Reader comments
Bill intended to stop domestic partner registry passed by Senate committee

123 comments | Read story

Page:
< Previous
1
2
3

Anonymous | 11:29 a.m. Feb. 12, 2008

Janey- actually today we do pick and choose what to live by in the Bible, and for good reason! Did you know that, among other things, it says in the Bible that a woman who is raped should be stoned to death along with her rapist? Or that dashing children against rocks was praised as a form of revenge against your enemies? Or that Midianite girls under 3 years old should be spared from killing (even though everyone else was not) because they are "suitable for having sexual relations"?

The other part of my original post was more answering to everyone else who thinks that allowing a domestic partnership registry would somehow undermine their marriage, not directed at you per se....

russ | 11:53 a.m. Feb. 12, 2008

Duckman: I don't know if they would accept the advertisement, the announcement. Church paper and all that. Not having read a full paper lately does the DN carry liquor ads? Cig ads? Obviously, they would draw a line somewhere.

I don't know about the Trib. They probably would do it. They take a more expansive view of the world. But you know if kids read about this stuff, a registry, they will instantly turn into gay and lesbian folk. I don't want to be responsible for that!! Oh no sirr ree

I wonder if the DN could handle it. Hmmmmmm

shadow | 11:59 a.m. Feb. 12, 2008

It feels good to let all of this hatred out, doesn't it. My neighbor one block away is gay. The yellow house on the corner. He lives alone. He is a nice man, supporter of civic things, and a do-gooder. We all know he is gay. But we still let him cross the street without running over him. We wave, he waves. We have bbqs and he comes. He buys tickets to the usual community things, supports little league, etc. He just wants to be free.

I guess that is it: free. He does not walk on my flowers, steal my hose, or throw snow balls at my car. Live and let live. Perhaps that is the definition of civilization and civility.

The Shadow Knows.

Comments continue below

Ruhlan | 3:01 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

I agree, the hate and vernom appears to be coming from gays on this post.

I don't know why you are the way you are but I don't think that way and you come across as strange. Your practices aren't loving, they're arrangements for your peculiar type of sex, nothing else. Get rid of the sex, what do you have left?

boiseguy | 9:11 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

The "slippery slope" argument is tired and not logical, listen, TWO people entering into a contract under the law to claim themselves as a household. People do not choose to be gay, why would anyone choose it? Polygamy? horses? dogs? sheep? seems to me that animals cannot sign a contract, and polygamy is CHOOSING to have more than one spouse, there's a difference here and it comes down to choice, and to understand the gay equality issues you have to first understand that they did not choose it. Thinking that you know for a fact people choose to be gay, is absurd and ill-informed. A gay person surely could choose to marry someone of the opposite sex, but why should someone who is straight be stuck in a marriage with someone that isn't attracted to them? I think extending partnership and marriage rights to gays would actually strengthen families and commitments in our society, because it will be more available to everyone, rather than becoming a nation of singles.. because its already started to happen without gays even being in the mix...

Lets include | 9:36 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

Any lawful (by birth, marriage or adoption) relative living in the same household, spouse, brothers. sisters, aunts, uncles, in-laws, nephews, nieces, etc., for qualifications to share City paid benefits. Certain federal permits allow these relations for people living in the same household to share a benefit, but non-relatives cannot.

Chris has a strong will, if he thinks he is right he won't compromise. This might be good or bad, but he is impassioned.

Anonymous | 6:46 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

I am dreaming of a time when people will start minding their own business.

Joe Mama | 8:32 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

Marriage is and should only be between a man and woman. And, Utah's stance is not solely driven by the LDS church. I live outside of Utah, but in a state that shares the stance that Utah has taken..and guess what - Mormonism is not the predominant religion.

I say good for Utah for the stance it is taking to defend both the family and marriage. You can call me a bigot, or call me a homophobe, and I could care less.

Jerry | 2:12 p.m. Feb. 13, 2008

Just noticing who keeps putting religion into the arguments on here. Those farthest from religion.

Comfort factor that they can't live without?

Ralph says the proposed law will be ignored if passed. Sounds like a treasonable remark to me. You make you own laws and ignore those over you.

Ralph needs to be taken to the woodshed (quoting Becky)

To Utah Resident | 12:56 p.m. Feb. 14, 2008

We do. The arrangement is for sex, nothing else. Apparently you know some analomies. We figure neither one will live past the 37-39 year age given they have drug problems too.

Two Words | 6:37 a.m. Feb. 15, 2008

Voice of Reason: I totally disagree with you but commend you for the most articulate expression of your position I have ever seen. I respect you for that.

Anonymous: Disagreeing with same-sex marriage does not make you a hateful person. Actively injuring others because you disagree with them, their view, their lifestyle, etc. makes you hateful.

This topic is tiresome and tedious. Laws should be based on logic and reason not emotion.

To RSB | 6:50 a.m. Feb. 15, 2008

You say marriage isn't about sexual preference yet you want to define it based on sexual preference. In other words, marriage is only for you if your sexual preference is hetero.

Marriage is much more than sex. And, a man can love a man just as deeply as man can love a woman. So if we agree marriage isn't just about sexual preference then let's stop defining it by that.

To Two Words | 7:55 a.m. Feb. 15, 2008

I agree, laws should be based on logic and reason.

Case in point. Title IX, exactly 9 words if memory serves me. Manual to define what those 9 words meant was over 26,000 words at one time and probably more today. The devil is in the details. You make a law and then someone afterwards makes up all these things the original law makers never had in mind. This registry fits that description 100% +

The present argument is evolving into the same hole in the ground where we pour in huge numbers of words that mean nothing but are trumpeted as law.

