Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Irony of persecution

Comments

Return To Article
  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 26, 2014 4:04 a.m.

    "and that most of those who oppose gay marriage are not motivated by blind prejudice but by deeply held religious views."

    Here's the thing though... can a religious view also be prejudiced?

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    April 26, 2014 6:48 a.m.

    Opponents of marriage equality have failed, repeatedly, to provide a rational basis for their position. Absent any credible evidence, they now fall back on claims of "deeply held religious beliefs."

    Is it really necessary to review the many compelling reasons why our nation is _not_ a theocracy?

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    April 26, 2014 7:40 a.m.

    How does the Lords Prayer go. It has something about trespassing in it. I think that fences are important.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    April 26, 2014 8:15 a.m.

    Here's the irony my friend.

    If you hold a deep religious view and someone vocally opposes that view, even to the extent that they exercise their first amendment rights with peaceful marches you are being "persecuted". Your word.

    persecute.. to treat (someone) cruelly or unfairly especially because of race or religious or political beliefs.

    Just how are you being persecuted? What unfair thing has resulted to you from the SSM folks vociferously expressing their views?

    On the other hand what unfair thing has happened to the gay community because of your deeply held religious views? Ahhhhhhhh, pretty obvious.

    So who is being persecuted in this debate?

  • Jl Sandy, UT
    April 26, 2014 9:06 a.m.

    How many in this forum truly believe they will be forced to enter into gay marriage when we cast the shackles of prejudice aside?

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    April 26, 2014 10:02 a.m.

    You can hold your religious beliefs as deeply as you'd like, but you don't get to rewrite the law to force others to observe them with you.

    If you don't believe in same-sex marriage, don't get one.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 26, 2014 10:31 a.m.

    You can keep your deeply held religious belief. Same sex marriage will triumph, and we shall all have diversity.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    April 26, 2014 11:16 a.m.

    The referenced statement seem to be saying that punishment shouldn't be the effect of one side winning the argument. I agree. This should never be the intent - it's neither right nor necessary. Because when society as a whole begins to see a particular view as harmful and abhorrent, disapproval and even stigmatization of those who hold the view is inevitable. It's just how things work at a societal level. How do you keep this from feeling like punishment to those being frowned upon?

    The statement's message seems akin to the view that "everyone should get a trophy." It's patronizing and condescending, and it asks adults to protect other adults from their feelings. This is lowering our standards.

    The standard is: Everyone has a right to believe what they choose and everyone else has a right to disagree with and criticize what others choose to believe. "Deeply held religious beliefs" are not exempt from this standard.

    Re: the complaint of "persecution": What's being lost is privilege, not rights. The parallel is not going from being free to worship to being prevented from worshipping. It's more like going from leather car seats to cloth.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 26, 2014 11:23 a.m.

    Interesting that all the posters decided to ignore the pleas of the SSM advocates who wrote the letter to which the author is referring. They appear to hate those who feel differently than they so much they continue with their tirades despite the pleas of the leaders of their cause.

    Blue,
    marriage equality has always existed. When the same rules apply to all, no one is being treated unequally. No amount of sophistry can change that.

    No need to install a theocracy, just accept the religious freedoms rights guaranteed by the 1st amendment - I gather from your comments you really resent that pesky part of the bill of rights.

    pragmatist,
    to boycott, force resignations, sue in court, take away a business license, force someone to participate in something with which they strongly disagree - those are also forms of persecution.

    Jl,
    be forced into gay marriages - not yet, but having marriages performed in our churches and temples not be recognized is a very real danger.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    April 26, 2014 11:31 a.m.

    Since she doesn't believe in same-sex marriages she shouldn't have one. That said, she has absolutely no business whatsoever using her "sincerely held religious beliefs" to violate the civil rights of other Americans who do not believe the way she does.

    Persecution, ma'am, is being denied the same civil rights that the persecutor enjoys.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    April 26, 2014 11:56 a.m.

    "that most of those who oppose gay marriage are not motivated by blind prejudice but by deeply held religious views."

    Sorry, I can't see a difference.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    April 26, 2014 12:07 p.m.

    @Schnee:
    "Here's the thing though... can a religious view also be prejudiced?"

