Quantcast
Utah

Traditional marriage has impact beyond faith

Comments

Return To Article
  • Christy Beaverton, OR
    Jan. 30, 2011 7:56 p.m.

    NP | 1:02 p.m. Jan. 28, 2011
    South Jordan, Utah

    You don't even have to be religious to understand that a functioning married mother & father are the best thing for children.

    ============

    Ahh, and the key word here is 'functioning'. Gays exist, NP. They always have and they always will. They're around you right now. Do you label a gay man's marriage to a heterosexual woman 'functioning'? Maybe it 'functions', but do you think he, or his poor wife, is really happy? And if not, what does this do to their children?

    Of course men and women have different 'qualities' and yes, both are important to the raising of children. Single parents and gay parents do not raise their children in a vacuum. They rely on family and friends to provide that needed counter weight. That's just how it works. And it works well.

  • Christy Beaverton, OR
    Jan. 30, 2011 6:48 p.m.

    Independent | 12:21 p.m. Jan. 28, 2011
    Henderson, NV

    I wish to live in a society who holds, to a reasonable degree, those things as moral the same things that I do. And it's getting beyond reasonable.

    ============

    I'm sure there were many people who thought that mixing the races was not a moral thing to do either. And we know how that argument was tossed out by all good people decades ago.

    This issue will be no different.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 29, 2011 7:48 p.m.

    Dear zoar63
    You stated "Traditional marriage between OPPOSITE SEXES has been around since the beginning of time. The majority does not want this tradition changed".

    Actually zoar , no one has ever said anything about eliminating marriage between opposite sexes. No one wants marriage between opposite sexes eliminated.

    What people want is to expand the benefit of the marriage institution to all responsible adults who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. They want to make sure that their loved ones are taken care and receive the benefit from their mutual efforts as a couple. When one of them is gone or unable to make decisions by themselves. Just like mother and father did when their time came.
    Nothing more nothing less. If you are in love, you can marry that person because you love him or her.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    Jan. 29, 2011 6:45 p.m.

    @Pagan

    The claim that marriage is 'traditional' is false.

    My examples to support this are:

    Bigamy
    Polygamy
    Arranged marriage
    Interacial marriage

    ------------

    The common denominator in these marriages is that they are between opposite sexes. Traditional marriage between OPPOSITE SEXES has been around since the beginning of time. The majority does not want this tradition changed.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 29, 2011 12:05 p.m.

    "smoke your way into the WH"

    Oh no, he smoked, how could we possibly let him win the election? (get over it, so he smokes, big deal, every president drinks, you think we should reject them all?)

    "surround yourself with czars that have not been chosen by any one other than yourself"

    No different than bush but nobody complained then.

    "brush aside the views and wishes of the majority of your country"

    You mean the majority of the country that elected him? The majority of people support obamacare or oppose it because it's not liberal enough (you know...public option).

    "and then completely destroy most of the major sectors of the economy"

    Banking crisis averted with bailouts, auto industry saved, bailout money being paid back, record Q3 profits for corporations in 2010, -700k jobs Jan 2009 that bush left obama, now on a 12 month private sector job gain streak. That's destroying? In the words of Inigo Montaya "I don't think it means what you think it means."

    "drag your countrys reputation through the dirt with your allies"

    Not true...except Israel.

  • smokinchevy Victor, Idaho
    Jan. 29, 2011 10:42 a.m.

    Also, is this part of the reason why conservatives hate Obama? I mean, he was successfully raised by a single mother.

    Oh yeah, really successful!!!!! yah right-duh! When are you guys going to wake up? When your broke?

    Very successful.... now we understand the real meaning of success, smoke your way into the WH and then destroy a country with radical views and policies, surround yourself with czars that have not been chosen by any one other than yourself, brush aside the views and wishes of the majority of your country, and then completely destroy most of the major sectors of the economy, drag your countrys reputation through the dirt with your allies, and then smile on tv and tell everyone that the past two years have been the most successful in the history of the country.

    Congratulations!

    WAKE UP BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE- STOP DENYING.

    A traditional marriage brings together the power to create and bring a child into the world, ANY OTHER TYPE OF RELATIONSHIP is simply not natural and IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE in the eyes of GOD. WAKE UP.

  • Considering Stockton, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 4:43 p.m.

    I think that as so many on both sides devolve into an argument about granting marriage certificates and benefits to homosexual couples a larger view is being missed in the comments.

    Why does marriage exist? Why does the s/State take any interest in marriage at all?

    There are basically two competing theories to answer this question.

    The one side claims (implicitly if not explicitly) that marriage is primarily about benefits for the married couple: legal protections, inheritance, medical rights, next-of-kin rights, etc.

    The other side argues that the s/State's interest in marriage is NOT merely because marriage provides benefits to the couple. Rather, it is because marriage provides benefits to the community.

    I happen to advocate this latter point of view. As an analogy, we do not grant tax benefits for buying a car or ATV even though doing so obviously benefits the person who bought the vehicle. We do provide tax benefits for buying a home. That is because home ownership provides benefits to the community and so the community has reason to reward and encourage it.

    What are the benefits to the community from same-sex "marriage"?

  • silas brill Heber, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 4:41 p.m.

    @Coach Biff | 12:22 p.m. Jan. 28, 2011

    [ Wouldn't you say that all of the above "sources" come from left leaning organizations? ]

    No, I would not.

