Reader comments
Same-sex unions going mainstream?
66 comments | Read story
Chuck Anziulewicz | 6:59 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007
Monte Stewart's arguments against marriage equality for Gay couples hinge
on what he thinks is best for children. The reason such arguments fall apart so
easily are, first, a marriage license is not a prerequisite to making babies,
and second, the desire to make babies is not a prerequisite for obtaining a
marriage license. If Mr. Stewart really wants to be consistent in his arguments,
he will have to propose that it be downright ILLEGAL for anyone other than a
legally married heterosexual couple to have children, and that it be ILLEGAL for
anyone who does not intend to have children to get married.
Jedediah Thunder | 7:08 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007
If everyone had for neighbors the gay couple with children that I have for
neighbors, this world would be a better place. You couldn't ask for better
neighbors. Indeed, we might all ask ourselves, "Who is my neighbor?"
Curious | 7:19 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007
Why would the Deseret News mention LDS in this article and put it under the LDS
Newsline?
Comments continue below
Ben C. | 7:54 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007
Why anyone, who claims to be moral, would leglislate against loving
relationships simply because "it ain't natural" is beyond me.
We can only hope that bigotry and discrimination based on people's personal relationships can be eliminated.
We can only hope that bigotry and discrimination based on people's personal relationships can be eliminated.
fr1nk | 8:07 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007
It wasn't long ago when black people and white people were forbidden by law
to marry. We look back today and laugh at our forbearer's for holding on to
these laws. And sometime in the future our progeny will laugh at us for holding
on to our laws that prohibit gay marriage. Would you prefer gays commit to life
long relationships or not?
Guaglione | 8:45 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007
It's odd that the article would compare same-sex unions to being LDS,
saying that there will come a time when they'll be treated the same.
If that's what gays are looking for, good luck to them. There's still more bigotry and hatred toward the LDS religion than against most ethnic groups. And people are completely tolerant of it.
If that's what gays are looking for, good luck to them. There's still more bigotry and hatred toward the LDS religion than against most ethnic groups. And people are completely tolerant of it.
BHL | 9:06 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007
Well, according to the words of the prophets...no matter how much society comes
to embrace �same-sex unions,�
homosexual behavior is and always will remain before the Lord an abominable sin.
Right is right and wrong is wrong.
What's good for the goose... | 9:45 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007
Homosexuals constitute somewhere between 1% and 3% of the US population. Why
should their interests redefine the definition of the institution of marriage
for the rest of the US population?
If any "loving relationship" where to be adopted, wouldn't that also open the door wide open to polygyny and other polygamous sexual relationships--surely these forms of "loving relationships" are entitled to at least the same protections as any LGBT relationship--wouldn't they? Politics aside, there is FAR more scientific evidence to support a genetic predisposition to these kinds of relationships than there is for LGBT sexual preferences.
How about "loving relationships" between children and older men, or older women, both gay or straight? We've had any number of teachers "lovingly" attracted to their middle-school students over the last few years; how would we justify not recognizing these as well?
Truth is, we don't have to redefine marriage to decide not to persecute or discriminate against LGBTs. On the same token, the law of unintended consequences always steps in when we start changing things for reasons of political expediency or "fairness."
In Scandinavia, they redefined marriage to include LGBTs: the result was the institution didn't expand, it became almost non-existent. --Oops.
If any "loving relationship" where to be adopted, wouldn't that also open the door wide open to polygyny and other polygamous sexual relationships--surely these forms of "loving relationships" are entitled to at least the same protections as any LGBT relationship--wouldn't they? Politics aside, there is FAR more scientific evidence to support a genetic predisposition to these kinds of relationships than there is for LGBT sexual preferences.
How about "loving relationships" between children and older men, or older women, both gay or straight? We've had any number of teachers "lovingly" attracted to their middle-school students over the last few years; how would we justify not recognizing these as well?
Truth is, we don't have to redefine marriage to decide not to persecute or discriminate against LGBTs. On the same token, the law of unintended consequences always steps in when we start changing things for reasons of political expediency or "fairness."
In Scandinavia, they redefined marriage to include LGBTs: the result was the institution didn't expand, it became almost non-existent. --Oops.
