOW SLC, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 1:28 p.m.

    Very well said Universal Truth

    @IMAN, "You want to make it a religious argument. I said nothing about religion, but rather the effect ideas have as collateral damage, so to speak. Would you deny that many more people are choosing a homosexual lifestyle these days than a few decades ago? The truth is that someone I know or care about is much more likely to choose that kind of lifestyle these days than it was in the past. One of the huge problems I have with that--and you can call it religion if you choose, but I don't see it that way--is that the man who chooses that lifestyle actively denies himself the chance at being a biological father, raising his kids with the biological mother. You might not think that's a big deal; I think it's about as close to the core of human experience as one can get."

    Exactly, so YES this does effect everyone. There are reasons for laws on "indecent exposure" This topic to many people falls into that category.

    Keep that stuff private to protect Innocent minds.

  • Universal Truth Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 2:00 p.m.

    @IMAN,
    I am happy to discuss something with a counterpart who is willing to actually discuss things. But as soon as I see someone hiding, so to speak, behind "neither confirm nor deny" and "it's irrelevant anyway", well, that to me is nothing other than obfuscation. There is no point in continuing a "discussion" with someone whose only interest is in that.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 2:04 p.m.

    B-BALLER
    SLC, UT

    What if you were a Mormon and wanted one with a Temple on it,
    and you were told no, based on your religous belifs that Mormons were a cult?

    In your opinion,
    How would a judge [and the Law] see it then?

  • dustman Gallup, NM
    Jan. 15, 2014 2:37 p.m.

    There is no legal rationale to not allow same-sex marriage. If you want to stop same-sex marriage, then you need to find the legal rationale. You will never win in court if your argument is founded on "Because God said so."

    Utah lost that their court case because it was so badly argued. Re-write your legislation if you want a different result. My goodness.

  • kiddsport Fairview, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 2:48 p.m.

    SLCPorter,
    The JST version of that passage of scripture says to "Judge righteous judgment." In this case, I believe we must hate the sin but not the sinner. As JoeCapitalist2 said, we all have different weaknesses; we hope we are not hated because of those weaknesses but loved because of the ones we try to overcome.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 2:50 p.m.

    re: "Are you proposing legislation that requires everyone must sell cakes to people they don't want too?"

    2Bits please catch up. We already have public non-discrimination laws for serving the general public. This isn't new, violate these public laws, and you might very well expect to be sued. If you don't want to do business with a Mormon or Homosexual, you might very well consider going private.

  • gmlewis Houston, TX
    Jan. 15, 2014 3:02 p.m.

    Universal Truth wrote: "Would you deny that many more people are choosing a homosexual lifestyle these days than a few decades ago? Would you deny that is due to the effort to get homosexuality recognized as a normal lifestyle?"

    This cuts to the heart of the issue. The SSA activities want to crystalize their concept that people are born heterosexual or homosexual. So far, this cannot be demonstrated biologically (although there are some correllating gene combinations worth study).

    I have observed that humans are born with a total versatility in this area. Nearly everyone is exposed to influences that lead in either direction. We make choices that lead to actions. If the actions are repeated often enough, they form emotional and physical habits. One day, they realize that their habits have carried them into a certain direction.

    Many different choices and actions make up the habits that lead us to discover a sexual orientation. It is both simplistic and dangerous to assume that it was an inborn thing, and that the habits are at that point beyond our control.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 15, 2014 3:20 p.m.

    @ O'Really

    You wrote: "There are many people who have same gender attraction but have happy fulfilling marriages to the opposite gender. It takes some work and effort to change the way they think about marital intimacy. But it can and has been done."

    I think Jesus was referring to your type of solution when He said this about some religious people:

    Matthew 23:4
    "For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers."

  • glendenbg Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 3:27 p.m.

    Using the website and pages of a daily newspaper to argue you are being silenced is a bit mendacious.

    There's a tactic at work in this editorial and discussion - the dominant majority has turned a discussion about the civil rights of glbt persons into a discussion about the majority's discomfort.