    @Uncle Charles | 1:00 p.m. Jan. 28, 2011

    [ The "intelligence" on these threads states that men and women are interchangeable, that there is no difference between the sexes. ]

    I'm not saying men and women are interchangeable. I'm merely agreeing with multiple medical and psychological associations that same-gender parenting can be just as successful as parenting by opposite sexes. There are numerous male and female role models - grandparents, aunts and uncles - that make up a family.

    [ Just as these same elitists try to tell us that abortion isn't killing a child they also claim that homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality. ]

    You won't find me saying that. I would never advocate aborting an unborn fetus if it were not life-threatening to the mother, especially if that fetus were somehow mine. And I don't believe homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality. However, homosexuals and heterosexuals should have the same rights.

  • Belching Cow Sandy, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 4:40 p.m.

    This expert says this, this expert says that. Blah blah blah...who cares? Traditional marriage between a man and a woman is of divine design. It is the bedrock of our society and is under attack for a reason. I don't care what the experts say, I know the difference between right and wrong.

  • charlie91342 Sylmar, CA
    Jan. 28, 2011 4:35 p.m.

    re - Just Truth | 2:44 p.m
    "Just because some unfortunate children have been subjected to an experiment outside the natural structure of a loving husband and wife doesn't mean it should be advocated"

    ok, just truth... so tell us - what do you propose to do with all the children currently being raised in gay households? do you really have room at your house? you do understand that there are tens of thousands of kids being raised in gay households, right?

    and so you ban gay marriage. do you think that will stop the lesbian that wants a child to fulfill her life? and so do you suggest she just be alone with her child and no partner?

    and if you agree that it is better to have two adults in the household rather than one, wouldn't it be better if they were married? that's what the article says - two is better than one and married is better than not. are you going against that?

    we all know gays will have kids through many means. do you propose to outlaw that? and if not, isn't it better for the children if the two people are married?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 4:13 p.m.

    "Not saying it's impossible to do it alone and many good mother's have done a wonderful job on there own, just saying that it is an easier experience when we are both there as we bring different things to the table. "

    The question becomes though... is it that there's someone of each gender there that helps or is it the fact that there's two loving parents that helps? I'd wager that even if same sex couples had lower child-raising results on average* they'd still be higher than setups like single parenting because having two loving parents of the same gender is closer to a married straight couple situation than it is to a single parent situation.

    *Why are we discriminating based on average results? Do we ban poor people from getting married because poor children are disproportionately more likely to end up committing crimes? No. Heck, in this state we allow single parent adoption but not gay couple adoption which is odd since the former is the one that studies have shown to be lower than average while the latter... even the speaker in this article doesn't know for sure.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 3:48 p.m.

    Just Truth: "The bottom line is that traditional marriage has proven the MOST EFFECTIVE model... Furthermore, loving traditional marriages also show how the union of a man and a woman accentuates gender roles in the unity of two persons BETTER THAN ANY OTHER relationship..." [emphasis added]

    Basically, your argument is that straight marriage is the optimal child rearing arrangement. Generally agreed. However, our society and legal system allows suboptimal arrangements (single parenthood, divorce). With respect to gay marriage, there is a question of fundamental fairness. Logic suggests that any two parent family is better for kids than a single parent one, even if it is not the most optimal one. So where is the equity and logic in allowing an extremely suboptimal arrangement (single parenthood) while denying the moderately suboptimal? The only way for the optimality argument to work and be logically consistent is for gay marriage opponents to also push for laws banning divorce and illegitimacy. So far, I haven't much of that.

    Two wrongs don't make a right, but one wrong isn't right, either. If gay marriage should not be legal because it is suboptimal for kids, then neither should single parenthood.

  • csprat Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 3:42 p.m.

    I was at the presentation. Dr. Wilcox (as someone already pointed out) is not affiliated with BYU. He's not Mormon. He's one of the most respected academic family researchers there are. His talk was not about gay marriage. The entire presentation was based on data comparing heterosexual married parents, cohabiters, and single parents (longitudinal as well as cross-sectional...he's not stupid, he learned about correlation/causation in college just like everyone else).

    "Gay parenting" only came up when an audience member asked about it. His answer was that existing research shows basically *no difference* between children of heterosexual and homosexual parents, but of about 40 studies only 1 can be considered a good sample, etc. (there are relatively few homosexual parents so it's hard to get enough in a representative sample). He *hypothesized* that, based on what we know about men and women in heterosexual relationships, there would be differences. But he was very open about the fact that social scientists just don't know, and so far children of homosexual parents don't seem to be worse off.

    Maybe google the guy before you start hating on him because of a newspaper article?

  • Just Truth Saratoga Springs, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 2:44 p.m.

    So no one is really arguing that there is a better relationship out there for children than a loving father (male) and mother (female) married to one another. That's good! How can you argue against that reality? Neither religion nor science support that fallacy.

    Yes, we've heard the arguments of how an alternative is better than a broken marriage, but that logic is flawed since that isn't the comparison here. Fact is, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because some unfortunate children have been subjected to an experiment outside the natural structure of a loving husband and wife doesn't mean it should be advocated.

    The bottom line is that traditional marriage has proven the most effective model; if it were possible for every child to be born or adopted into such a relationship that is easily the option we should all encourage, first and foremost.

    Furthermore, loving traditional marriages also show how the union of a man and a woman accentuates gender roles in the unity of two persons better than any other relationship: as evidenced by families being the base foundational unit at the center of any thriving societies throughout history.

