Quantcast

Comments about ‘Defense of the family conference: Defining Marriage’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Jan. 27 2011 11:32 p.m. MST

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

'"Marriage is a comprehensive, multi-level union of a man and woman who...' - Article

This is false on it's face. I will even use Utah as an example.

In 2004 Utah passed Amendment 3, which factually CHANGED the definintion of marriage in the state constitution from 'two people' to 'one man and one woman.'

So, the claim that marriage has 'always' been between one man and one woman? Try just the last 7 years.

Also, why is gay marriage 'chaning' marriage, but the amendment in Utah is not?

And last, Amendment 3 passed in 2004. The same year MA allowed gay marriage.

Let's see how gay marriage 'harmed' regular marriage, shall we?

'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, prior to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.'

National Center For Vital Statistics.

EDM
Castle Valley, Utah

So I guess there are no gays out there who are willing to pledge "fidelity, exclusivity and permanence to form a commitment"? And the only way to prevent 5 or 7 people from marrying each other is to deny gay couples a marriage license? - Statements like these are not only tired and broken, they're shameful. I'm embarrassed that so-called professionals spout this nonsense in public.

charlie91342
Sylmar, CA

the article states "Those who want to redefine marriage call it a romantic-type friendship and emotional union between two people, often ignoring the idea of exclusive sexual relations."

this is blatantly untrue. The one of the MAIN points of marriage is exclusive sexual relations, regardless of the sexes of the participants.

where would the author get the ridiculous idea that people get married and are not exclusive? that is called adultery and it isn't a part of any marriage vow.

the author's statement is simply ridiculous. and he only makes it so he can go off track and talk about polygamy, etc.

crazy rabbit. trix are for kids.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

"Those who want to redefine marriage call it a romantic-type friendship and emotional union between two people, often ignoring the idea of exclusive sexual relations." - Article

False.

*'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.'

*'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...'

Not America?

Ok!

*'The tragic story of Harold and Clay' - Kelvin Lynch - SL Examiner - 04/21/10

'This photo is one of the few mementos Clay has left of his 25 years together with Harold.'

Thanks for brining this up Charlie.

So, in these three examples, we have 50 YEARS of monogamy. Any other false hoods to disprove?

Also, why the scorn of exclusive sexual relations...
when some actively campaign AGAINST marriage for Gay/Lesbians?

If you support mongamy and marriage, then you should also support it for gay/lesbians.

Independent
Henderson, NV

"Those who want to redefine marriage call it a romantic-type friendship and emotional union between two people, often ignoring the idea of exclusive sexual relations."

He's not saying that homosexual couples ignore exlusive sexual relations in general, he's saying they ignore it in their arguments.

Independent
Henderson, NV

"where would the author get the ridiculous idea that people get married and are not exclusive? that is called adultery and it isn't a part of any marriage vow."

Why is adultery wrong?

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'He's not saying that homosexual couples ignore exlusive sexual relations in general....' - Independent | 2:58 p.m. Jan. 28, 2011

While avoiding saying 'homosexuals', yes, he is.

'Those who want to redefine marriage call it a romantic-type friendship and emotional union between two people, often ignoring the idea of exclusive sexual relations.' - Article

Also, how are HOMOSEXUALS 'avoiding' exclusive sexual relations (monogamy) by trying to factually GET married. (mongogamy)

As for adultery, you cannot cheat on a spouse...if you cannot marry.

The implication is that gay people are premiscious, and yet, people fight AGAINST, once again a life-long, monogamys relationship for gay couples...

marriage.

Independent
Henderson, NV

"While avoiding saying 'homosexuals', yes, he is."

Of course he's talking about homosexuals, that's not what I'm arguing. He's saying that they emphasize the romantic friendship in their arguments, not exclusive sexual relations. In other words, homosexuals don't claim to want to get married because they are living in sin and a marriage would remedy that. They claim to want marriage to make their romantic friendship official. And he would argue that marriage is about much more than making a romantic friendship official. If you want to start arguing for same-sex marriage primarily because of the exclusive sexual relationship issue, by all means go ahead, but that just hasn't been the main argument up to this point. And it would beg the question, why is it not important for the couple to be heterosexual to have a marriage, but it is important that they have an exclusive sexual relationship? What makes one of those criteria important, but the other not?

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

There have actually been some homosexual activists who have advocated same-gender marriage as a way to alter the institution of marriage completely and move us beyond the "outmoded concept of monogomy".

There is also a growing group favoring polyamory within the Unitarian Universalist Church, which was earlier the home of those who pushed for same-sex marriage.

With the movement being LGBTQ we see that same-sex marriage can not be the end. The B is bi-sexual. The same arguments that would justify same-sex marriage can be extended to forcing love triangles being given explicit recognition as a three-way marriage. What types of innovations would be forced by the transgendered and questioning I have no clue.

Beyond this, Pagan's theory that just granting relationships the designation of marriage will change behavior is not founded on reality. The benefits we currently see from marriage directly grow out of its current form. If we change the form, we will alter the benefits.

charlie91342
Sylmar, CA

re - Independent | 2:59 p.m
"Why is adultery wrong?"

...huh? because you are cheating on someone that you swore to be faithful to. so you are hurting someone.

why would you think it is not wrong?

of course, if the two people agree that they can sleep with other people, then it is not wrong, since no one gets hurt. only in a religious sense is it wrong, which is why you can't just go by religious rules. often they make no sense.

re - John Pack Lambert of Michigan | 3:49 p.m.
"There have actually been some homosexual activists who have advocated same-gender marriage as a way to alter the institution of marriage completely and move us beyond the "outmoded concept of monogomy".

why do you insist on inventing things, John? no one has proposed this. you just think gays are prone to have multiple partners - and the fact is they are no more prone to it than anyone else.

"The same arguments that would justify same-sex marriage can be extended to forcing love triangles being given explicit recognition as a three-way marriage."

only polygamists want that, john. do you?

lds4gaymarriage
Salt Lake City, UT

Isn't it funny how we withhold the legal and social protections for the spouses and children pertaining to marriage from some families because we deem less than ideal. Yet we allow other "less than ideal" families have marriage and it' accompanying legal protections for the spouses and children. The latter may subject the kids to second-hand smoke, porn, booze, poor diet, distain for authority and education, etc...

Which family harms children more? The latter one or 2 lesbians raising kids from previous failed relationships?

Why are we so anti-family and anti-child?

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'Beyond this, Pagan's theory that just granting relationships the designation of marriage will change behavior is not founded on reality.' - John Pack Lambert of Michigan | 3:49 p.m. Jan. 28, 2011

MA has allowed gay marriage since 2004.

Your 'reality' has changed 7 years ago and counting. Not to mention other countries.

' In other words, homosexuals don't claim to want to get married because they are living in sin and a marriage would remedy that.' - Independent | 3:38 p.m. Jan. 28, 2011

No, we're not. Unless you are a self-identified homosexual, I fail to see your justification for speaking for one.

For example, what makes you think I CARE about my 'sinning' or that I even am a 'sinner?'

I didn't mention 'sin.'

Eating shell-fish and pork was once considered a 'sin', and yet, there is no consequence for it today.

More examples of outdated 'sins?'

Interacial marriage
A women holding a job
being black

All were once considered a 'sin' and yet, by todays standards are no longer.

If you want to talk about 'sin', fine.

But my marriage is about my life.

Stick with a topic.

to comment

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