    The editorialist bemoans the accusation of bigotry, as if the accusation of bigotry is comparable to the discrimination and bigotry experienced by many gay persons. Reading this discussion, however, it's obvious to me why so many gay persons believe those opposed to same-sex marriage are bigoted.

    Consider just a few examples from this discussion:

    @JoeCapitalist2 - compared being gay to violence, cheating on one's spouse and being addicted to drugs and alochol.

    @Diligent Dave - said that allowing gay couples to marry would result in society's destruction.

    @joe5 - compared people who support marriage equality with Lucifer.

    and:

    @Jamescmeyer - who wrote:those who have seen the truth of the Gospel . . . are being shot at by throngs who would destroy every chance our children have of success with many things things they call "good", but that only bring sadness and destroy financial and social freedom.

  • Stephen Daedalus Arvada, CO
    Jan. 15, 2014 3:41 p.m.

    @ 2 bits: "Who cares if somebody won't give you a cake? There are plenty of people who make cakes....not a big deal. That is about the most trivial part of this I can think of. ...Are you proposing legislation that requires everyone must sell cakes to people they don't want too? Seems like there's better ways to handle that trivial issue....The focus on the cake issue is silly."

    The "focus on the cake issue" may seem silly, but it is integral to many anti-SSM arguments.
    For example, the Masterpiece Bakery issue was raised in the original column, by Tony Perkins from Family Research Council in response to yesterday's Okla court decision, and one of the commenters in this discussion. The common claim is that it demonstrates how private parties are being "forced" against their religious convictions to "accept" SSM marriage, when in truth (emphasis on truth) is that the Masterpiece case is a relatively mundane instance of Colorado enforcing its 100+ year-old anti-discrimination statute (with sexual orientation was added about 10 years ago or so). This mis-characterization unfairly preys upon the fears of unsuspecting folks -- classic agit-prop.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 4:23 p.m.

    @REALLY-WOW;

    Advice received. Advice rejected.

    @Midway;

    Heterosexuals and religions do not have a patent on the word marriage (nor it's definition).

    @Mike Richards;

    Some of the most deceitful men I've know are Mormons. What's your point?

    @2 bits;

    "Who cares if somebody won't give you a cake? There are plenty of people who make cakes. "

    Have you tried being gay and finding a baker? If not, then how do you know this? How many businesses must we approach before we are forced to give up? How many "we don't serve your kind here"'s are enough?

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Jan. 15, 2014 5:01 p.m.

    As a College Professor I am sometimes an emotional first responder for people who don't have anyone else to turn to. Like the author of this article, that is how I learned of what Gays have had to endure in our society.

    I am also aware that many people simply are not comfortable with doing a sudden 180 on their feelings about homosexuality. It wasn't very long ago that their discomfort was shared by the vast majority of society. Now they are considered to be unsophisticated, bigoted, and worse.

    The Larry Miller solution is the sensible thing to do. Unfortunately, those who are driving this debate don't seem to want to do this. They would rather make it about legal arguments, tradition, or bigotry. In the end they just talk around what is at heart of the issue. This is about emotions and nothing will really change until that is addressed and addressed honestly.

    Larry made us nuts by wearing his emotions on his sleeve, but at least he dealt with them.

  • kolob1 sandy, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 6:08 p.m.

    "On the other hand, you have a group of people who hold sacred an institution that is thousands of years old, and just like that they are being told to get over it and move on — that it is something else entirely. It’s as if they have been told the earth is flat, not round, and they better believe it or else." Thus is a straw man argument, This statement is false and misleading. No one has said that Mormons have to diminish the "blessings" they receive by their marriage ceremonies. With the high rate of divorce I can see how the institution of marriage has it's detractors but that certainly is not the gay agenda. They want to get married!!

  • mpo South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 10:59 p.m.

    Well said, Doug. I agree, what we need is more civil respectful dialog from both sides.

  • 1A-all the way SLC, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 11:00 p.m.

    LDS Liberal
    Farmington, UT

    What if you were a Mormon and wanted one with a Temple on it,
    and you were told no, based on your religous belifs that Mormons were a cult?

    In your opinion,
    How would a judge [and the Law] see it then?

    I would go find a place that would, or if none available I would make it myself, and that is the honest truth.