Stenar | 9:52 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007
Right is right and BHL is wrong.
To BHL | 10:05 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007
In the same areas that the Bible condemns homosexuality, it also condones
slavery, women as 2nd class citizens and many other ways of life we have learned
to change.
Someone holding on to the idea that "God" doesn't approve of homosexuality yet ignoring the other ways of life condoned in the Bible is simply holding on to an ancient hatred. This was not what "God" wanted, it was what the prejudice of the writers of scripture wanted.
Someone holding on to the idea that "God" doesn't approve of homosexuality yet ignoring the other ways of life condoned in the Bible is simply holding on to an ancient hatred. This was not what "God" wanted, it was what the prejudice of the writers of scripture wanted.
Re: BHL | 10:05 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007
For years and years, all mormons have wanted is to be left alone to do what they
want to do. Many people think what they [LDS members] do is wrong. Yet, you have
the right to do what you want to do. Same sex couples should have those same
rights with out people sticking their nose in business that doesn't concern
them.
Girl | 10:07 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007
Hey Goose,
You are so right! I loved the comment.
You are so right! I loved the comment.
...is good for the gander. | 10:26 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007
If the laws were changed to support same sex marriages, they would still have to
be of legal age no matter what. You mention the recent teacher scandals as not
being recognized as "loving relationships"...the problem is, the
victims are underage. A man or woman can't legally marry a 15 year old, and
the same would be true of same sex couples. You said "we don't have to
redefine marriage to decide not to persecute against LGBT's".
Unfortunately you are wrong. Until they have the same rights as everybody else
to get married and receive the same benefits from it [financial and social],
they are still being discriminated against.
bob | 10:36 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007
I have many gay friends and have attended an opening and afirming church. They
are people who just want the same rights and protects as everyone else. Take the
bible out of it and make it a civil union if you like. It does not hurt the
instituion.
JCF | 10:42 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007
I agree wholeheartedly with BHL and Goose. I'm surprised by the number of
people on this comment board who speak in favor of same-sex "marriage"
and other such relationships. It could be that the minority viewpoint is just
over-represented. The vocal minority often gives the appearance of being the
majority view. However, if this comment board is anywhere near representative
of the opinion in our community, which is one of the more conservative in the
nation, this nation is in serious trouble. As those whom I sustain as prophets
and seers have said, "[W]e warn that the disintegration of the family will
bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by
ancient and modern prophets." (The Family: A Proclamation to the World.)
Put me down as a steadfast supporter of traditional marriage and family.
DC | 11:27 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007
"Vice is a monster of such frightful mien
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.
Alexander Pope (1688-1744)
Based on the majority of the comments here, Pope seems to have been right. Homosexuality is wrong. Period. Frequency does not denote respectability, nor does it determine morality. Truth is truth no matter the age. Mock it if you will, you have that right and that God given choice. But don't think that others will let you cram your beliefs down our throats or reconstruct your model of morality as the public norm. You have a right to be an advocate for your beliefs, I have a right to oppose them based on my beliefs.
Put me down as another who stands on the side of the true and traditional definition of marriage and family.
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.
Alexander Pope (1688-1744)
Based on the majority of the comments here, Pope seems to have been right. Homosexuality is wrong. Period. Frequency does not denote respectability, nor does it determine morality. Truth is truth no matter the age. Mock it if you will, you have that right and that God given choice. But don't think that others will let you cram your beliefs down our throats or reconstruct your model of morality as the public norm. You have a right to be an advocate for your beliefs, I have a right to oppose them based on my beliefs.
Put me down as another who stands on the side of the true and traditional definition of marriage and family.
Mesa | 11:54 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007
Right on DC.
Everyone is Gay! | 11:56 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007
Maybe we should all turn gay, then we could rid the world of the plague that is
mankind within a hundred years!
To DC | 11:57 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007
I have to agree with DC that we shouldn't let others cram their beliefs
down our throats. We should not use the government to force our morals on
others. It logically follows that we shouldn't force DC's view of
homosexuality as wrong and "traditional" marriage as the only true
form down the throats of those who disagree.
