Regarding gay marriage:Marriage between a man and a woman is one of
society's oldest and deepest held convictions. To change it now would increase
disrespect for marriage. On the other hand, if two people want to
have a sexual relationship, it is in society's best interest that that
relationship be long term and hopefully permanent. But I have a problem with
any group, religious or otherwise, asking for a government to recognize them as
legitimate. It implies that that group is illegitimate unless a government
recognizes them. If an intelligent adult wants to make a promise to
God regarding a relationship, whether it is to become a priest or to join in a
hopefully permanent relationship with another man or woman, it seems to be a
dangerous precedent that any other person or entity has the right to interfere
between a person and their God. A suggested solution is to show
respect and compassion to fellow human beings that are in respectful and
hopefully permanent relationships.
"What side am I on?" Live and let live. Freedom of expression. All children
should have the same starting line regardless of family money or whom the
parents are or where they were born (idealistic with all the babies being pumped
into the world who are unwanted, unloved, hungry and have no access to
education). I'm on the side of the mythical "work ethic". I believe that
material reward should come from merit. Most real wealth does not come from hard
work in my country. The working class is falling for the Special Interest
propaganda and is a slave who supports its slavery. // Jean Clelland-Morin
'Scuse the above errors - I'm not used responding in limited space. / Any family
composition can be loving and successful if the holier-than-thou and
religious fundamentalists would stop the hurtful narratives and discriminatory
voting. / I am an ex-Mormon, graduate of BYU, agnostic and a dirty-word,
"liberal" (or socialist or left-wing nut or whatever - you can't hurt my
feelings with name-calling). My "religion" is the Golden Rule// Jean
There was a comment indicating that Robert George didn't get proper media
coverage. How many non-Christian's get fair coverage? Why do Communists (yes
there are some in the U.S.) get almost no coverage?/ Here's my view of marriage
- George can bebate with me if he likes: A liaison-celebration should have NO
legal ties. It should be the choice of the participating adults. There should be
laws to protect individuals regardless of marital status. Citizens should
receive benefits and pay taxes according to individual merit. That piece of
paper just serves to let the state manipulate us and the holier-than-thou stick
their noses in the bedroom. That bpiece of paper does NOT guarantee a successful
relationship or good parenting. As a single mom, I got sick of the family, the
church and society in general telling my children and me that we were an
inferior family because there was no father? We could have used some moral
support and it would have helped if I had not been according to gender - both my
parents voted against the Equal Rights Amendment. TBC // Jean Clelland-Morin
Why can't a guy like this be quoted in the press, or his conclusions or
declarations be trumpeted, instead of the predictable list of mindless leftists
who have an agenda, and it's obvious they have an agenda. I could read this guy
all day, but I won't read those other goons.
Kaye Possa | 8:33 a.m. Sept. 12, 2010 Great choice! Welcome, Dr. George!
================ Agreed, second that!Welcome.[Sutble word of Caution - Utah's a tough crowd.]
RE: jackhp | 4:11 p.m.IF you become a MORE permissive society,
then what else will that lead to?it is not questin of abandoning, it
is a question what else will society permit,IF you continue weaken
the moral center then what do you have left?moral anarchy, as you
accept more and more immorality. Society crumbles, and
like ALL past civilizations that became more and more permissive, they ALL
fell,to either go away completely, or be conquered or replaced by
another "empire".NO civilization has survived without a moral
center, you just destroy the will of society to survive, there are
just too many who care more about satisfying thier own appetites and desires
than they care about others.
jackhp,Strictly speaking, calling legalization of same-sex marriage
and abandoning traditional marriage the same thing is not a "non-squitur", it is
equivocation. Still fallacious reasoning, but of a different type. Either way,
you are correct to point out that someone of Mr. George's caliber should be
above such fallacies.
Humm??Pointing out that George's argument is a non sequitur is not
an ad hominem attack.Where did you go to school, BYU?
Legitimate journalists shouldn't write hagiographies.
@ Humm?? 4:22Fair enough, I stand corrected. I will abide my own
advice, even though I'm clearly NOT touting myself as a legitimate news
organization.Are you willing to call out the reporters and editors
of this paper for their use of "Democrat Party"?BTW, wasn't it you
calling someone a "Bigot" (why capitalize it?) up thread? That seems like a bit
of a leap to make based on one simple comment questioning the level of thinking
that Christians do on some subjects. Are you guilty of a wee bit of hypocrisy
@jackhp, it's Fox News and right wing. I'd expect more from anyone who was not a
left wing nut. But alas it's just perfect that a left wing nut responds with ad
"Abandoning traditional marriage also opens the door for acceptance of
polyamory, or non-monogamous relationships, as a 'legitimate marital option,'
George said."Legalizing gay marriage is not the same as "abandoning
traditional marriage". Mr. George's argument is a non sequitur. I'd expect
more from the "most influential conservative Christian thinker" but I've learned
not to expect too much in the way of logic from religious "thinkers".