    Of course it can... For example, religions preach against sinful conduct. People who sin may very well find themselves in a place called 'hell.'

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    April 26, 2014 12:19 p.m.

    @Blue:
    "Opponents of marriage equality have failed, repeatedly, to provide a rational basis for their position."

    Here's some rational bases... allowing SSM will mean you also must be in favor/allow any other type of arranged marriage to occur... such as polygamy, mother/son, father/daughter/ cousins, groups of people who love each other. Maybe, even a tree or radish as a bride.

    @pragmatistferlife:
    "So who is being persecuted in this debate?"

    Polygamists, maybe?

    @Jl:
    "How many in this forum truly believe they will be forced to enter into gay marriage when we cast the shackles of prejudice aside?"

    Perhaps kids who are taught in their youth that SSM is normal conduct... which it isn't.

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    April 26, 2014 12:49 p.m.

    Deeply held religious beliefs are your right. There is no infringement to practice these beliefs in your own personal life. But, to impose them on society at large through a democratic political system which allegedly guarantees all citizens due process and equal protection under the law, is not your right.

  • gmlewis Houston, TX
    April 26, 2014 1:14 p.m.

    @pragmatistferlife - You make an excellent point that SSM advocates feel that they are persecuted. However, the bakery and photographer who were nearly run out of business over their SSM policies could have felt persecuted, too.

    Frankly, there's persecution going around on both sides.

    If a family moved away because they were offended by a SSM couple living next door, would that be deemed persecution to the SSM couple?

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 26, 2014 2:41 p.m.

    @lost in DC
    "They appear to hate those who feel differently than they so much they continue with their tirades despite the pleas of the leaders of their cause."

    I didn't approve of the Mozilla boycott, though that is the right of people to do something like that. Throughout that whole thing I still used Firefox like I almost always do.

    @wrz
    "Here's some rational bases... allowing SSM will mean you also must be in favor/allow any other type of arranged marriage to occur... such as polygamy, mother/son, father/daughter/ cousins, groups of people who love each other"

    By that argument I assume you (in order to be "rationally" consistent) oppose interracial marriage since it's the repeal of those bans that set up the court precedent for striking down marriage bans now being used on Prop 8/Amendment 3 etc.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    April 26, 2014 3:48 p.m.

    "However, the bakery and photographer who were nearly run out of business over their SSM policies could have felt persecuted, too."

    Difference here is the businesses were breaking the law..they committed the first act of persecution. The SSM folks only asked for their legal right.

    The guy who was "forced" to resign was made to do so by his company not the SSM folks. They protested and boycotted but the company had a perfect right to say so what. The company decided that the employee had done damage to the corp.

  • QuercusQate Wasatch Co., UT
    April 26, 2014 3:55 p.m.

    wrz said: "...allowing SSM will mean you also must be in favor/allow any other type of arranged marriage to occur."

    Not so. Gays and lesbians are simply desirous of having a monogamous marriage with the one they cherish, just like you. It doesn't open any doors that aren't already open to heterosexuals: the door to monogamy.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    April 26, 2014 4:05 p.m.

    @gmlewis;

    Re: the baker, florist and photographer. They are welcome to believe "sincerely" that same sex marriages are a sin. They are in business, however, to make money. If they provide cakes, flowers or photographs to/of weddings, I expect to be treated just like any other customer when I enter their place of business and request the same product they provide to everyone else.

    If they can't do that, they should get into another line of work where they won't be exposed to things that are against their "sincerely held religious beliefs" (such a place doesn't exist).

    Additionally, unless they submit a questionaire to ALL customers, and refuse to do business with ALL sinners, then they really can't use "sincerely held religious beliefs" as an excuse for their utterly boorish behavior of refusing to serve LGBT customers.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    April 26, 2014 4:12 p.m.

    What if I want to marry my horse or perhaps the 12 year old next door and you oppose my "right" to do so, is that being prejudiced?

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    April 26, 2014 5:55 p.m.

    @nonceleb:
    "But, to impose them on society at large through a democratic political system which allegedly guarantees all citizens due process and equal protection under the law, is not your right."

