Quantcast

Comments about ‘Gay marriage and reshaping society’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, April 20 2011 11:31 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
milojthatch
Sandy, UT

Well said! As much as I hate seeing it this way, this is a war in our society and the prize is the very soul of American society itself. I personally worry about the direction this war has been taking lately with attacks on Prop 8, the Obama Admin's decision in not defend the Defense of Marriage Act. That said, I continue to support people on both sides that choose to be more civil about things then militant. At the end of the day, regardless of what side you are on, we are still children of God, all of us.

Ethan Smith
Highland, UT

I will get on board the anti-Gay campaign as soon as there is concrete evidence from third-party, peer-reviewed studies that supports the notion that children raised in GLBT situations suffer in some important way that children raised in NOM-approved marriages don't.

Otherwise, this is all just shameless lobbying on behalf of an LDS front organization to get government to violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon not contained to the human species, and isn't something we need to worry about on a societal level (for the simple reason that it is not capable of direct genetic transmission--by its very nature).

Institutional change doesn't equate to behavior change in the population. Outlaw homosexual marriage or adoption if you like; there will still be gay "uncles" and partners. Recognize this and deal with it instead of unquestioningly accepting dogmatic opinions that have no basis in fact.

SLCWatch
Salt Lake City, UT

There is only one reason for government to be involved in marriage at all. That is to perpetuate the species. No other reason. Homosexual relations are not biologically productive. Hence there is no reason to facilitate or legitimize a government role.
From governments point of view it's not about relationships, it's not about love, it's not about scientific manipulation, it's not about civil rights or equal treatment. It's solely about perpetuating the species. The protections, benefits and rights bestowed by government are only to protect, facilitate and encourage procreation of the next generation.
This is as simple as it gets.

EDM
Castle Valley, Utah

Good for Ms. Gallagher. Who doesn't support and respect the right of responsible individuals to get married and raise a family?

But Gallagher's tired, old, irrational arguments just won't win the day. Allowing gay marriage can only promote the institution of marriage, not diminish it in any way. And if fewer couples are having babies, it has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Gallagher laments references to bigotry, but we have to call it what it is. Sure, it hurts to recognize it in ourselves and in our family and friends who "love and support" our gay loved ones, but yet don't mind denying them the same rights we enjoy, or the comfort of knowing they love who they love without scorn. It's not easy to stand against religious beliefs about homosexuality, but it's the right thing to do.

And I'm sorry for her analogy and reference to racists. I'm squarely against racism, and have no trouble treating racists as "second class citizens." We don't have to accommodate racism - or bigotry of any sort.

Schwa
South Jordan, UT

Why can't you just leave gay people alone? A gay couple's life doesn't have any bearing on whether or not your marriage will succeed. Live and let live.

Dr. Pertz
Lindon, UT

"No logically thinking individual can say with a straight face that heterosexuality is nothing more than a chosen behavior."

How does that sound Uncle Charlie? Sounds nuts to me too. I don't remember choosing to be attracted to my wife. Did you have to choose to be sexually attracted to yours?

Maggie, along with many in this state, continue to miss the point. Marriage is about more than making babies. It's about making a monogamous, loving commitment to another human being. Otherwise, nobody above the age of bearing children, according to her, should be marrying either. THAT's what I call nuts.

cornetmustich
Washington, CT

Marriage is firstly a civil and contractual matter in America, where marriage licenses are issued by and recorded in town halls not church halls or mosques or temples.

Period!

Onward, Joe Mustich, CT Justice of the Peace, USA.

Kudos to CT for supporting SSM since 2008, and life goes on as hundreds of couples come to CT to wed from all across the country!

The marriage cops need to retire and place some bingo in the middle of the nearest desert......retire oldsters....

awsomeron1
Oahu, HI

I think that we are far far from being in danger of losing our Society because we do not produce enough babies.

If we STOPED ABORTION we would have more Babies. Stop Killing Unborn Childern.

Advanced Societys in part control proverty buy limiting population, through birth control and Abortion. If you have one or two kids you go to Disneyland, if you have 8 kids you go to the Local Park, even if you live Next to Disneyland.

There is a need for a younger generation to work and pay taxes in order to support the old.

Do you want One or Two kids a working outside the home mother and stuff. Or do you want 6 kids and a stay at home mom/dad. They call people who work different shifts "divorced".

I would not want a Wife with 2 jobs, work outside the home and taking care of Kids and housse and evan remotely expect her to be friendly towards the end of the day, or early in the morning.

People with less kids have more simple fact of life.

Gay people are a different issue. Being so does not mke them bad parents. Or us better.

Really???
Kearns, UT

This topic makes me sad. According to others on here I chose to be gay. I chose to destroy the natural family unit. I chose to be misunderstood. I chose to be lonely because I can't honestly have a loving relationship with somebody of the same gender. I chose to have this struggle with same sex attraction because I didn't pray hard enough for 20 years asking help for me to change. I chose to sit alone at church--the church I love--because being around other men like me is wrong.

I am immoral. I am evil. I am destroying America. I am selfish and only care about myself. Please continue printing more articles telling me how worthless to society I am. I didn't get enough of this kind of treatment in junior high and high school. I need to be put in my place.