"... George began distancing himself from the Democrat Party ..."To
Ms. Israelsen-Hartley and any D-News editor who may remain, it's "Democratic
Party" not "Democrat Party". I expect such "mistakes" from right-wing-nuts and
Faux News - I expect more from anyone considering themselves a legitimate news
I love this man's scholarship and writings! Reason and faith are COMPLETELY
I can deal with conservatives (as long as I ignore their position on birth
control---and this because my church teaches me to avoid extremes.)
One of my favorite conservative Catholics is Pat Buchanan because he smiles, has
a sense of humor, and was opposed to the Iraq war from day one. I applaud the
D-news for innovation because there are a lot of things churches do not (and
should not) have an opinion on: such as health care, immigration, and the most
sticky of all: white collar vs. blue collar. The tea party does not like
elitist people who have 3 or 4 college degrees and think that that therefore
makes them a pharisee or sadducee and that their opinion therefore is better
than that of a farmer, carpenter, tent maker, or poet or writer or nurse or
kindergarten teacher. I doubt this Princeton professor thinks he is any better
than coal miners in West Virginia: but he did leave that culture to go to
Harvard to work in white collar jobs; there is nothing wrong with that, but the
divide between the educated and non educated in our country is real and God
knows it as well as anyone, and loves people in spite of their education.
Truly under represented previously, the white, religious, conservative, freedom
means what I say it does crowd will finally have a voice on the board.
I've only read an article or two by Robert P George, but I liked what I read and
think he's a great addition. This is a huge pickup for the Deseret News.
LVIS-I hope so; that would be a good thing too. Perhaps it would be best to just
take religion out of the equation and seek a common neutral vantage point where
we can all see a little more clearly.
I am thrilled to have his input here. He is articulate and chooses not to
offend. The fact that some choose to be offended is not because they disagree,
but because they choose to not listen to and understand a different viewpoint.
All civil discussion and debate require allowing for honest disagreement.
Understanding those who agree with you is sometimes difficult. Truly
understanding those who disagree is critical.
I have a question for the "Board."As you continue to publish a hard
copy of the D-News, will it remain the "Deseret News" or will it become "KSL"?
Or maybe "Deseret News/KSL"?Just curious, "KSL" just seems like a
funny name for a newspaper.
And this is news why? As if anything other than "...influential Christian
Conservative" would be touted by the DNews..
skeptic--might it also support the social maturing for non-mormon readers? Of
course, as you say, change and growth is slow.
Great choice! Welcome, Dr. George!
Good, the cross pollenation of religious thought may support the social maturing
for Mormon readers: although change and growth is slow.
Good move on the part of Deseret News. We all need to stand together in this
country to speak out for marriage, family and truth. It's refreshing to work
with other faiths in a common cause!
"... George explained that sex is a reproductive principle that, unlike
digestion or walking, is only fulfilled between a man and a woman becoming
one-flesh in 'organic unity.' Such unity is not achieved by two men or two women
in a "love-makes-a-family" type arrangement, he argues."Yes,
reproduction can be achieved with help. Just because homosexuals need outside
help for procreation doesn't mean they cannot have a perfectly functioning
family. Love can certainly make a family."Abandoning traditional
marriage also opens the door for acceptance of polyamory, or non-monogamous
relationships, as a 'legitimate marital option,' George said."No,
same gender marriage doesn't. Besides, no one said anything about abandoning
traditional marriage. It is comforting to hear a Christian actually
say something nice about reason for a change. I've heard sermons and debates
where reason is opening rejected for faith. Faith derails reason, however.
They are not mutually compatible.
I would like to see Professor George debate Glenn Beck on the issue of
traditional marriage. Beck, using strict libertarian logic, avoids condemning
homosexual marriage. Professor George is a staunch supporter of traditional
marriage.I would like to see them debate the work of two prior
academics on the subject:British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel
Unwin argued that any society that has loosened sexual morality outside of
man-woman marriage has not survived. Harvard sociologist Pitirim
Sorokin believed that all political revolutions that brought about societal
collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were
devalued by the culture’s acceptance of homosexuality.