If you oppose homosexuality and gay marriage, cry it in the streets, but do not cram it down the throats of others by legislating your view of the world onto others.
If you don't like gay marriage I'm certainly not going to force you to get gay married. I hope you'd return the favor with respect to straight marriage.
If you oppose homosexuality and gay marriage, cry it in the streets, but do not cram it down the throats of others by legislating your view of the world onto others.
If you don't like gay marriage I'm certainly not going to force you to get gay married. I hope you'd return the favor with respect to straight marriage.
Fly_on_the_wall | 12:03 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007
To JCF
I don't see how legalizing same sex unions will disintegrate my heterosexual marriage. Marriages disintegrate because of the actions of the people in the marriage and not because of some law. However, I might not be as well informed as others on the subject.
I don't see how legalizing same sex unions will disintegrate my heterosexual marriage. Marriages disintegrate because of the actions of the people in the marriage and not because of some law. However, I might not be as well informed as others on the subject.
rolandkayser | 12:19 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007
Heterosexual divorce is the threat to families, not same-sex marriage. No
politician will ever speak out against divorce, however, because half of thier
constituents are divorced, as are many politicians. Only a few percent of their
constituents are gay, so they feel free to bash away.
Money Analogy | 12:21 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007
Assume that the US government decided to stop printing dollars and recognize all
foreign currencies (mexican peso; euro, etc.) as legitimate tender for
goods&services in the US. What would happen to the value of the US
dollar?
There would be a few "die hards" that would accept only US dollars, but as time went by and the dollar became more scarce, foreign currencies would steadily gain acceptance throughout the nation. Regional preferences would develop as the dominant foreign currency became more prominant (mexican peso in Arizona, Texas and parts of California; Canadian dollar in Montana, etc.). The destruction of the dollar in these areas would be complete.
Interpretation: the US dollar is traditional marriage and traditional family life; the foreign currencies are the "alternative lifestyles" of gay marriage or polygamy.
Some may argue that the "dollar" is not "hurt" by the adoption/acceptance of "foreign currencies", but this does not square with the fact that the value of the "dollar" would be diminished in direct proportion to the acceptance of the "foreign currency".
The strength of our society is dependent upon the strength of our most fundamental institutions. Marriage between a man and a woman is THE most basic societal unit.
There would be a few "die hards" that would accept only US dollars, but as time went by and the dollar became more scarce, foreign currencies would steadily gain acceptance throughout the nation. Regional preferences would develop as the dominant foreign currency became more prominant (mexican peso in Arizona, Texas and parts of California; Canadian dollar in Montana, etc.). The destruction of the dollar in these areas would be complete.
Interpretation: the US dollar is traditional marriage and traditional family life; the foreign currencies are the "alternative lifestyles" of gay marriage or polygamy.
Some may argue that the "dollar" is not "hurt" by the adoption/acceptance of "foreign currencies", but this does not square with the fact that the value of the "dollar" would be diminished in direct proportion to the acceptance of the "foreign currency".
The strength of our society is dependent upon the strength of our most fundamental institutions. Marriage between a man and a woman is THE most basic societal unit.
Taylor Boone | 12:28 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007
I love gays and I love Mormons. The two shouldn't be at odds. The gay
people in my life comprise some of the best people I know. I want them to have
the same freedoms and liberties that I do. I want Mormons to live happy safe
lives as well. I want both groups protected in their civil liberties. So yes,
let gay couples marry. I will always support a person's right to enter
into loving and committed relationships.
Nobody "cramming" | 12:30 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007
Believe what you will, but people in a free democracy will get their freedoms
the easy way or the hard way. There are some facts here: Gay people exist and
they are not going away. They will live with who they love whether anybody
likes it or not. They will have "civil unions" or other types of
unions, but they will not go away because anybody thinks they're
"sinful".
It's anybodys choice to think and believe as they want, but it is not their right to put their beliefs on anyone else.
It's anybodys choice to think and believe as they want, but it is not their right to put their beliefs on anyone else.
Mark | 12:37 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007
Some argue that homosexuals need loving relationships in order to reduce the
extremely high rates of mental illness and suicide within the demographic. This
theory sounds good at the outset.