    Everyone has equal protection under marriage law... provided they don't marry their mother, dad, brother, sister, aunt, a close cousin, a minor, someone of the same gender, a tree, a squirrel, and many other combinations that might enjoy a loving relationship.

    @Schnee:
    "By that argument I assume you (in order to be 'rationally' consistent) oppose interracial marriage..."

    Interracial marriage is fine so long as it's not with mother, dad, brother, sister, aunt, a close cousin, a minor, someone of the same gender, a tree, a squirrel, and many other combinations that might enjoy a loving relationship.

    @QuercusQateL
    "Not so. Gays and lesbians are simply desirous of having a monogamous marriage with the one they cherish, just like you. It doesn't open any doors that aren't already open to heterosexuals: the door to monogamy."

    I would judge your position to be discriminatory against others who might share a loving and cherished relationship. See above for some possible examples.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    April 26, 2014 6:14 p.m.

    Hutterite: "You can keep your deeply held religious belief. Same sex marriage will triumph, and we shall all have diversity."

    There's no diversity where other marriages are denied... such as with mother, dad, brother, sister, aunt, a close cousin, a minor, someone of the same gender, a tree, a squirrel, and many other combinations that might enjoy a loving relationship.

    Thid Barker: "What if I want to marry my horse or perhaps the 12 year old next door and you oppose my 'right' to do so, is that being prejudiced?"

    That's the height of prejudice and the depth of depravity to cheer for one aberration of marriage (SSM) and not dozens of others. Strange, indeed, that the SSM proponents can't fathom that concept.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    April 26, 2014 6:17 p.m.

    ThidBarker: "What if I want to marry my horse or perhaps the 12 year old next door and you oppose my "right" to do so, is that being prejudiced?"

    Seriously?

    OK, when horses and 12 year-olds are deemed lawfully able to give their informed consent as adult US citizens, then you go right ahead and marry them.

    I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

    Meanwhile, here in the real world, there remain no credible arguments to justify denying same-sex couples the same rights to marriage that you take for granted.

    Resorting to the argument, "because of my particular brand of religion," is a sign of desperation, not rational reasoning.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 26, 2014 6:21 p.m.

    lost in DC, I think you confuse hate with free speech. Everyone has the right to their free speech. As a citizen I have the same right to counter that free speech if it offends me.

    Many religious beliefs in the world offend me, as do many political beliefs. Just because I say I don't like what is said doesn't mean I hate the person who says it. Nor am I suppressing their religious freedom. As it is said many times. Love the bigot, hate the bigotry!

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    April 26, 2014 6:26 p.m.

    wrz: "Interracial marriage is fine so long as it's not with mother, dad, brother, sister, aunt, a close cousin, a minor, someone of the same gender, a tree, a squirrel, and many other combinations that might enjoy a loving relationship."

    No sooner than I recover from the "what if I want to marry a horse" post by another writer than you favor us with incest, trees and squirrels. Awesome.

    You can, with zero difficulty, prove in a court of law that incestuous marriages have clinically proven harmful effects. Similarly, you can successfully argue in court that trees, squirrels, horses and minors have no ability to provide informed consent to a legally binding marriage as adult US citizens.

    What I find fascinating is that you actually think that scenarios involving marriages with trees, squirrels, horses and minors has any bearing (other than comic relief) on the issue of why committed same-sex couples are denied the marriage rights that you take for granted.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 26, 2014 6:34 p.m.

    @wrz
    Phoenix, AZ

    What scares me about your comments is I don't know what religion you are? I don't know what is a sin in your eyes or not? If you subscribe to Warren Jeff's religion then the "sin list" will be different and so will the hell you talk about.

    So I don't want the thousands of religions of this world to tell me which sins I can or cannot do. I believe in my religion, but I don't want it to control others.

    Also you come from a State, (AZ) that recently passed a law that was universally bashed by all sides of the debate. That law in most peoples eyes was a moral sin and an outrage. It didn't depend on what religion they were, it was seen as mean and heartless. Sometimes things done in the name of religion are just wrong!

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    April 26, 2014 7:05 p.m.

    If you are leaning towards being a libertarian, you will need to get over the fact that you won't like anyone in the party. Don't persecute even though you hate them.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    April 26, 2014 7:11 p.m.