  • mammalou Somewhere in the USA, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 2:43 p.m.

    My husband often works shift work, which means that for a couple of weeks a month I am somewhat a single mother. I can testify, from experience, that it is much easier to parent when both of us are in the house. Not saying it's impossible to do it alone and many good mother's have done a wonderful job on there own, just saying that it is an easier experience when we are both there as we bring different things to the table.

  • Independent Henderson, NV
    Jan. 28, 2011 2:42 p.m.

    We can't really argue for certain that it would be better for gay couples to marry based on a study that shows that kids do better in families with married straight parents. It's a reasonable hypothesis, but you have to compare apples to apples. Some say it would probably turn out the same for gay couples, because the important determining factor is that there are two parents, that are married. But others would argue that the determining factor is the fact that the married couple is a man and a woman. I don't think the gender of the parents can be glossed over so lightly in this study.

  • Dewey Hewson Eagle Mountain, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 2:29 p.m.

    So basically, this guy presents evidence that broken and single-parent homes put children more at risk - which seems to support heterosexual AND homosexual marriage - but then hypothesizes at the end that, based on no evidence, he thinks that homosexual marriages will exhibit the same problems.

    Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

    How did this guy ever achieve any prominent position as a researcher making unfounded assumptions like that?

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 1:50 p.m.

    Let's lay to dignified rest a significant misconception* running through this debate, that gay relationships cannot issue children. While technically true, gay couples can get around it the same way other infertile couples do, through artifical insemination, in vitro, surrogacy, and adoption. In addition, many gays have children from previous straight marriages (perhaps they married out of social pressure or were late in acknowledging their orientation). According to figures published recently in the other newspaper, 30% of gay households in Utah have children. I have seen a similar figure cited nationwide.

    I fully accept the data cited in the article that children of married, two-parent families have better outcomes than those in unmarried and/or single parent homes. The reasons are obvious-- marriage provides someone to share the workload and incentive to remain together. Yet those who use those data to oppose gay marriage are knowingly denying the children in those relationships the very real and tangible benefits of married parents and condemning them to the negative outcomes cited in the article. Where is the concern for the children in that?

    * Pun not intended when I wrote the sentence, but I'll go with it.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 1:46 p.m.

    "that children born to co-habitating parents have a 50% chance of having their father leave by age 5, but if the parents are married it is only a 15% chance."

    Therefore, it is best for society to have gay marriage be legal.

    "Since sex between people of the same gender is not going to produce children, the society has no interest in regulating it and therefore no reason to recognize it as a marriage."

    which is why we require all married couples to have children.

    "To be acceptable a rule does not have to be the best, it only has to have a reasonable justificaiton."

    Since gay people can raise children (heck, a single gay person in Utah can adopt) there does not seem to be such a "reasonable justification" in the limits on marriage since you don't care about "what's best on average for children" with regards to single people adopting.

  • Gregory Johnson Rifle, CO
    Jan. 28, 2011 1:41 p.m.

    well 90 percent of all marriages end up in divorce due to financial reasons, are the children better off in an unhappy home? Not sure about that. As far as the traditional marriage as opposed to the common-law marriage what is the difference? I think children are fine as long as you know how to raise them properly. I love my son and my grandkids. Yeah, my son was ticked when I left. Kids are not that difficult to raise, they respond to love, patience and discipline. There is a difference between discipline and abuse.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 1:12 p.m.

    'Let's look at Ronald Reagan, the conservative hero. He was divorced, but he had two successful wives.' - truthlover | 10:36 a.m.

    I'm going to use my last post on this. The debate was over after this point. To use someone who was factually DIVORCED...

    as an example for 'traditional' marriage.

    Divorce, is the END of a marriage.

    You cannot have 'two successful wives' unless you are a polygamist. And Polygamy has been another change to marriage, besides amendment 3 in '04...

    for 120 years.

    50% divorce rate, before gay marriage was even legal.

    5yrs after gay marriage is legal in 5 states, no change. The claim that gay marriage will 'harm' 'traditional' marriage is proven false.

    If you 'defend' marriage, do not look to others. As gay people cannot even GET married in 45 states.

    Look to yourself, as you could not control another persons life regardless.

    The claim of 'traditional' marriage is even false. The last major changes came 7yrs ago. (Amendment 3 in '04) which CHANGED marriage from 'two people' to 'one man & one woman.'

    You only have on real option to try to 'defend' marriage.

    Work on your own.

  • RAB Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 1:03 p.m.

    As clearly evidenced by the long line of highly predictable criticism in these posts, it does not matter how much evidence or how many studies strongly support the encouragement of traditional marriage. The opposition will continue to ignore the facts, try to explain them away, or attempt to discredit the messenger. They are not listening. They do not care. Experts are not allowed to be called experts unless they support their views. Opponents to their views are belittled for where they live or what religion they belong to, as if that automatically discredits their views. They would sooner see the country spiral into oblivion before theyll accept anything but their own unsupported self-serving way of life.

    Most of us did not need a study to tell us the obvious - that traditional marriage, between a man and a women, is the only marital relationship of any value to society.

  • Uncle Charles Where freedom and liberty reign, utah
    Jan. 28, 2011 1:00 p.m.

    @silas: You can lean on the philosophies of men all you wish and even claim they are experts.

    I'll rely on those who are teaching eternal doctrines and truths.

    Man and woman were created for specific reasons.