But studies have shown that homosexuals in highly tolerant nations, where gay unions are legal (Scandanavian nations), have rates just as bad as the US. More tolerance and a right to marry didn't help them in the least in those areas.
And why should gays want to marry? They can't have children naturally. It does not help them adopt. (Single people can adopt in some states.) In some cases it actually would increase their tax burden. Many religions are not going to condone the union. So why marry?
In the 1960's, marriage was partly abandoned by the political left. "Who needs a piece of paper to say I love someone?"
It looks to me that for the homosexual community this is a political battle that isn't really worth fighting . Give your partners power of attorney, throw a party and announce your devotion to each other. But why fight for a label that really will not help you?
But studies have shown that homosexuals in highly tolerant nations, where gay unions are legal (Scandanavian nations), have rates just as bad as the US. More tolerance and a right to marry didn't help them in the least in those areas.
And why should gays want to marry? They can't have children naturally. It does not help them adopt. (Single people can adopt in some states.) In some cases it actually would increase their tax burden. Many religions are not going to condone the union. So why marry?
In the 1960's, marriage was partly abandoned by the political left. "Who needs a piece of paper to say I love someone?"
It looks to me that for the homosexual community this is a political battle that isn't really worth fighting . Give your partners power of attorney, throw a party and announce your devotion to each other. But why fight for a label that really will not help you?
fr1nk | 12:40 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007
Essentially the commenters on this board have only used their religion to define
right and wrong. I DONT BELIEVE IN YOUR RELIGION. So explain to me, without your
religion, why certain groups should be excluded from marriage. How does my
brother and his partner getting married change anything about your marriage?
Just a voice | 12:44 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007
I would like to rebut the counter argument of "...is good for the
gander." Unfortunately, while trying to argue the difference between
same-sex marriage and underage marriage, you failed to realize that BOTH happen
to be illegal. The point that I believe "What's good for the
goose..." was trying to argue is, if same-sex marriage, which is illegal,
is legalized, what is to prevent other forms of "loving relationships"
from being pushed for legalization, as well? The example
"...goose..." gave was of what is known as underage marriage. I would
like to mention another of many, that could easily become an issue over time.
Marriage between a human and an animal. There are some humans that if it ever
became a possibility would marry their pet. No matter how outlandish it may
sound, it is nevertheless possible. Sixty years ago, same-sex marriage was
outlandish. Now it is talked as repression, to prevent "loving
relationships" from becoming husband and husband, or wife and wife. So,
really, it is a question of where does it stop? Where do we draw the line?
Sadly, even when we do, it is changed again, down the line.
Sorry | 12:46 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007
As long as the homosexual society parade themselves in public forums, tied in
chains, whipping each other, making grotesque gestures and screaming for others
to be tolerant of them when they won't tolerate others, I won't
consider them a "complex religion or society". I can't accept
that behavior and that goes for the heterosexual community too. There is
something very debasing and destructive when an indiviual or indiviuals, make
light of, mock or treat sexual relations as a toy. And homosexuals who want to
be married are only making light of religion and debasing those values.
Running low on goodwill | 1:06 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007
The thing that everyone avoids in these discussions about homosexuality, is that
homosexuality among males involves a type of sexual behavior that is unnatural,
unhealthy, and risky.
It is dishonest to pretend that homosexuality is not about sex, but is only about loving, committed relationships and civil rights. By avoiding all reference to sexual behavior, those who promote homosexuality are simply manipulating the public's goodwill.
It is dishonest to pretend that homosexuality is not about sex, but is only about loving, committed relationships and civil rights. By avoiding all reference to sexual behavior, those who promote homosexuality are simply manipulating the public's goodwill.
Affirmation | 1:17 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007
I'm with DC.
I love and appreciate, and respect gays as humans beings, but don't ask me to condone something that historically cannot perpetuate the human race more than one generation. Some vice is doomed to it's own failure to reproduce.
I love and appreciate, and respect gays as humans beings, but don't ask me to condone something that historically cannot perpetuate the human race more than one generation. Some vice is doomed to it's own failure to reproduce.