    It is just like this new story tonight about snowboarders sueing alta because they don't allow snowboarders.....REALLY, what is this world coming too. It is perfectly fine to say no to people. That is the way life is, it can't be fair or please everyone. It is starting to become a joke. .....Nuff said.......

  • John Kateel Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 11:49 p.m.

    Concepts that really help traditional marriage are maternity leave and paternity leave. Vastly improved prenatal and postnatal care for expectant moms, mandatory paid vacation time off, and tougher divorce laws. On the other hand gay marriage will do nothing to hurt straight marriage.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 16, 2014 12:08 a.m.

    REALLY-WOW
    SLC, UT
    "The gays have to understand that this is a religious viewpoint and beliefs that are super strong and if they think that we religious people will be ok with it are absolutely crazy and up in the night."

    A-- No one needs you to be OK with another person's life, just to stay out of it, including commenting on it.
    B-- No one needs your religious opinion to make laws that are Unconstitutional
    C-- You perhaps might realize that EXACTLY the same words you use were heard about interracial marriage, integration, and even legalizing divorce.
    ____
    anvas1
    San Tan Valley, AZ
    "I believe that the gay movement has been high jacked politically to further advance a front targeting the religious foundation of our country and culture. They will not just stop or be satisfied with a redefinition of marriage."

    --- You have been deceived by a conspiracy of lies which serves preachers at crazy churches, some politicians, and a few right-wing organizations that get rich off of pretending the family is in danger from Gays.

    THINK! There are tens of times as many religious folks as Gays! There is no chance of any takeover.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 16, 2014 12:28 a.m.

    Doug Robinson -- "C+", in consideration that you are and lds employee and did your best to be fair coming from one side.

    --You knocked a dent in your credibility by writing this:

    "In Oregon and Colorado, bakers refused to bake wedding cakes for gay couples because it was against their religious beliefs. One was driven out of business and the other ordered to make the cake by a judge. In New Mexico....he couple could have found another photographer and they did — but they also filed a discrimination suit against the photographer and won."

    A-- The baker driven out of business violated community standards, besides violating the law, and the public no longer wanted to be seen trading there.(I live close)

    B-- NO ONE ordered anyone to make a cake for anyone: that would be Involuntary Servitude. You know better. However, a judge in a discrimination case may order "Serve the customer or pay the Civil Penalty" (usually a fine)

    C-- How dare you suggest that people experiencing illegal discrimination, not pursue a legal remedy, doing their civic duty to stop discrimination before it happened to the next customer!

    The Larry Miller thing was NINE years ago.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 8:04 a.m.

    Courts recognizes that moral disapproval often stems from deeply held religious conviction. However, moral disapproval of homosexuals as a class, or same-sex marriage as a practice, is simply not a permissible justification for a law to deny them access to civil marriage.

    Permitting same-sex couples to receive a marriage license does not harm, erode, or somehow water-down the “procreative” origins of the marriage institution, any more than marriages of couples who cannot “naturally procreate” or do not ever wish to “naturally procreate.”

    If a same-sex couple is capable of having a child with or without a marriage relationship, and the articulated state goal is to reduce children born outside of a marital relationship, the same-sex marriage ban based on animus and vile hatred hinders rather than promotes that goal. This just simple common sense.

    Excluding a class of citizens from receiving a marriage license based upon the perceived ‘threat’ they pose to the marital institution is an arbitrary exclusion based upon the majority’s disapproval of the defined class. Same-sex couples and their families have been proven to be actual human beings capable of forming loving, committed, enduring relationships.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 8:38 a.m.

    Stephen Daedalus

    Here is the rub about the Baker in Colorado issue with not baking a cake for several gay couples...

    In Colorado, Sexual orientation is part of the anti-Discrimination law, which means that it is a protected class (Federal level sexual orientation is not one of the protected classes). Therefore you gave special rights to one class WHILE denying another class (religion) the right to do what they feel is right.

    that is why the Colorado case was brought up. Because you are denying the Baker Constitutional right of association and Religious freedoms in order to give "Special" rights to the those that live the gay lifestyle.

    that IS the issue.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 8:48 a.m.

