Comments about ‘Defense of the family conference: familial foundations’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Jan. 27 2011 11:31 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'"It's a tall order to stabilize the family, but it's for the sake of children, husbands and wives and for the community," he said.' - Article

As if 'husbands and wives' were the ONLY type of family availible...

*'Gay marriage thriving in Canada' - By Jamshid Ghazi Askar - DSNews - 01/19/11

'Then on Jan. 14, the first two gay couples ever legally married in Canada celebrated their 10th anniversary.'

And yet, some oppose peole raising children in a two parent house-hold.

*'Longtime couple push gay marriage case in France' - By Ben Barnier - AP - Published by DSNews - 01/27/11

VAL-DE-VESLE, France The two women have lived together 15 years, are raising four children together, and already benefit from a French law recognizing their partnership.'

And the divorce rate for gay marriage in MA?

*'After 5 Years of Legal Gay Marriage, Massachusetts still has the lowest state divorce rate..' - Bruce Wilson - Alter Net - 08/24/09

'According to the most recent data from the National Center For Vital Statistics, Massachusetts retains the national title as the lowest divorce rate state, and the MA divorce rate is about where the US divorce rate was in 1940...'

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

I am very glad to see Dr. Kerry's comments.

I feel a need to point out that divorce rates are deceptive. The divorce rate is the percentage of the state population that divorces during the year. It is not, as some people suggest, a reflection of the percentage of marriages that end in divorce. If you have a low marriage rate, you will generally have a lower divorce rate.

Beyond this, since the primary purpose of marriage is to provide an adequate system for pro-creation, the important figure is the percentage of children born to married parents, not the number of marriages ending in divorce.

The most telling statistic on this is that while 50% of co-habitating fathers leave the house-hold by the time the child is 5, only 15% of married couples divorce before their child turns 5.

some claim "then why not give the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples". The answer is, because it is impossible. If we change the nature of marriage we will destroy its current social goods.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

Since homosexual couples can not procreate the state has no interest in maintaining their stability for the good of children.

The fact that I have to spell out this basic biological fact just shows how little in connection with reality some of the pro-genderless marriage activists are. The judge who heard the Prop-8 case essentially tried to imply that homosexual couples can procreate. This is the only way he could come to his ruling. He said that they were materially the same as opposite sex couples, and he had precedents that said explicitly that it was the issue of procreation that allowed the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, so he tried to ignore that issue and pretend that homosexual couples can procreate.

The radical redefinition of words as advocated by Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carrol's "Through the Looking Glass" is upon us.

It is never evnough to pass good laws. We also have to elect good people to enforce them.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

Paul Kerry is one of a few great thinkers with degrees from Oxford we currently have connected with BYU. I am glad to see people using their scholarship to advance truth. OK, I am biased in my praise of all actions of the history department, but I still do it.

We need to be more willing to seek for positive actions that can be done to improve the family.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'Since homosexual couples can not procreate the state has no interest in maintaining their stability for the good of children.' - 'John Pack Lambert of Michigan | 3:36 p.m. Jan. 28, 2011

Actually, gay couples can have children. Just like the 'traditional' example of the family John and Kate did.

Through artificial incimination, John and Kate plus 8 had 6 children.

If this is 'not' acceptable for gay people, why is it allowed for straight couples?

Also, adoption. Not a 'natural' conception for children?

If this is 'not' acceptable for gay couples, why is it acceptable for straight couples?


Until every child in foster care has a 'mother and a father' the 'traditional' family is far, far from perfect. And does not represent the ideal as some claim.

Also John, I will ask you this again, show me ANY marriage certificate in America...

that REQUIRES you to have children.

There is none.

And yet, because gay parents 'can't procreate' (as much as sterile straight couples) they should not be married?

Your logic is flawed.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments