Reader comments
Same-sex unions going mainstream?

Page:
< Previous
1
2

Anonymous | 6:32 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007

I fail to understand how a gay couple getting married in Boston influences a marriage in Nephi, Utah.

Half of all marriages fail and you point fingers at gays. Marriage has faltered in America without their impute.

Look at the bright side. Gays don't go door to door trying to get you to join them.

me | 6:43 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007

shalama & anon- yes! you nailed it. i had tried to post additional responses in which i brought up those points, but DMN monitors didn't post them. imagine that...

Anonymous | 6:57 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007

What is it about some people today that they simply cannot bring themselves to mind their own business?

Comments continue below

To "Robo" | 7:15 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007

Here we go again. Here's another argument from someone that does not compare well with gay rights. Polygamy has issues that stem beyond marriage between TWO PERSONS. Gay people are not trying to make it ok to have multiple relationships in marriage. This is a different issue that has problems in different areas. I will not name all those problems in those relationships, but they do not have anything do do with TWO PERSONS AT ONCE (not three or more) wanting to make a formal commitment to one another.

Shelama | 7:37 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007

'me' -

-I have no prior experience with the DMN monitors/censors, but I suspect my most recent post may have also been nixed. In it I was basically wondering whether one reason the LDS fight against gay marriage/unions is because IF they were to be legalized then it increases the likelihood that polygamy would also become legal. In spite of the fact that polygamy is still a matter of Mormon gospel principle still present in Mormon scripture, it is quite unlikely that current Mormons would look favorably on returning to the practice. Regardless of how holy or celestial or scriptural it is still regarded. Mormons basically do not want to be subject again to a Divine will if that will includes [legalized] polygamy.

Personally, I believe both homosexual marriages/unions AND polygamy should be legalized. I know that if and when Mormons resume the practice that my monogamous marriage will be in no way threatened or diminished. If ALL Mormon marriages became polygamous, a best guess is that the remaining monogamous 97-99% of marriages in the USA will not be threatened or diminished.

Look to nature | 8:09 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007

now let me see if i got this right , this was practiced by the aristocrats of the greeks, romans, other societies like pompay then they just got blown away? I'm very choosy who makes my sandwich from now on.

Anonymous | 9:26 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007

I've always been a little suspicious of those who freak out at this sort of thing.
What do you suppose they are trying to hide?

dcc | 9:46 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007

To Robo

I personally don't care if a person marries their potted plant. Polygamy shouldn't be illegal either. Where in the constitution are personal relationships between consenting adults regulated?

As long as they pay their taxes and keep their lawn mowed I have no issue.

Reason vs. Emotion | 9:56 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007

People opposing gay marriage rarely are able to articulate their position without bringing other relationships (polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia) into the argument. They become silent when forced to stay on topic and substantiate their position solely against gay marriage. So you believe homosexuality is wrong, so what? Unless it actually harms someone it doesn't need legislation against it.

Exactly.... | 10:29 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007

I appreciate the "Reason vs Emotion" statement. Those that can't articulate on gay marriage find other things that don't have much in common with it. Let's try and stick directly to why TWO people, regardless of gender (such as in traditional marriage and not under age) would want to be able to declare legally their comittment to one another. This is the issue not a substitution.

Depth vs Superficiality | 11:04 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007

Marraige is not just an incidental institution, but the basis of all society. If you do not see how altering this institution in any way would have a great ripple effect throughout the entire culture then you don't see anything. If citizens of a country want to "change" the definition of marraige they change the future, the near future, for EVERYONE. It is obvious, that nations in our modern world who have different "ideals" or even just beliefs about marraige are socially and culturally very different from each other. To say that, in the case of this argument, giving equal legal and social status to gay marraige would not effect anyone else but them is a very ignorant reaction. Of course it would, very much.

Robo | 11:43 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007

We live in a representative republic where issues are resolved through public debate. Unfortunately, public debate has degenerated to name calling and insults on people's intelligence, motives, and belief systems as evidenced on this posting board and even in the hallowed halls of Congress. I don't believe this incivility is healthy for society, nor does it give the debate an honest chance of being evaluated from all perspectives. The other side just may have a valid point. Maybe governments should just stop issueing marriage licenses. Let marriage be a spiritual thing (let them marry how, who, or what they may) and let the civil issues be handled through civil processes.

re: depth etc | 11:54 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007

and how would it effect you exactly?

(if you're going to make a statement like that, at least have a good reasonable argument supporting it...)

i also think saying that marriage is the "basis of all society" is quite a stretch.

It's WHO not the WHAT they ARE.. | 12:40 a.m. Nov. 7, 2007

Thanks Jed~~I to happen to have a male couple in my nieghborhood. These men have blended two broken families with kids into one of love, harmony, and acceptance. These guys are fathers, parents, friends, watchdogs of the community, soccer dads, and down right good citizens. I see them supporting PTA events in the schools. They courageously bring their kids to church~LDS CHURCH~and have good relationships with the LDS leaders in the church. I am sure they have taken big hits with the church, yet they continue to respectfully appear and attend. They support their kids in all they do, and the kids seem well adjusted and well behaved. I have seen them mowing neighbors lawns and shoveling walks. They can be seen with their kids at school and scout meetings. They always have a decorated yard and well cared for home. On Halloween last week-they served hot scones and hot cocoa to neighbors and trick or treaters. I couldnt ask for better people in my community. They have really helped me see gays and family issues in a new light.

Re: Mark | 2:07 a.m. Nov. 7, 2007

I'm a well adjusted gay man who is in a happy and healthy relationship and I take issue with those who tell me I am trying to destroy the institution of marriage. The opposite is true. I believe that marriage forms the bedrock of a stable society and I think that my relationship would benefit from the over 1000 rights that are conferred upon the signature of the marriage certificate. Again, I'm a well adjusted guy and don't "need" marriage to make me happy. Its a matter of basic equality. We should work together to strengthen each other's relationships, not try to demean or belittle them.

Depth vs Superficiality | 8:00 a.m. Nov. 7, 2007

Re:Re Depth,etc:
I am not a fortune teller. The social ramifications of legalizing "gay marriage" is not known. To simply say that "nothing" changes for the social environment when a basic institution, political ideology, the economic model, etc is modified is
being culturally blind
It is like saying we don't live in a cause and effect universe.
It could be effectively argued that history shows disastrous examples of political, social and environmental destruction following in the wake of sudden revolutions in any of those areas. On a grand scale, not immediately, but surely.
Like in all of nature, it takes awhile after the seed is planted to see a mature plant.
and just because a tree is beautiful and the fruit delicious, doesn't mean it was not poisonous.

Page:
< Previous
1
2

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.