    @ Confused, there is simply no special religious right to hate, unless you live in a country like Iran. "Colorado Law prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation based on certain protected classes (characteristics). Examples of prohibited discriminatory practices include: terms of service; denial of full and equal service; intimidation; failure to accommodate; access; conditions; privileges; advertising; and retaliation. A place of public accommodation can be a: bar; restaurant; financial institution; school or educational institution; health club; theater; hospital; museum or zoo; hotel or motel; public club; retail store; medical clinic; public transportation; nursing home; recreational facility or park; and library. Colorado law prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation based on actual or perceived sexual orientation. By legal definition, sexual orientation means heterosexuality, homosexuality (lesbian or gay), bisexuality, and transgender status. Transgender status means a gender indentity or gender expression that differs from societal expectations based on gender assigned at birth." Colorado Gov

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 8:52 a.m.

    glendenbg: "Consider just a few examples from this discussion: @JoeCapitalist2 - compared being gay to violence, cheating on one's spouse and being addicted to drugs and alochol."

    No, I did not. No one fairminded who read my comment would conclude that.

    I compared same sex attraction to other "temptations" we all face. I believe that God has spoken plainly about a number of sins. Just like someone who struggles with thoughts of infidelity must consciously choose whether or not to obey the commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery", a gay person must choose whether or not they will act on their attractions and violate God's commandments.

    Just because your temptations are different from mine, does not mean that you acting on yours is any more justified than me acting on mine.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 9:31 a.m.

    Equal Protection...

    There is a religious right here. Whether you want to admit it or not, you are denying a person his right to follow his religious beliefs. Sorry, no law should supersede that right. By giving a special protection to the Gays, you denied the right of other to practice their religious beliefs "AS THEY SEE IT".

    Second the other constitutional issue is the "Right of Association". That is in the constitution and no one seems to care about forcing one group to associated with another group they choose to not associate with because of a special rule for that "Protected" class.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 9:34 a.m.

    protected class, Part II
    you said "there is simply no special religious right to hate, unless you live in a country like Iran. "Colorado Law prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation based on certain protected classes (characteristics)."

    That is my point... because you made a protected class for SSM, you are denying the rights of other groups who do not agree with that lifestyle... Thanks for proving me right.

    Second, people bring up the race issue as a counter my comments, race is inherent, something you can not change no matter what you do. SSM has yet to be determined by science that it is either inherent or a choice, contrary to popular opinion of the SSM groups. There is no definitive proof it is nature based.

  • San Diego Orem, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 9:38 a.m.

    @Sneaky Jimmy I am on the side that believes homosexuality is not a choice in most instances. My side believes, however, that homosexual sex acts are not normal and are a sin in God's eyes. My side also believes that it is God's intent that children be raised in a family by a mother and a father. For this reason my side is against gay marriage as it goes against that intent. My side is not against gays and lesbians nor does it hate them. I have not met anyone on my side that hates them. My side does not judge homosexuals as somehow inferior but does judge homosexual sex acts as sin.

  • glendenbg Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 10:51 a.m.

    @JoeCapitalist2 - you're making a distinction without a difference. You made a list of harmful things including drug addiction, infidelity, violence, and being gay. One of these things - being gay - is not like the others.

    Violence harms people. Infidelity harms persons and relationships. Addiction (drugs or alcohol) is a disease which can destroy a person's health, relationships, and ultimately kill them.

    In stark contrast, gay and lesbians persons are healthier and happier when they are open about their identity, date, and make lifelong commitments to their partners.

    Let's examine your example of infidelity. The unfaithful spouse has, presumably, agreed to be faithful. Infidelity involves breaking that agreement. It harms the spouse, the individual with whom the spouse is unfaithful and damages the relationship. The unfaithful spouse has viable alternatives, fidelity and divorce. We don't condemn heterosexuality when straight people on their spouses because their sexual orientation is a morally neutral quality. A gay person's sexual orientation is a morally neutral quality as well. We should hold gay persons to the same moral standard as straight persons, meaning we should provide them the same relationship opportunities.