Cram down the Throat | 1:28 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007
Seems like its the homosexual crowd that is trying to cram their beliefs down my
throat. Seems like every month there is a "pride" celebration or gay
rights movement, or a demonstration where their mouths are taped shut to show
their silence. Fine, but what about a marriage parade? What about celebrating
the fact that I'm a middle-class white male? Why do I have to support
something I don't believe in?
Change in a blink! | 1:32 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007
I regret that homosexuals and pro-homosexuals have taken control of the
editorial policy of the Deseret News. I no longer recognize the Mormon Church as
the church I grew up in. It appears that the great Christian culture, our
culture, whch we have all relied on to sustain everything we love and admire is
dying.
Dee Snyder | 1:51 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007
"Were not gonna take it, NO were not gonna take it!
Were not gonna take it anymore!"
Were not gonna take it anymore!"
Redefining is Unacceptable | 2:14 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007
Who says Gays don't have the same rights as the rest of us?
Gays are free to practice sex the same as heterosexuals are. Just because people point out that homosexuality is immoral, doesn't mean we impose our values on Gays. Go ahead and sin, but just because doing this doesn't feel acceptable, don't make us redefine everything to make you feel accepted.
Heterosexuals are not keeping Gays from the rights of marriage. The actions of Gays are keeping themselves from those rights. Marriage is between a man and a woman, and if that is what Gays want, then who is stopping them?
Why does society have to redefine everything for the selfish gratifications of a few? Homosexuals have redefined the word gay, which used to mean happy. The word later took on the meaning of someone who practices homosexuality. And more recently, they want us to accept a new meaning: anyone with homosexual leanings were born that way, which eliminates choice. But no one is taking choice away from Gays, but themselves.
Gays freely give up choice by choosing things that do not offer them the same opportunities. Having kids naturally was not taken away by us, either.
Gays are free to practice sex the same as heterosexuals are. Just because people point out that homosexuality is immoral, doesn't mean we impose our values on Gays. Go ahead and sin, but just because doing this doesn't feel acceptable, don't make us redefine everything to make you feel accepted.
Heterosexuals are not keeping Gays from the rights of marriage. The actions of Gays are keeping themselves from those rights. Marriage is between a man and a woman, and if that is what Gays want, then who is stopping them?
Why does society have to redefine everything for the selfish gratifications of a few? Homosexuals have redefined the word gay, which used to mean happy. The word later took on the meaning of someone who practices homosexuality. And more recently, they want us to accept a new meaning: anyone with homosexual leanings were born that way, which eliminates choice. But no one is taking choice away from Gays, but themselves.
Gays freely give up choice by choosing things that do not offer them the same opportunities. Having kids naturally was not taken away by us, either.
What's your problem? | 2:22 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007
You know what they say:
A person who is 100% secure with their sexuality, really doesn't care one way or the other about anybody elses.
A person who is 100% secure with their sexuality, really doesn't care one way or the other about anybody elses.
Neil | 2:34 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007
This whole argument is not about equal rights. We all have the same basic
rights. Just because you want to "act" differently doesn't mean
society has to make special considerations for it. That's right - it's
not who you are, it's how you act that makes you label yourself LGBT.
What this boils down to is a concerted effort to legitimize immoral behavior - period!
What this boils down to is a concerted effort to legitimize immoral behavior - period!
hi | 2:53 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007
I have to agree with goose. One day society will become tolerant of sexual
relationships between an adult and child. It's really sad. Homosexuality
between men is risky behavior and one of the biggest ways that HIV is
transmitted, HIV drugs and treatments are very expensive, and because we are
such a 'fair' society we all end up having to pay for it by getting
our tax dollars raised as well as our premiums, which thereby extends their
lives and allows them to continue spreading the disease to other people!
Isn't that lovely? Maybe homosexual marriage would promote monogamy and
they would quite infecting other men who in turn infect their wives or other men
you're a bunch of hypocrites | 3:55 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007
Doesn't over half of heterosexual marriages end in divorce? Maybe
that's what's "ruining" the sanctity of marriage...
I also just don't understand if 2 people of the same sex who love each other want to marry, how it effects any one of you who are against it. How exactly does it impact your life? Why do you care so much about something that has absolutely NOTHING to do with you?