    The "intelligence" on these threads states that men and women are interchangeable, that there is no difference between the sexes.

    Just as these same elitists try to tell us that abortion isn't killing a child they also claim that homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality.

    Again, He who knows all has already spoken on these issues. Marriage between a man and a woman is correct. Children are to be raised in love and righteousness by a husband and wife. Homosexuality is immoral and detrimental to all who participate.

    You cling to your "consensus" all you wish. Your "wisdom" which leans unto your own understanding is foolishness when compared to the teachings and wisdom of God.

    But continue to argue amongst yourselves...it's so funny to read!

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Jan. 28, 2011 12:49 p.m.

    Rox,
    I really hate to use my last comment for this, but you are showing major confusion.

    W. Bradford Wilcox, the professor of sociology at the University of Virginia, is a different person than Brad Wilcox, the professor of education at BYU. W. Bradford Wilcox is at time cited by his full name William Bradford Wilcox. The BYU professors full name is Bradley Ray Wilcox.

    They have similar names but should not be confused. It might have been worth pointing out these are not the same person, but since no one ever calls Brad Wilcox, W. Bradford Wilcox (since his name is not Bradford at all) it probably did not cross the nimd of the article author that someone might be confused.

    Pagan, your claims about the change of marriage in Utah in 2004 are false. Marriage has always been defined in Utah as the union of a man and a woman. Some will yell "polygamy", but that does not work. In polygamy there are just multiple marriages involved (and whether they had state recognition is also an issue). Each marriage involves a man and a woman and can be disolved independent of other marriages.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Jan. 28, 2011 12:36 p.m.

    alt134,
    You are proposing that we turn the current generation of children into guinea pigs to see if an unprove system of child rearing will work.

    You are willing to risk major disruptions of society for your narrow point. This is not a good position. Clearly the constitution does not require the government to adopt programs that will be detrimental to the overall good of society.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Jan. 28, 2011 12:33 p.m.

    In an article in the "National Review" leading up to Father's Day in 2009 Wilcox pointed out that children born to co-habitating parents have a 50% chance of having their father leave by age 5, but if the parents are married it is only a 15% chance.

    The point of man/woman marriage is to create a societal connection between child rearing and marriage. Since sex between people of the same gender is not going to produce children, the society has no interest in regulating it and therefore no reason to recognize it as a marriage.

    Some will try to poijt out that we allow people who we know can not have children to marry. This is because the man/woman line is the simplest and easiest to enforce. To be acceptable a rule does not have to be the best, it only has to have a reasonable justificaiton.

    Beyond this by having all marriages have the man/woman form, which is clearly meant to emphasize reproductive potential even when there is no actual reproduction the social institutions purpose of marriage is carried out.

  • Mom of 2 Eagle Mountain, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 12:33 p.m.

    Is he comparing same-sex households with households where there the husband beats his wife on a regular basis? Really?

  • Uncle Charles Where freedom and liberty reign, utah
    Jan. 28, 2011 12:32 p.m.

    charlie90210 says, "wow. way to cut and paste exactly what your church leaders have told you, word for word. good job.

    now if we can just get you to think for yourself, then we can be making progress"

    just a couple questions for you....

    Have you ever quoted anyone for any reason?

    Can you share for us all where you have derived your own thoughts and wisdom on any issue?

    For you to be a true free thinker you will have to have never read any book, listened to any speakers, read a newspaper, watched any TV, DVD, movies or been influenced by anyone at anytime.

    In other words, you are just living in a cave with no connection to humanity but here you are sharing all your thoughts on each and every subject.

    How is it that I've heard everyone of your comments before if you are someone who thinks for himself?

    Please, do share where you gain your wisdom and knowledge since you don't get any input from any other place....

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Jan. 28, 2011 12:27 p.m.

    It does the body good to see a historian standing up for marriage.

    Dr. Wilcox's arguments are of the type that really ought to have been made widely some time ago. We need to keep the message of the proper and broad role of marriage spreading.

    I would also reccomend to people who want to understand the true effects of marriage reading the works of Sandra Hofferth and Kermyt Anderson. Their study shows the positive goods of caring fathers directly connected to marriage. Since, as Monte Neil Stewart points out in such works as "Genderless Marriage and Institutional Theory", the social goods associated with marriage will be altered or destroyed if it is changed from its current man/woman form, we need to see that we are risking its positive benefits to our society by shifting to a genderless definition of marriage.

  • charlie91342 Sylmar, CA
    Jan. 28, 2011 12:23 p.m.

    listen up, people. NO ONE on either side of the argument has EVER disputed that the IDEAL is traditional marriage.

    but that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with same sex marriage. how could it?

    gay people are NOT going to marry someone of the opposite sex - and if they do it is almost always a big mistake.

    so can anyone tell me what traditional marriage has to do with same sex marriage?

    I'm going to guess that some people think that either:
    1 - allowing same sex marriage will turn some people gay... huh?
    2 - banning same sex marriage will make gays marry the opposite sex... huh?

    so can anyone tell me how same sex marriage has ANY impact on traditional marriage, or any impact on anyone except gay people?

    or is it still just the "icky" factor?

  • Coach Biff Lehi, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 12:22 p.m.

    silas, if you're going to quote statistics, at least quote them from a non-biased source. Wouldn't you say that all of the above "sources" come from left leaning organizations? See who the above endorses for political office. Go ahead. The info is readily available.

  • Independent Henderson, NV
    Jan. 28, 2011 12:21 p.m.

