Comments about ‘Same-sex unions going mainstream?’

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.

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?"

Why would the Deseret News mention LDS in this article and put it under the LDS Newsline?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Right is right and BHL is wrong.

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.

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.

Hey Goose,
You are so right! I loved the comment.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

Right on DC.

Maybe we should all turn gay, then we could rid the world of the plague that is mankind within a hundred years!

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.

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.