I also just don't understand if 2 people of the same sex who love each other want to marry, how it effects any one of you who are against it. How exactly does it impact your life? Why do you care so much about something that has absolutely NOTHING to do with you?
cachedout | 4:03 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007
"In Scandinavia, they redefined marriage to include LGBTs: the result was
the institution didn't expand, it became almost non-existent.
--Oops."
Actually, the heterosexual marriage rate in Denmark has been climbing since the passage of their same-sex marriage law. Danish heterosexual marriage rates are the highest since the 1970s. Heterosexual marriage rates in Sweeden, Norway and Iceland are all higher than before homosexual marriages were legalized.
"Oops", indeed.
Actually, the heterosexual marriage rate in Denmark has been climbing since the passage of their same-sex marriage law. Danish heterosexual marriage rates are the highest since the 1970s. Heterosexual marriage rates in Sweeden, Norway and Iceland are all higher than before homosexual marriages were legalized.
"Oops", indeed.
Louise | 4:20 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007
I worked for an attorney that as part of his practice would do Domestic
Partnerships. The amount of time and money for homosexual couples to have even
just a few of the rights married couple have is astounding. Marriage provides
many benefits that people who are not married are not legally entitled to. If I
die without a will everything I own will go to my husband. If an unmarried
person in a relationship dies all assets go to blood relatives, not the other
person in the relationship. There are very legitimate reasons why gay couples
want the rights married people have.
Whether or not you agree with gay marriage does not deflate the reasons why people seek it.
Whether or not you agree with gay marriage does not deflate the reasons why people seek it.
Anonymous | 4:20 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007
I wish the morality police so obsessed with gay people would direct their
attention towards the immoral War on Iraq instead for a while.
Thank you "Just A Voice" | 4:45 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007
It's surprising to me how many people try and compare something else to
something they are against. For instance, underage relationships don't
have anything to do with gay relationships unless that particular relationship
includes that issue.
There are gay people of all ages, but the discussion and the issue is whether CONSENTING ADULTS all should have the same rights regardless of their sexual preference. Of course, the answer is yes in a democratic society. Someone also pointed out that they don't believe in any religious system that is against them. Of course they don't! That is their right and it's not anybody else's right to enforce their religion on anyone else. We live in a free society with free religious beliefs (or no religious belief necessary at all).
Keep church beliefs in church and civil rights where they belong.
There are gay people of all ages, but the discussion and the issue is whether CONSENTING ADULTS all should have the same rights regardless of their sexual preference. Of course, the answer is yes in a democratic society. Someone also pointed out that they don't believe in any religious system that is against them. Of course they don't! That is their right and it's not anybody else's right to enforce their religion on anyone else. We live in a free society with free religious beliefs (or no religious belief necessary at all).
Keep church beliefs in church and civil rights where they belong.
Gay Rights | 5:01 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007
Correct me if I'm wrong. Gays need more rights other than what is in the
consitution?
I don't think so. So I'm white, fat, & Christen. (And straight) guess I'm just stuck with paying the bill for everyone else.
I don't think so. So I'm white, fat, & Christen. (And straight) guess I'm just stuck with paying the bill for everyone else.
Mark | 5:14 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007
Regrading the property after death issue:
So homosexual couples have to have wills that outline what they want done with their property after they die. And this is persecution?
Regarding the divorce issue:
So homosexual couples are going to help society out with the stability of their relationships? I agree that society is melting down on the home front, but this argument doesn't logically lead to any need to recognize legal unions for same-gender couples.
Someone please prove that civil unions/marriages or whatever will benefit society as a whole. Then you will have the beginnings of a decent argument for creating and protecting same-gender unions.
We already know that the experiments in Europe haven't really helped same-gender couples with mental health issues or the suicide rate. Why not? Do civil unions help homosexual couples in similar ways that marriage helps traditional couples? How stable are civil unions? Again, how will it help homosexuals contribute to society as a whole?
So until these questions are answered, homosexual couples can create wills (most heterosexual couples, married and unmarried, already do) to fix their legal issues and stop dreaming that redefining marriage is going to somehow make them happy. It probably won't!