Livingstone
Orem, UT

It seems that our presumption that population should grow and keep growing is never questioned. In W. Europe, where religion is on a sharp decline and quality of life is the highest, birth rates are down and life expectancy is up. The danger here is not that Europeans will disappear but will disappear against immigrants and their birth rates, and the culture will degrade. This is where the fear is; this notion that we need to promote births of new children is founded in part on latent racism. In the United States, we only sustain our way of life through quick expansion and re-investment, and we would have to make certain changes in the consumer culture and economy if birth-rates slowed down. This may be a good thing. That somehow we should keep having children not just to replace each person who dies (this already happens in Europe) but to provide more working bodies to support the aging populations' quality of life seems to be the underlying need for more children. High birth rates, like that in Utah, is a tax on government and spending, and is a huge problem that is never addressed.

Springvillepoet
Springville, UT

As a man, I find the following very offensive:

"If we want fathers to be there for their children and the mothers of their children, biology alone won't do it. We need a cultural mechanism to attach fathers to the mother/child bond."

I am married, and a father of three. My marriage is not the thing which attaches me to the "mother/child bond." Whenever I look at one of my children, I feel a biological tie to them. I am their father, and even if I was not married to their mother, I would still be their father--- biologically and emotionally.

In telling me I need to be corralled into marriage for the sake of the survival of the species, Maggie Gallagher minimizes my worth at the same time she tries to articulate my necessity.

Which am I? A necessary component to the healthy and successful family unit, or some callous philanderer, who would wander from woman to woman without any regard for my children if not being "forced" to marry?

Tekakaromatagi
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

@SLC Watch: You said, "There is only one reason for government to be involved in marriage at all. That is to perpetuate the species." That might be one reason, but there are others. Marriage fights poverty.

One time I went to a youth detention center to tell stories. One of the inmates there questioned me about a story involving a young man who was required to fight his father in a battle. His question was, "How did he know it was his father?" It made me wonder if I had left out something. But I hadn't.

In this young man's world there is no reason why someone would know their father. That is one of the underlying reasons that he had broken the law enough times that the justice system finally opened an eye and sent him to a youth detention center.

Failing to support marriage will creat more young men like this one. That is why I support it.

Tekakaromatagi

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

Gallagher: "Only societies that have learned how to successfully manage the procreative implications of male/female attraction have survived."

Did she provide examples of such failed societies? I can think of none that failed because they stopped reproducing, except maybe for Shakers. I can think of many societies that failed because they did not succesfully manage procreation, but not for underpopulation. These are societies that could not rein in reproduction and overexploited their resource base to the point they could not survive.

SLCWatch: "The protections, benefits and rights bestowed by government are only to protect, facilitate and encourage procreation of the next generation.
This is as simple as it gets."

Please explain Utah Code 30-1-1(2)(b), which mandates infertility as a condition for government sanctioned marriage. The legislative history behind this section of the code makes it clear that the legislators thought love and relationships to be valid considerations for marriage policy (at least for some people). It's not so simple after all.

teri88
Spotswood, NJ

I am LDS, in a "traditional" marrige but I have always been in favor of gay marriage, for the simple reason that I believe sexual relationships without marriage is a sin. You can not have your cake and eat it too, you can't say that gay couples cannot be together without the benefit of marriage but OH, you aren't allowed to marry.
There are many traditional couples who marry and either can't have children or choose not to have children. Are we going to outlaw them too? A gay couple may not be able to have children in the traditional way, but they can use infertility treatments to get pregnant if they are women. They can adopt, and many couples I've seen adopt the special needs children that no one else seems to want. What children need are loving parents that want their children and raise them to be productive, happy members of society. Gay couples are fully capable of that. Lots of straight couples get their children through adoption or surrogatesy are they any less a family?

Danny
Salt Lake City, UT

My Gay marriage of 17 years has lasted longer then a lot of straight marriage. So if you want to fix marriage start with the ones your trying to protect. Stop divorce is where you should be putting your time and money.

RockOn
Spanish Fork, UT

Gay is a learned behavior. There is no gay gene. Marriage is a choice and a proven commodity that a child with a mother and a father is better off than a child with one parent or one without either a mother or a father. Both is essential. The proof is timeless and overwhelming.

As to the mindless idea of "live and let live", do so at societies' peril. Gallahger is right on when she says this is akin to the racial debate where racists were marginalized and put down. In that case it was justified. In this "choice" discussion it is not. Race is a product of birth. Sexuality is a product of choices. I won't stand by and let your poor choices harm my society.

xscribe
Colorado Springs, CO

Now, DN, let's have balanced coverage and have another story by a pro-gay marriage group. Most of the article I can agree with, but this is just another one of your stories that belongs on the opinion page, not the front page where it is written to incite. Unless, of course, you get a kick out of that, which there is evidence that you do, as I've seen inciteful stories stay on the post for a long time, and sometimes go away and then return. Balance, that's the way to be a journalist.

michaelitos
Salt Lake City, UT

Well said Maggie!!! Keep fighting for what's right!!!

Ace
Farmington, UT

To "Really???" @ 6:43: Not everyone thinks like that. Just do your best--that's all anyone can do. Hang in there.

Mulder21
Salt Lake City, UT

 From the article it gives the following four points:

1. Graduate students are being kicked out of marriage counseling programs because they are unwilling to personally counsel gay couples on how to sustain their relationships.

 2. A physician in California was penalized for not artificially impregnating a lesbian woman.

 3. In Massachusetts and Washington D.C., Catholic Charities was driven out of the adoption business because it refused to place children with gay couples.

 4. In Illinois, Catholic, evangelical and Lutheran adoption and foster care agencies are being probed for discrimination

All I can say is, I think these points are 100% correct and people should be penalized for discriminating against anyone for any reason. That includes race, gender, age, and yes SEXUAL ORIENTATION. I am glad that there are some people in this country with enough common sense to fight bigotry!

to comment

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