  • Stephen Daedalus Arvada, CO
    Jan. 16, 2014 1:43 p.m.

    @Confusion: “There is a religious right here… you are denying a person his right to follow his religious beliefs. Sorry, no law should supersede that right.”

    Wrong.

    “When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.” United States v Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 261 (1982)

    “This Court has long held the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to be an absolute prohibition against governmental regulation of religious beliefs [and] it provides substantial protection for lawful conduct grounded in religious belief. However, not all burdens on religion are unconstitutional. . . . The state may justify a limitation on religious liberty by showing that it is essential to accomplish an overriding governmental interest." Bob Jones Univ. v. United States, 461 US 574, 603 (1983)

    “We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. “ Employ. Div v Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 879 (1990)

  • jasonlivy Orem, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 7:17 p.m.

    A Quaker:

    "People with SSA are gay (unless they're bisexual). Maybe some can live a lie, but it's still a lie."

    I fundamentally disagree with you. A great example is my professor. She definitely was not born lesbian, even though she lives that lifestyle now. Her issues began when she was married. I wholeheartedly sympathized with her as she explained to me how her husband physically and mentally abused her. As a result she lost her respect for men (something I experienced first hand). She then met a women who she became close friends with. Eventually this friendship developed into a sexual relationship. This was a slow progression and developed unexpectedly. Now, as the homosexual lifestyle has become socially acceptable, she has confidently come out of the closet and has been praised and honored for it.

    I doubt you believe in God and there is nothing I can say that will sway you. God teaches that we need to build our lives on a firm foundation, based on his laws and commandments which are impervious to social pressures and worldly trends. This is the only way true happiness and peace can be obtained.

  • Lillith70 SLC, UT
    Jan. 17, 2014 7:48 a.m.

    Gay unions would be better option and would protect traditional marriage. The gay movement trying tactics used in black civil rights movement, but like that movement which aimed at the conscience, power to dictate even the words that can be used--political correctness.

    NAMBLA is hiding from the media or the media is hiding them. Any gay rights given can be used to empower them--how can you not give them equal rights? Studies show that the marriage seekers ar mostly lesbians. Not that we would dare say men anad women aare different but traditionally men have been more sexually adventurous and women hearth dwellers.(No group sex in parks to close them down)

    The potential in Utah and for the Mormon Church as I see it is that next the married by law will wish to be married in temples--an equality that just might shake the foundations of th church. To me there is a threat. A schism coming/ But then, many would like to see that happen. Why? Why if we are not to trample on others rights and equaql protection under the law?

  • Jeff in NC CASTLE HAYNE, NC
    Jan. 17, 2014 9:22 a.m.

    I was buying your story about having civilized dialogue right up to the end. But your last paragraphed basically says "so if you hold prejudicial feelings against gay people and think they are worth less as parents than straight people, and that they are no different then incestious siblings, get ready for some gays to be sensitive about that." Yeah, get ready all right...and you wonder why you can't have a civilized dialogue with gay marriage proponents. Tsk, tsk, tsk. There is a way to live according to your religious convictions AND not be explicitly offensive to others. If you think there is no way you can do that, then don't expect a civilized dialogue. I for one won't sit quietly while such garbage is being talked generally about really good people I know.

  • Lillith70 SLC, UT
    Jan. 17, 2014 2:50 p.m.

    Looks like the whole issue could be a compromise if gay unions were allowed and that makes sense as would also polygamy or any other type of marriage because people should be allowed to make whatever contracts they wish if aren't against the law but laws can be changed through the legislative process or by judges in a politically expedient way

    Otherwise maybe a new concept, hetero union contracts. People rewrite the standard vows and ignore all the marital promises at will.

    Maybe religious marriage vows that are not subject to political interference?

  • Kate Hutch Kenmore, WA
    Jan. 17, 2014 4:28 p.m.

    Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. He was really mad at the money changers in the temple though.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 18, 2014 3:37 a.m.

    @ Lillith70

    Separate but equal is not a realistic or reasonable option. Also, "traditional marriage" does not need to be protected. SSM does nothing to harm it. What harms traditional marriage is the 50% divorce rate. Also, your fears about SSM happening in temples should be put to rest because the First Amendment isn't going anywhere. The church has complete control over who can enter their temples.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 18, 2014 10:00 a.m.