So homosexual couples have to have wills that outline what they want done with their property after they die. And this is persecution?
Regarding the divorce issue:
So homosexual couples are going to help society out with the stability of their relationships? I agree that society is melting down on the home front, but this argument doesn't logically lead to any need to recognize legal unions for same-gender couples.
Someone please prove that civil unions/marriages or whatever will benefit society as a whole. Then you will have the beginnings of a decent argument for creating and protecting same-gender unions.
We already know that the experiments in Europe haven't really helped same-gender couples with mental health issues or the suicide rate. Why not? Do civil unions help homosexual couples in similar ways that marriage helps traditional couples? How stable are civil unions? Again, how will it help homosexuals contribute to society as a whole?
So until these questions are answered, homosexual couples can create wills (most heterosexual couples, married and unmarried, already do) to fix their legal issues and stop dreaming that redefining marriage is going to somehow make them happy. It probably won't!
Robo | 5:48 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007
Sooooo, in all sincerity, if 2 men is O.K., then why not polygamy among
"consenting adults?" What is the "civil rights" reason for
the illegality of polygamy or bigamy or any other form of --gamy among
"consenting adults?" If same gender marriage is made legal, then
every other form of relationship that is currently illegal will push for the
same recognition, and probably rightfully so. I honestly don't see what is
magic about the number 2, or even the age of 18, in marriage relationships if
you take morality out of it.
Religion Is Here | 5:54 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007
Many of you claim to do away with religion when it comes to this issue. This
world was created by God for his children to have experiences. He created male
and female in his image and likeness. He commanded them to multiply and
replenish the earth. The new testament affirms that man (not woman) was to
leave his parents and cleave unto his wife (not man).
Study history and see what happened to societies which allowed debauchery and immorality. They all collapsed.
God loves all people, but he does not love what many of them do. He sets the standards. We decided to come here and follow his plan and use our agency.
Some of you may deny what I have said, but you have not experienced what I have experienced. My experiences have affirmed to me that there is a loving God, who cries because his children are denying him and making choices which will not lead them back to him.
Agency is a precious gift, only if you use it correctly.
Our prophet speaks for God. He is his mouthpiece on this earth. Search, pray and study and you can find the truth of God.
Study history and see what happened to societies which allowed debauchery and immorality. They all collapsed.
God loves all people, but he does not love what many of them do. He sets the standards. We decided to come here and follow his plan and use our agency.
Some of you may deny what I have said, but you have not experienced what I have experienced. My experiences have affirmed to me that there is a loving God, who cries because his children are denying him and making choices which will not lead them back to him.
Agency is a precious gift, only if you use it correctly.
Our prophet speaks for God. He is his mouthpiece on this earth. Search, pray and study and you can find the truth of God.
me | 6:01 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007
re: gay rights
you're wrong, consider yourself corrected.
It's not an issue of gays needing MORE rights, it's a matter of being able to have the SAME rights as hetero couples. Marriage confers many rights, protections, and benefits - both legal and practical.
you're wrong, consider yourself corrected.
It's not an issue of gays needing MORE rights, it's a matter of being able to have the SAME rights as hetero couples. Marriage confers many rights, protections, and benefits - both legal and practical.
Shelama | 6:12 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007
If all homosexuals were to marry, a best estimate is that 93-97% of all
marriages would still be heterosexual/traditional. Seems to me that does not
pose a significant threat to the importance of the traditional marriage and
family.
I tend to agree with the idea that MARRIAGE should be strictly a religious rite and institution, and not a function of the state, and that any couple, straight or gay, should be allowed MARRIAGE from or within a religious organization which will recognize and perform such ceremony. CIVIL UNIONS would be non-religious unions with the same benefits and, rights, and obligations, and similarly be available to both heterosexual and homosexual couples.
Tell me again how traditional marriage and family will suffer when ONLY 93-97% of marriages/unions are heterosexual?
If you don't like homosexual marriages or unions, then don't enter into one.