    @hutterite I already am diverse and intend on staying that way.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    April 27, 2014 8:26 a.m.

    @Ranch:
    "Re: the baker, florist and photographer. They are welcome to believe "sincerely" that same sex marriages are a sin. They are in business, however, to make money."

    I see a troubing trend. Two years ago when people were talking about Bain Capital and Mitt Romney, you were condeming him for having laid people off. Wasn't Bain Capital in business to make money too? Why is it not OK for Bain Capital to be in the business of making money?

    It is good that Christians have a book written in the Bronze Age. It gives them an anchor so that from week to week they aren't make wild swings from one edge of the political spectrum to another.

    Anyhow, it is the height of bigotry and cultural chauvinism to conclude that if someone has different cultural views than you that there is something wrong with them. Clive Bundy has spent too much time out on the range following cattle. I wonder what everyone else's excuses are for their archaic views?

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    April 27, 2014 8:38 a.m.

    "Stop hitting me with your Bible!!" is not persecution.

    "Sorry, but 'the Bible says...' is not a valid argument" is not persecution.

    "This is a constitutional republic, not a theocracy" is not persecution.

    "You have a business that serves the public, so you legally must serve all the public" is not persecution.

    My marriage does not persecute you.

    Holding my partner's hand in public does not persecute you.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 27, 2014 10:28 a.m.

    @wrz
    "That's the height of prejudice and the depth of depravity to cheer for one aberration of marriage (SSM) and not dozens of others. Strange, indeed, that the SSM proponents can't fathom that concept."

    No, we can't fathom that concept, because you support one type that'd been considered an aberration (interracial marriage) and depending on your religious beliefs possibly that another was okay for a while (polygamy) but not dozens of others... yet you can't grant us the same view as you except moving same-sex marriage to the support column. Seems like a double standard. Your concept appears to be "if you support anything other than the list of things I support... then you should support people marrying squirrels" and that's just illogical.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    April 27, 2014 2:41 p.m.

    People who talk about marrying a Tree or a Horse or a Dog or Squirrel or a child seem to have a view of marriage that does not include the concept of "consent" and "partnership."

    I suppose that does fit a certain interpretation of "biblical marriage" where a father sold his daughter to another man and the woman was given no choice, had no right to consent to the transaction.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    April 27, 2014 6:32 p.m.

    It's my deeply held religious view that everyone should have the same civil rights. Why is your view more important than mine?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    April 28, 2014 8:10 a.m.

    The ultimate persecution, Ms. Weaver, is denying LGBT couples the same legal benefits you enjoy. How about the persecution of having your rights voted on? Have you experienced that, Ms. Weaver?

    You don't know what real "persecution" is.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    April 28, 2014 8:17 a.m.

    @Tek;

    There is a vast difference between asking a provider of a product or service to provide that product or service (or leave the business) and taking over a business and putting the employees out on the street so you can make a buck. Bain Capital (and it's ilk) is a parasite on our society.

    I'm not trying to put bakers, photographers and florists out of business or make them lose their jobs. I'm simply asking that they provide, for me, the same service they happily provide everyone else. Besides, there isn't a single scripture in the bible that tells you not to do business with "sinners" or be in violation of your "sincerely held religious beliefs". Quite the opposite in fact, the scriptures tell you to treat others as you would be treated yourself (Bain also violates that commandment).

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    April 28, 2014 8:35 a.m.

    I love all you SSM advocates...

    You have provided ample examples of what the writer mentions....

    His point that you obviously missed was that while the Gay community wants us to be tolerant of their views, they themselves are not tolerant of other views...

    In other words.... We should be respectful (whether you are gay or straight)and considerate of others views points even if the are opposite of your own.

    What I see in these posts is trying to justify their intolerance of others while advocating tolerance for their views.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    April 28, 2014 9:53 a.m.

    @Confused;

    I'm sorry, but I see absolutely nothing "respectful" at all in denying others the benefits you, yourself enjoy. That, actually, is quite dis-respectful.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    April 28, 2014 1:20 p.m.

    Ranch,
    That is the question... the question is why can you not respect my point of view, if you want me to respect your point of view?