Maybe we should re-name what we're doing. How about weird proclivities registry? That should kill it?

Mountain High | 9:17 a.m. Feb. 15, 2008

My hat is off to the State Senators who have the welfare of the community as priority one..... at east somebody has the integrity to say " Not on my watch." What a hoax to put innocent children into a situation denying them any sense of normality. This is something that I know from personal experience since I have a niece in one of these same sex relationships and have literally seen the heartbreaking torment that has torn my brothers family apart. The child that she and her severely domineering partner have adopted at such a young age has grown to a reality that hers is not a normal family and has on many occassions begged to be allowed to live with her grandparents because she wants to have a family like her friends. She is very close to my niece but won't even speak of the other partner whom she abhores. I have witnessed many selfish and tyranical episodes of this selfserving woman in her attempts to keep the child from developing attachment to our family. If this is the future for children then include me with those who are adamently against legalizing these destructive relationships.

I'm Asking | 9:32 a.m. Feb. 15, 2008

Did the American Psychological Association begin the movement for normalizing homosexual behavior? Was it a political decision to remove homosexuality from the abnormal classification of disorders? Can legislation normalize behavior?

Mountain High | 10:04 a.m. Feb. 15, 2008

What a joke....Physicians heal thyselves and convince the rest of us that homosexuality is normal......no way, no how....what a political crock.

To Mountain High | 10:05 a.m. Feb. 15, 2008

I'm aware of a setup like you describe only it's two young men (twins) who's father is a "sperm donor" and mom has a she male counterpart.

My heart goes out to them. The relationship is horrible. The other partner is overboard in everything. I wish they could leave and live with a normal family.

People who think these relationships need to be classified as normal are naive big time.

RangerGordon | 12:38 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

I say the city council and the mayor don't need to ask permission from Chris "Ugly Baby" Buttars. We elected our city council and our mayor, and they're doing what we want them to.

We should just run things the way we want. If West Jordan hates the idea of a partner registry so much, West Jordan doesn't have to have one.

What's West Jordan going to do--invade us?

Mountain High | 12:43 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

Ref: To Mountain High
I have a couple of friends whom I grew up with who are gay and I still consider them friends. In order to remain that way, we have made the determination to not allow ourselves to engage in discussions on the issue. In my own attempts to accept them I consider it their business to keep their sexuality to themselves. They in turn respect my right not to be forced to except their sexuality. I can live with that and they also have found that by doing so more people are accepting of them. None of my gay friends desire to form families by adopting children into their relationship. My niece, whom I love very much is the one exception, and believe me it is heatbreaking to see the way she has castigated herself to the every whim of her she/male companion. It's almost to the point of enslavement. I live in Ohio and in the small college town where I reside there is a very noticible lesbian culture, several worse tan my nieces. I'm sure that there is probably just as prevelent society of gay males in this community but they certainly aren't as open.

Naha Yazzie | 1:38 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

Mountain High
I think you missed the point of "I'm Asking"
The APA did normalize homosexuality in their diagnostic / statistical manual (the standard for assessing and diagnosing disorders) According to them homosexuality is no longer a disorder.

I don't believe the APA is correct since the change was based on a vote or political action.

However, their having normalized homosexuality certainly demonstrates the influence of political action or legislation to legitimize something.

Our society is becoming increasingly permissive in what we sanction and approve. Consider the availability of pornography and marajuana.

I do not live in Utah. However I salute your state senator for standing firm for something he (and many others) believe is good for contemporary society's well-being. Strong, healthy families are an absoloute must. The uniqueness of the traditional family and it's foundational place in a stable, functional society must be adamantly protected.

Mountain High | 4:06 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

Naha Yazzie
I totally understood "I'm Asking" that's why it's a total political crock. My "Physician heal thyself" jot is intended as a verbal joust at the APA's political curveball. Do you savy Chemosabe?????
You cannot correct a wrong by just voting based on the so called "politically correct"whims of a few intellectuals who intend to force their own agendas. Many of their contemporaries still feel and hold onto opposing views..........This is a classic case of political correctness going too far. There is nothing politically correct to classify homosexuality as normal when normal signifies what is considered to be the action most acceptable.

S David Olson | 12:42 a.m. Feb. 19, 2008

Let's face it, this isn't about equal rights (although it should be). It's really about you telling me that you don't like how I live within the privacy of my OWN home. So tell me again how my decision to commit to someone else of the same sex has destroyed family ideals and is destined to ruin this country? Last I checked the idea of a family was all about love and commitment. But I guess some would rather that we continue on our current course of 50% of marriages breaking up because some straight people have forgotten what a privilege and blessing love and commitment is. To all the sad hypocrites who think itï¿½s Christian to discriminate while they have their 1nd or 2rd failed marriages, I offer them the compassion they deny me: God bless you and I hope I havenï¿½t ruined your 3rd marriage already.

To Sokol | 6:08 p.m. July 1, 2008

I pity your ignorance. If I had stayed married to my ex-husband, my children would NOT be living in a stable, secure and loving household. Instead, they would be living with a drunk, dead-beat dad and a miserable mom.

Because I choose not to live with a man, does that make my family invalid?

Who are we to say what benefits a child will receive from living with two straight-married people, versus two people who are not married? Have you done a study to prove (or disprove) the benefits?

Additionally, you talk about fraud. Do you realize that the standards required to receive a domestic partnership certificate are more demanding than the process of acquiring a marriage certificate? DP's have to prove financial dependency before receiving any benefits. Married couples don't. All they have to provide is that piece of paper that says "married".

Just becuase you "have eyes" doesn't mean you see clearly.

Page:
< Previous
1
2
3

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.