Get today's headlines via email
Good morning edition
Deseret News Family Deals
In Opinion
Across Site
- Readers' forum: A changing Constitution
- Michael Gerson: Egypt's craziness is...
- George F. Will: Is it bribery or just...
- Mackenzie Eaglen: Obama's proposed...
- My view: The climate is right to tear...
- Readers' forum: Incorporate Millcreek
- Charles Krauthammer: The Gospel...
- Readers' forum: Teachers came first
- In our opinion: Editorial: Protecting...
- John B. Quigley: American forces do...
In Opinion
Across Site
- Evangelicals and Mormons: Can we talk?
- In our opinion: Tinkering with...
- Readers' forum: Rights of conscience
- Readers' forum: Voting for principals
- Readers' forum: Bush's failed policies
- John Florez: The changing face of...
- The winners and the losers
- Readers' forum: Teachers not overpaid
- Jay Evensen: Think twice before...
- Readers' forum: Home equity loans
In Opinion
Across Site
- Obama's assault on the poor
62 - Evangelicals and Mormons: Can we talk?
53 - Letters: Bush's failed policies
49 - Letters: Teachers not overpaid
30 - Letters: Home equity loans
28 - Economic chaos ahead
25 - GOP no longer leads on defense
24 - Letters: Rights of conscience
22 - Letter: Taxing our children
21 - Letter: Require drug tests
19







The gay community wants us to accept a notion as ridicules as red is yellow, up is down and forward is backward.
Unfortunately there are too many ppl like John C. who think that their way is best and the only way to be done.
I wonder what the rest of my heterosexual brethren would do if we were all of a sudden called 'unnatural' and were denied the right to marry whom we want.
I tell you what, if the government were putting their noses into the bedroom affairs of straight couples there would be an uprising, and not one set up with peaceful demonstrations and harmless rallies.
There's alot to be said about 'walking a mile in someone elses shoes'.
If you don't like the rules, make a different choice, but don't expect me to feel sorry for you when reality sets in.
I suspect you are referring to the ability to enter into a gay marriage as the "basic protection" in question......which is, of course, an absurd statement. Marriage is not a right, much less a "basic protection".
@author: I can assure you that government does not discriminate when it comes to collecting revenue and destroying businesses, families, and lives, in the name of some do good policy.
You do not have a corner on the market of injustice. As a hard working white heterosexual traditional family individual, I can honestly say that I have never had a positive experience with any government agency. Their very existence depends upon them forcibly plundering the resources of those who work.
But I will say that if you by choice make a conscious decision to live contrary to societies norms, and expect others to be forced to accept your version of normal, then I believe you ask that which cannot be.
You ask that society adapt to your norms rather than you adapt to societies.
Thomas Jefferson once said paraphrased, "when I find my view differing from the majority view it is time I reevaluate my view.
families, on the other hand, have never had the right to vote, be they traditional or otherwise. It's always been individuals that could vote, so I guess it's the headline over the letter that's confusing.
If I'm misunderstanding the meaning of "disenfranchised", please help me out.
To Clarification, marriage most certainly is a right. And along with that right come over 1100 basic protections and privileges, many of which are otherwise unavailable.
I am curious: In your opinion, how "should" your gay aunt and your gay uncle live their lives? That is, what would you have them do differently, if you had the power to make them live the way you believe would be "right" for them?
And, if you were they, would you believe this alternate life makes more sense and was better than the life that they currently lead?
Thanks.
With respect,
Linguist