    @Tiago

    I think you may be one of a few individuals in this discussion who truly understands both sides of this debate. While the facts whether or not same sex attraction is chosen remain in dispute, you make a sound argument for why we heterosexuals need to be more sensitive, better listeners, and more accepting of all of our gay brothers and sisters in general.

    Our gay brothers and sisters certainly can also appreciate a need to show sensitivity and understanding to concerns held by heterosexuals (whether or not they have religious or non-religious basis).

    We likely may never totally accept all of the other side's concerns, but we can find ways to peacefully co-exist.

    What is the downside to both sides working together with civility in an effort to find common ground and to identify legal solutions that recognize the concerns of each side?

    Let's consider the downside to the alternative of on-going incivility and/or an "I win - you lose" solution!

  • jcobabe Provo, UT
    Jan. 18, 2014 4:18 p.m.

    I keep seeing assertions that same-sex behavior is benign and cannot hurt others.

    According to CDC publications, same-sex promiscuity accounts for more than 70% of HIV incidence in 2010, represented by the behavior choices of 2% of the total population. Such statistics would seem indicate against the prudence of advocacy or promotion of same-sex behavior, since it represents significant high-risk and cost to society.

    Is it not reasonable and civil to bring truth to the public square?

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 18, 2014 11:22 p.m.

    @ jcobabe

    If you claim is true then obviously more needs to be done to promote the use of protection in the homosexual community, regardless of whether SSM is legalized or not. However, I feel that legalizing marriage for same-sex couples will inadvertently lower the rate of HIV transmission.

  • BYU_Convert Provo, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 10:59 p.m.

    One thing is clear through all of this. The state of Utah in Amendment 3 and the state of California in Proposition 8 clearly want to illustrate to the world that people with homosexual tendencies and attractions should be marginalized and treated as subhumans unworthy of one-on-one human connection. Gay people simply are not worthy of the companionship that naturally born heterosexual individuals the world over have been fortunate enough to not have to worry about in this life without severe retribution from societal norms. I am LDS, and I am married to a gay woman. I am bisexual. We understand each other, but our marriage is not how you "cure" homosexuality. The realization, is that you can't "cure" it, and demanding gays to be sentenced to a life of isolation and celibacy is not a fair option either. There should always be a choice and agency even in the midst of trials--such as homosexuality--which offers very little choices. I certainly wish I were 100% straight like most Utahns who wish to strike down same sex marriage. Then I wouldn't be rejected. Life would be incredibly easy in comparison.

  • BYU_Convert Provo, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 11:16 p.m.

    @jcobabe

    "According to CDC publications, same-sex promiscuity accounts for more than 70% of HIV incidence in 2010..."

    The key word being "promiscuity." Who said anything about promoting promiscuity? Legalized same-sex marriage does not promote promiscuity. I could argue a similar statistic that instead of 70% HIV transmissions lets think of how many resulting pregnancies result out of wedlock from opposite-sex promiscuity. I bet that number is staggering. And of those pregnancies, how many are aborted? And how many of those abortions unbeknownst to you are at the expense of tax-payers like you? How many unwanted births wind up spawning children, who spend years in Foster homes living very troubled lives emotionally as they were quickly discarded by their sexually promiscuous heterosexual parents?

    You can share statistics about HIV all you want and blame gays for it, but it is nothing more than a scapegoat for that which society really fears. I mean, do you think a child, who is born with HIV/AIDS, is going to be accused of being a homo by people like you? How do you explain those cases?

  • daveferr Columbus, OH
    Jan. 20, 2014 12:47 p.m.

    You do realize that same sex marriage isn't new, right? Catholics use to let monks marry. Pirates (the people our nation was created in likeness of) did it. Etc, etc... Yes, the government stopped us from practicing polygamy. Why are we now joining the wrong side of the fight? Why aren't we standing up for other faiths, like we asked them to do back in the day? Two wrongs don't make a right. We don't have any more of a right to define marriage for other faiths than they do defining it for us.