    "Even the speaker said they don't have any evidence on gay families, but apparently some of you have the missing evidence somewhere in your basement."

    You missed my point. My point is that we shouldn't need evidence for everything. I understand that there are very many people who only believe what is proven by science. What I am saying is that we shouldn't have to prove everything with a scientific study, and when we get down to having to prove whether or not it is best for children to have a mother and a father through scientific studies before a sizeable portion of our population accepts it, we do not hold enough common values to be considered a nation. I do not wish to live in a society that only accepts that which has been proven true by the scientific method as moral any more than I wish to live in a society that imposes upon me what I consider to be a false religious morality. I wish to live in a society who holds, to a reasonable degree, those things as moral the same things that I do. And it's getting beyond reasonable.

  • charlie91342 Sylmar, CA
    Jan. 28, 2011 12:14 p.m.

    re - Cats | 8:56 a.m. Jan. 28, 2011
    Somewhere In Time, UT

    you are located in "somewhere in time, utah"? what, like 1950 Utah?
    you state "it's not fun to hear that you are living a lifestyle that is injurious to society. No one wants to hear that."

    of course no one wants to hear it, especially when it isn't true and it is simply your religion coming home to roost..

    cats, girl, it gets really old reading you demean other people that you know nothing about and only do it because you happened to be born straight and born into a strict religion. what are you going to say to your child if (heaven forbid) one of them turns out to be gay? your attitude and 1950s beliefs will certainly drive them away. I hope for your sake you can someday accept that just because some people are different, you are actually no better than them.

    good luck, girl. somehow I think you are going to need it. because your god loves to test people, and that would be a great test for you.

  • charlie91342 Sylmar, CA
    Jan. 28, 2011 12:05 p.m.

    re - Utah Mom | 7:55 a.m
    "Thanks for your research! If we just look around, it is not very difficult to see the negative impact non-traditional marriage is having on the future generation"

    negative impact? really? I look around and the ONLY impact I see of non-traditional (ie-same sex) marriage is a lot less bigotry of people that are different.

    are you saying that is a bad thing? since when did a reduction in discrimination and bigotry become a bad thing? personally I am glad to see the youth of america dropping the old stereotypes and accept ALL people. It's a lesson you will have to learn at some point, Utah Mom.

    re - Belching Cow | 8:08 a.m
    "Supporting the traditional family is the best way to make our society stronger. The breakdown of the traditional family unit is the greatest threat we have ever faced."

    wow. way to cut and paste exactly what your church leaders have told you, word for word. good job.

    now if we can just get you to think for yourself, then we can be making progress.... (and no, I'm not gay. 53 yr old white hetero)

  • Independent Henderson, NV
    Jan. 28, 2011 12:02 p.m.

    "As an aside, do the people in this forum (who I assume are LDS) consider polygamy an alternative lifestyle or something that is harmful to children?"

    Pretty sure the LDS people in this forum don't practice polygamy, so I'm not sure why you're asking, since we could only speculate.

  • silas brill Heber, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 11:52 a.m.

    @Cats | 8:56 a.m. Jan. 28, 2011

    [ These people ARE experts who have mountains of research to back up what they say. Unfortunately for some, the research just doesn't support their alternative lifestyles as being beneficial to society. In fact, it does just the opposite. ]

    An associate professor of sociology, even from my venerable alma mater, is not an expert in child psychology.

    I'll repeat for your benefit the real experts, who support rights for same-gender parenting:

    American Academy of Pediatrics
    American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
    American Psychiatric Association
    American Psychological Association
    American Psychoanalytic Association
    National Association of Social Workers
    Child Welfare League of America

    If you believe the opinion of Mr. Wilcox outweighs this consensus, fine, but you should note that even he was saying there is little data one way or another, and that he was hypothesizing.

    I'll disagree with him regarding the scantiness of the data, I'll reject his hypothesis, and I'll defer to the above organizations.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 11:50 a.m.

    'I thought the article said there wasn't enough data about same-sex couples to talk about their effects as parents.' - truthlover | 11:18 a.m. Jan. 28, 2011

    That's because the 'experts' on this issue are from a school funded by a religion.

    'Defending traditional marriage doesn't need to begin or end with a discussion of faith in order to make a point about its deep social impacts, a leading scholar said Thursday at BYU.' - Article

    This newspaper, is funded by the same religion.

    And yet, I found information from the American Acadamy of Pediatrics. (9:04 a.m.)

    Here's some from the American Psychological Association:

    'Can lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals be good parents?
    Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups...'

    APA website: RESEARCH SUMMARY - Adopted by the APA Council of Representatives July 28 & 30, 2004.


    So, do I think I am 'smarter' than the 'experts' because I found information that supports gay parents are ok?

    No.

    I think the MOTIVATION for a BYU professor to find info on healthy gay parents is: zero.

  • Peggy South Weber, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 11:35 a.m.

    @Brave Sir Robin: "If anything, Obama helps to prove Wilcox's point. Wilcox cited studies that show children raised by a single mother are more likely to be substance abusers. Obama smokes - smoking is substance abuse."

    Yep, that proves it, Brave Sir Robin. Obama was raised by a single mother and Obama smokes. Few children raised in traditional families smoke. So there you have it. Facts are facts, what can I say. Good mind you have there, Brave Sir Robin.

  • truthlover Milwaukee, WI
    Jan. 28, 2011 11:18 a.m.