    I am not denying anyone their benefits. You believe they are benefits under the constitution, I do not believe that is what the 14th amendment is meant in the interpretation.

    I am not going down the dog, horse trial about marriage. I think that is disrespectful..

    But I do have a question for you? Are you as upset about the denial of "Benefits" the Warren Jeffs group wants (Polygamy)? Are you upset with cousins who may love each other and are the age of consent denied "Benefits" by the law?

    I am just curious about your answer, because like I said... you want me to respect your views, but you seem to not want to respect my views.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    April 28, 2014 5:35 p.m.

    @Confused:

    Personally, I am ambivalent about polygamy. The concept does not offend me in any way. Legalizing and regulating those relationships would give public scrutiny and give protection to all members, where now it all tends to be hidden.

    In some states cousins, who are of legal age, may marry. If they move to a state that would not allow their marriage it is, never-the-less, legally recognized as an existing marriage.

    Respect. Yes, it does go both ways. Yes, I understand you may be offended by my relationship. However, if "my side" prevails, your life will not change in the slightest.

    If "your side" prevails, it will have real impact on my relationship and on gay and lesbian couples and their children all across the country. It will also impact gay and lesbian young people, who will continue to be told by society that their relationships are second class and disposable.

    Regardless of how much you say your respect me, the impact of your position goes beyond disrespect and becomes actual injury.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    April 29, 2014 6:53 a.m.

    @Confused;

    Actually, I do respect your point of view. That said, your point of view applies to you. If you don't want a same-sex marriage then don't have one - you have no business telling others how they must live. Polygamists are already allowed to marry, one person. If they want to marry more than one, I'm fine with that as long as they're consenting adults - but then arises the issues of inheritance, social security, etc. All of that has to be dealt with. Those aren't issues with LGBT couples (two people) marrying.

    You are perfectly welcome to think anything you want; you're not welcome to deny me the right to marry the person I love.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    April 29, 2014 11:54 a.m.

    Ranch,
    So let me ask you this....

    If "we" gave you the same legal benefits (tax, insurance, etc) that "Married" people have, but used the term civil "union" instead of "Marriage", would you be ok with that?

    Your answer will be the reflection your tolerance that the letter writer speaks about.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    April 29, 2014 8:29 p.m.

    @Confused
    How would his answer be the test of tolerance?
    Gay people in America will soon have a legal right to marry each other and call it marriage. You can refuse to acknowledge the marriage and call it something else if you want, but for the law and for that family, it is a marriage.
    If you are trying to force another person to define their relationship on your terms, that is not respectful.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    May 6, 2014 11:19 a.m.

    I want to know how people are getting persecuted! If gay people stand up for themselves, they are persecuting someone? Also, I grew up Mormon and nobody is fooling me! Why doesn't somebody take some time and be more truthful about these deeply held religious beliefs! Remember, although I am gay, I grew up with those same deeply held religious beliefs! I have a hard time with this! What is it exactly that bothers people so much? Honestly, I have never understood this! Do you think that maybe God would allow us to keep that part of our lives to ourselves! Your deeply held religious beliefs, as we all know, do not paint a very good picture of gay people and are often used to degrade us! Not everyone does that but it opens it up to all sorts of degrading beliefs!
    If you really take some time to look at the truth, you will see that a great deal of us have families and friends and co workers who are Mormon. We do try to respect them, but we also deserve some dignity for ourselves!

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    May 6, 2014 11:32 a.m.

    You know, I sometimes put my opinion in the newspaper. It helps me vent a little so I can get some stress out. In my life, I hardly ever argue about my sexuality. I shouldn't have to! Can some of you imagine dealing with this issue with all of your family and friends and co workers! Sex isn't something that I bet most of you go around talking about with everyone! I know that a great many of you would be horrified, yet you will humiliate us anyway! Many of you just don't understand! You don't understand that we stayed here in Utah because we love are family and friends here! I finally stopped trying to talk about God because people only ignore me! I think it is an insult to say that we are persecuting any of you! A huge insult, when you think about the way we get degraded! I dare you look me in the face and tell me more about those deeply held beliefs and see just what they are! Fool someone else! Those of us that live this know just how degrading those beliefs can be!