I tend to agree with the idea that MARRIAGE should be strictly a religious rite and institution, and not a function of the state, and that any couple, straight or gay, should be allowed MARRIAGE from or within a religious organization which will recognize and perform such ceremony. CIVIL UNIONS would be non-religious unions with the same benefits and, rights, and obligations, and similarly be available to both heterosexual and homosexual couples.
Tell me again how traditional marriage and family will suffer when ONLY 93-97% of marriages/unions are heterosexual?
If you don't like homosexual marriages or unions, then don't enter into one.
Robo | 6:15 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007
Oh, and I don't think it's possible to "logically" debate
who should and should not receive "civil" marriage licenses until a
concensus can be reached on why government agencies issue marriage licenses in
the first place.
Shelama | 6:27 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007
I was looking at other sources in my posting above citing 93-97% heterosexual
marriages, while somebody else had already posted here that:...
"Homosexuals constitute somewhere between 1% and 3% of the US population."
If that is a more accurate figure, then, if all homosexuals got married that would leave 97-99% of all marriages as heterosexual.
Why, again, would only 97-99% of marriages being heterosexual/traditional represent a threat to the traditional marriage? What, exactly, would be threatened? How? Why?
Again, if you don't believe in homosexual marriages or civil unions, then don't enter into one. The fact that others do does not force you to do so. Nor does it diminish your rights, responsibilities or obligations within your heterosexual marriage.
Nor does it force onto you or your marriage anyone else's "agenda." Your marriage is perfectly untouched.
When mixed race marriages became legal where they had been previously outlawed did not force anyone to marry a person of another race.
"Homosexuals constitute somewhere between 1% and 3% of the US population."
If that is a more accurate figure, then, if all homosexuals got married that would leave 97-99% of all marriages as heterosexual.
Why, again, would only 97-99% of marriages being heterosexual/traditional represent a threat to the traditional marriage? What, exactly, would be threatened? How? Why?
Again, if you don't believe in homosexual marriages or civil unions, then don't enter into one. The fact that others do does not force you to do so. Nor does it diminish your rights, responsibilities or obligations within your heterosexual marriage.
Nor does it force onto you or your marriage anyone else's "agenda." Your marriage is perfectly untouched.
When mixed race marriages became legal where they had been previously outlawed did not force anyone to marry a person of another race.
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.
- Space shuttle Atlantis returns 8:11 a.m.
- Stocks tumble on Dubai debt fallout 8:09 a.m.
- Holiday television program listings 1:02 a.m.
- Williams, Rose celebrate by playing 12:46 a.m.
- Utes to get tested by Illinois 12:40 a.m.
- Cougs to host Weber St. 12:39 a.m.
- Efforts to save a life praised 12:29 a.m.
- Settle fights, set tone of marriage 12:28 a.m.
- Clearfield balking at UTA plan 12:26 a.m.
- New administration bldg for Davis 12:26 a.m.
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies
- Efforts to save a life praised
- Rivalry has had some 'turkeys'
- Holiday television program listings
- Salt Lake City woman shot
- Highland players make special friend
- Korver's return hits snag
- Matt Reynolds vs. Koa Misi
- Provo star leads Bulldogs to win
- Rivalry Week is highly profane
- BYU would like friendlier rivalry
262 - Protests against Phoenix LDS temple211
- RSL wins MLS Cup on penalty kicks202
- Bronco, Kyle rubber match139
- Thunder rolls by Jazz136
- Letters: Rushing to judge Palin133
- Boys basketball rankings118
- Editorial: Poor welcome for Palin112
- Hall, Johnson matchup key102
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies99
Latest comments
People need to move out of their parents' basement and get a life.
My heart goes out to his family, the strength that they have shown is...
LOL...all the pre-game smack about BYU didn't blah-blah-blah while Utah was...
Hear about the Utah coeds that transferred to BYU. It lowered the average...
Honestly, this statistic is certainly a little misleading. I give BYU credit...
I like the players he is getting in. The reality is that our 2 seniors are...
It is sad that so much energy is devoted to a meaningless athletic contest....
"The Quest" - Hahahahaha! Great picture!
You are WAY off on a couple of things. 1. Rich did make it to the game...
.. but aslo a realistic one. Hall is a dissappointment and here is why:...
Advertisements