    Anne26, I thought the article said there wasn't enough data about same-sex couples to talk about their effects as parents.

    As an aside, do the people in this forum (who I assume are LDS) consider polygamy an alternative lifestyle or something that is harmful to children?

  • Anne26 West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 10:57 a.m.

    @truthlover.

    No one is saying that being raised by a single mother means you will never amount to anything. There are many examples to the contrary. What the studies suggest is that children raised in a home with both a father and a mother have a greater advantage than those raised by a single parent, or in a same sex household.

    I actually did a paper on this subject 20 years ago when I was a student at the U, and the information was much the same. Interestingly, when I was giving my report before the class, the male teacher took offense to the idea that a child needed a father in it's life and even went as far as to say that as long as a woman had enough money, she didn't need a man to help her raise a child. I felt bad then and still do that the value of fatherhood was reduced to a paycheck.

    Men and women are uniquely different and each bring qualities that bless the lives of their children. By the way, I was raised by a single mom.

  • truthlover Milwaukee, WI
    Jan. 28, 2011 10:36 a.m.

    Obama smokes. So does Rush Limbaugh and so did Ronald Reagan, the great conservative in the sky. Limbaugh and Reagan came from two parent homes.

    About him not being succesful: besides being elected President, he was president of the Harvard Law Review, married a successful woman who was Vice President at the University of Chicago Hospitals (and earned more than he did), and is the father of two daughters who seem to be doing just fine considering all the spotlight.

    Let's look at Ronald Reagan, the conservative hero. He was divorced, but he had two successful wives. He had what five kids? At least three have been divorced. And Reagan had two parents in his home. His wives' parents were divorced, though.

    If Obama's not successful, was Reagan?

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    Jan. 28, 2011 10:25 a.m.

    re: Independent. I could post your argument almost word-for-word except use the words "Global Warming." The difference between the global warming science and this science is that in peer-reviewed journals (in other words, articles that are checked for accuracy by other scientists...not political opinion pieces paid for by a political group), there is consensus on global warming, while this "science" is very much disputed (put two statistics together and say their causal=bad science).

    Even the speaker said they don't have any evidence on gay families, but apparently some of you have the missing evidence somewhere in your basement.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Jan. 28, 2011 10:03 a.m.

    Cats: Tell you what: You provide your mountain of evidence for your case, and I'll provide my mountain of evidence for my case. I'll bet you I have just as much evidence as you do. In every single lawsuit in this country, for every expert there is for one side of a case, there is an expert with an opposite point of view. Who are you to say who is right and who is wrong. It comes down to opinion, and we hear your opinion loud and clear.

    @Brave Sir Robin: Where are you going to draw the line on what constitutes a "substance"? Caffeine is a substance, and many devout people continue to drink beverages with caffeine, which would also be substance abuse.

  • first2third Elmo, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 9:58 a.m.

    Right wrong or indifferent...in 10-15 years this will be a non issue in the public sector. In religious bonds of matrimony, homosexual marriage will not be allowed by god. As a religious person who sees homosexuality as opposed to Gods law, I don't care what civilly happens with homosexual marriage in the public sector. Religiously there are a lot of things I see as against God's will that are allowed in the public sphere; pornography, alcohol, adultery, taking god's name in vain, etc. You can't outlaw everything and true conservatives should be for freedom of choice not restricting rights.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Jan. 28, 2011 9:52 a.m.

    How stupid do these so-called experts think we are? - If cohabitation isn't as good as marriage, why deny marriage to couples who want it? And how on earth will the prohibition of gay marriage increase the likelihood that there will be fewer broken homes? - It hasn't stopped them from occurring yet.

  • Independent Henderson, NV
    Jan. 28, 2011 9:32 a.m.

    The intense opposition to Mr. George's comments and others of the same point of view is astounding. It's pointless to argue. If we can't even agree that the best thing for children is to grow up in a home with a loving mother and father, what do we have in common that is enough to bind us together as a society? The fact that we even have to have scientific data to back this up and persuade people to beleive it is beyond amazing to me. The fact that half of the people who see this comment will be rolling their eyes and laughing only proves my point, that we just don't have enough in common anymore to be a cohesive society and/or nation.

  • Lance78 West Hollywood, CA
    Jan. 28, 2011 9:28 a.m.

    Whether or not gay marriage is approved, gay couples are having and raising children. So if gay marriage is not legal these children will be growing up in cohabitating homes, whereas if gay marriage is legalized they'd be growing up in two parent married homes. Thus the evidence Wilcox quotes in support of traditional marriage actually supports the legalization of gay marriage.

  • georgeman Kearns, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 9:14 a.m.

    Here we go again, another article meant to do nothing but bring out the worst in our society and cause the hatred of two groups to bash out thier beliefs on the web.

    God save us all (If you believe in God)
    Darwin save us all (If you believe in evolution)

    One day it will all end and someone will be left standing there going, "Huh"?

    Just leave each other alone and quit trying to force your OPINIONS on someone else.

  • BrentBot Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 9:10 a.m.

    Marriage reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over. As the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called "expansive energy," which might best be summarized as society's will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived.

    Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the cultures acceptance of homosexuality.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 9:04 a.m.

    'Families with functioning mothers and fathers do the best.' - pat1 | 7:06 a.m. Jan. 28, 2011

    This is 'defense' of the traditional family, but what evidence is there, factual evidence that gay parents are somehow 'bad' or 'worse?'

    None.

    From an article published in the NY Times on 05 Nov 2009 titled, "Whats Good for the Kids"

    These children do just fine, says Abbie E. Goldberg, an assistant professor in the department of psychology at Clark University, who concedes there are some who will continue to believe that gay parents are a danger to their children, in spite of a growing web of psychological and sociological evidence to the contrary."

    'The overall goal in caring for youth who are or think they might be gay, lesbian, or bisexual is the same as for all youth: to promote normal adolescent development, social and emotional well-being, and physical health. If their environment is critical of their emerging sexual orientation, these adolescents may experience profound isolation and fear of discovery, which interferes with achieving developmental tasks of adolescence related to self-esteem, identity, and intimacy.'

    - PEDIATRICS Vol. 113 No. 6 June 2004, pp. 1827-1832

    - American Acadamy of Pediatrics

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 9:00 a.m.

    "These people are experts." - 'Cats | 7:29 a.m. Jan. 28, 2011

    And yet, we have differing views from other experts.

    *'Historian testifies in Prop. 8 trial' - By Lisa Leff - AP - Published by DsNews - 01/12/10

    'In her second day of testimony, Nancy Cott, a U.S. history professor and the author of a book on marriage as a public institution, disputed a statement by a defense lawyer that states have a compelling interest to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples for the sake of procreation.'

    The claim that marriage is 'traditional' is false.

    My examples to support this are:

    Bigamy
    Polygamy
    Arranged marriage
    Interacial marriage

    Also...

    John and Kate plus 8. Artificial incimination for 6 children.
    And, Bristol Palin. Single mother who had a child outside of marriage who NOW advocates absitnence.

    Also, the last factual CHANGE to marriage in Utah was in 2004, when Amendment 3 passed. Changing marriage from 'two people' to 'one man and one woman'.

    So that 'traditional marriage' has been around since the 'begining of time?'

    More like 7 years.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 28, 2011 8:57 a.m.

    @ Belching Cow 8:08AM
    "Supporting the traditional family is the best way to make our society stronger".
    As a liberal I agree 100% with you. In a perfect world, where there were no minorities, where everybody had the expected sexual attraction, It would be insane to disagree with your statement. But Fortunately, we live in a very diverse world with a lot of challenges and things to learn and overcome.
    Following the model of traditional marriage and/or family, now other people would like to follow the model as close as their abilities allow. That is why same sex people would like to join as maariage and raise a family just like your traditional stereotype.
    Single parents face a bigger challenge when they decide to raise a child on their own. Sometimes the decision is made for them (death, divorce, etc.) But even though is difficult, many, many single men and women are extraordinary parents.
    Yes, I think everybody wants the support and acceptance that traditional marriage brings, we are not there yet. But we will get there and we will be a better planet because of it. Families come in different shapes and forms, all deserve love and respect.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 8:56 a.m.

    Ooh boy!! This article has certainly stricken a lot of nerves here. As I stated earlier, it's not fun to hear that you are living a lifestyle that is injurious to society. No one wants to hear that.

    These people ARE experts who have mountains of research to back up what they say. Unfortunately for some, the research just doesn't support their alternative lifestyles as being beneficial to society. In fact, it does just the opposite.

    Alternative lifestyles are not healthy for those participating in them or for society in general. Thousands of years of experience have taught us that traditional marriage and traditional families are what lead to a healthy, stable and successful society. civilizations who have chosen a different course have all crashed, burned and gone by the wayside.

    I know you don't like to hear it. But it's the truth.

  • Ridgely Magna, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 8:32 a.m.

    Loved the part about "domesticating men" but didn't see a time line or a project completion date on that lofty goal.

    I guess castigating lesbians for not wrestling with their sons, is a more attainable goal in the short term.

  • john in az tempe, az
    Jan. 28, 2011 8:22 a.m.

    "Wilcox cited studies that showed young men from single-parent homes were twice as likely than their two-parent peers to end up in prison, and girls whose fathers left before they turned 6 were nearly seven times more likely to become pregnant as a teenager than their two-parent family peers."

    If you give a young man two Dads, does that make the young man 4 times as UNLIKELY to end up in prison?

    Wilcox presentation is flawed, most of his comments stem on 1 adult role model in the home, OR two people in a uncommitted relationship.

    Which means, that homosexuals in committed relationships should be just as good of parents as anyone else who wants to be a parent. And yes, I am drawing a big distinction, between WANTING to be a good parent, and some knucklehead couple who do not want to be good parents.

    IF IT were not for religion, society would not have such a deep seeded aversion to homosexuals.

  • Idaho Coug Meridian, Idaho
    Jan. 28, 2011 8:17 a.m.

    I'm going to give this guy the benefit of the doubt and blame it on editing. Because this guy did nothing but throw out assumptions of what data may show in the future based on current data that has nothing to do with same sex relationships.

    What will the argument be when data does show that children in same sex marriages are just as well-adjusted and healthy as those in opposite-sex households? I suppose it will have to go back to the "God said so" argument.

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    Jan. 28, 2011 8:12 a.m.

    Re: truthlover

    "Also, is this part of the reason why conservatives hate Obama? I mean, he was successfully raised by a single mother."

    If anything, Obama helps to prove Wilcox's point. Wilcox cited studies that show children raised by a single mother are more likely to be substance abusers. Obama smokes - smoking is substance abuse.

  • silas brill Heber, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 8:11 a.m.

    @Cats | 7:29 a.m. Jan. 28, 2011

    "These people are experts. They know what they're talking about."

    Is that a fact? So then, you'll certainly accept the resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rights by the following professional organizations: American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the Child Welfare League of America, among others outside of of the U.S.

    Do these organizations count as "experts" to you?

  • Belching Cow Sandy, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 8:08 a.m.

    Supporting the traditional family is the best way to make our society stronger. The breakdown of the traditional family unit is the greatest threat we have ever faced. Bigger than global warming or terrorism by far. I know I will be labeled intolerant or a hater or whatever. I've heard all the lies before so I really don't care.

  • Utah Mom Orem, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 7:55 a.m.

    Thanks for your research! If we just look around, it is not very difficult to see the negative impact non-traditional marriage is having on the future generation. If things continue as they are going without more support of traditional marriage and raising healthy, well-adjusted children, we're in trouble!!

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Jan. 28, 2011 7:54 a.m.

    @Pat1: There is no evidence or data about marriage at the point where history began, unless you are trying to take something straight out of the Bible and apply it to Adam and Eve. If so, after that point, "traditional" marriage consisted many times of multiple wives. Not quite a "traditional" marriage. And the evidence about what the man's versus the woman's duties were, I'm sure, lacking.

    @Cats: Are you telling us these speakers at this event are "the" experts, and that it is their/his word that is the end all be all on this matter? If so, we're in a lot of trouble, as the buy basically admits he's only guessing as to what children of homosexual couples will turn out to be. By the way, you use terms like "lifestyle" and "traditional." What lifestyle are you speaking of. Hopefully not a homosexual one, because the data is still not there to make a determination as to its effects on society, except the fact that the religous right want the evil government involvement to get involved. As some of us here in Colorado say: Focus on your own family!

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    Jan. 28, 2011 7:53 a.m.

    As Emajor eluded to earlier, there is a serious lack of justification for this being causation, and not just correlation. It's just as likely, or probably more likely a result of economic factors, not the presence of two parents. You need to separate the results out by economic class. Is a child of a wealthy single mother more likely to go to jail than the child of wealthy married children?

    It seems more likely that single parent homes are more common amongst the poorer populations. Also, poorer populations are more likely to engage in crime--why would a rich kid hold up a 7-11?

    Here's an equally relevant hypothesis: people in Beverly Hills eat more organic foods and have a lower probability that those in Compton of going to jail. The result must be that eating organic foods lowers your chance of going to jail.

  • IJ Hyrum, Ut
    Jan. 28, 2011 7:53 a.m.

    Truthlover, I guess if you consider what is residing in the Whitehouse as successful. Just because a person rises to a social status does not indicate that they are successful. Many "successful" persons end up in less than desirable circumstances - suicide, mental institutions, etc. Success is an interesting label.

  • Rox Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 7:51 a.m.

    Well there..W. Bradford Wilcox (if that really IS your first name) religion has nothing to do with this? Sorry... I thought you were at BYU.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 7:29 a.m.

    These people are experts. They know what they're talking about. Too bad it's not politically correct. It's not nice to hear that your lifestyle is damaging to children and society in general. Not when you just want to do whatever you want no matter if it's right or wrong. Selfishness is always a lot easier, isn't it.

    We need to listen to these people. Our society is in serious trouble and the breakdown of traditional marriage is one of the main reasons. If we keep on this self-destructive path, there might not be much time left for us.

  • truthlover Milwaukee, WI
    Jan. 28, 2011 7:26 a.m.

    So rough-housing and wrestling with your father are required for a good childhood?

    Also, is this part of the reason why conservatives hate Obama? I mean, he was successfully raised by a single mother.

  • pat1 Taylorsville, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 7:06 a.m.

    Thanks for this article. It seems strange that we have to defend traditional marriage,which has been the norm since history began. Families with functioning mothers and fathers do the best.

  • Coach Biff Lehi, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 6:52 a.m.

    ...something we've always known. Can't wait to see RanchHands response to this.

  • silas brill Heber, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 6:32 a.m.

    [Such children (those raised by same-sex couples) often miss out on the unique father-provided benefits, like wrestling and rough-housing, activities where children learn self-control and appropriate expression of aggression.]

    That's it? Two women are inferior parents because those kids won't get to wrestle and rough-house? Please tell me there was an error on your web page and the article was truncated.

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 6:03 a.m.

    I wonder if the relationship between childhood problems and broken households/single parent/cohabitation cited by these researchers is causation or merely correlation. That's an important distinction.

    And for a scholar, Wilcox isn't impressing me in the last few paragraphs. There is little data on same sex marriages, but by golly he is going to make assumptions anyway. And roughhousing/wrestling is a needed father-provided activity? I hope that is an out-of-context quote. What if one of your two fathers provides this? Is that different? What if your straight father does not? Is he being negligent?

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 1:42 a.m.

    Sigh... Why DNews? Why do you keep running these absurd opinion pieces. You are on the wrong side of the issue, and history will flush it out in time.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 28, 2011 1:12 a.m.

    "While there's limited data on the effects of same-sex marriage on children, Wilcox hypothesized that in a few years, research will show that children in lesbian or gay family situations will exhibit some of the same problems as children from father-less or cohabiting relationships."

    So in the meantime we're just going to guess? You know, why does this state allow single people to adopt but not allow a homosexual partner to adopt?

    Anyway, most studies lately are showing children of lesbian couples do the best (lower rates of abuse and such than straight couples).