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
Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

Notice, how people talk about how gay marriage will 'harm' straight marrige...but never give examples?

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

This data was collected from the 'National Center for Vital Statistics.'

*'Same-Sex Marriage: Who Profits?'
- Reported by ABC News - 04/08 - By Aude Lagorce, Forbes magazine.
'Same-Sex Marriage Could Add $16.8 Billion to Industry'

*'Marriage an important key to avoiding poverty' - By Jennifer A. Marshall, The Heritage Foundation - Published by DSnews - 10/17/10


Some consequences of NOT having marriage?

*'Sonoma County Lawsuit Resolved: Clay Greene, Harold Scull Settlement Announced' - 07/22/10
'$300,000 Payment to Greene, Scull'

'It also highlights, in the absence of gay marriage rights...'

*'Kept From a Dying Partners Bedside' - By TARA PARKER-POPE - NY Times - 05/18/09

'...the couples had prepared for a medical emergency, creating living wills, advanced directives and power-of-attorney documents.'

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

All in all, the post's on here give me hope. Though many will claim 'gay activist's' are the only ones posting on here (and I admit, I am one), let's be real:

Either gay people are a 'minority', or we are gaining support. It can't be both.

*'Poll: More Americans favor same-sex marriage' - CNN - 04/19/11
' With 51 percent of respondents saying that same-sex marriages should be legal, it is the first time that a CNN poll has found majority support for same-sex marriage.'

Also, this article claims Maggie Gallagher founded the Natiional Orginazation for Marriage (or NOM).

Ok. Well done.

*'NOM Strategist, Louis J. Marinelli, Declares Support For Same-Sex Marriage' - Huffington Post 04/09/11
'Last summer, I organized the Summer for Marriage Tour for NOM. For 30 days, I traveled across the nation pushing an un-American agenda that harms gays, lesbians, and their families. I deeply regret...'

He has a website with his name.

There, I didn't call anyone names. Demean anyone's belief, or use my faith to dictate another person's marriage.

Would any oppenents be willing to do the same?

Good day.

Woody
Newbury Park, CA

I will reconsider my position on gay marriage when there are examples of gay couples "waiting" for marriage. I have seen zero evidence that they require either a religious ordinance or a secular approval. Although it may be old fashioned, it is still a ritual that is a conditon prior to sexual activity.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Go Utes

"You disagreed with my post by saying: "The idea that you believe that gay people are a threat to the 'protection of families' and the 'sanctity of marriage' is kind of a heavy charge and can easily be considered offensive.""

"You missed the point of my post entirely. I do not believe that gay people are a threat to anything. I believe that gay MARRIAGE is."

So you think two people in a committed loving relationship is some sort of threat... that's still kind of a heavy charge and can easily be considered offensive.

"But the issue needs to be discussed and I never attacked gay PEOPLE. "

Yes you did. You can pretend the two are separate all you want but what you're doing is condemning relationships of gay people which is typically considered an attack on gay people. That's like pretending that attacking temple marriage is somehow not an attack on Mormons.

"Gay MARRIAGE is indeed a threat to families and the sanctity of marriage."

Massachusetts still has the lowest divorce rates in the nation. I think families are doing just fine...

Jason F.
Provo, UT

"Many of the studies they push are actually done by activists"

"Say what you want about that, but clearly mainstreaming homosexuality increases it. (see narth)."

It's kind of hilarious that you suggest that "activist" studies aren't reliable, and then cite NARTH as an example of providing reliable studies. Here's a clue: NARTH is about as biased and agenda-driven as they come. They have been shown repeatedly to misrepresent other studies and to blatantly fabricate information - all for the purpose of promoting "reparative therapy," which, in reality, has been shown to do far more harm than good. Of course, none of that matters to you because they support your own agenda.

But yes, there are a few studies that have been shown to be flawed. There are also lots of other studies that have held up very well under scrutiny by unbiased reviewers (ie, not NARTH), and which have shown that homosexuality is, for a vast majority people, a product of biology (not genetic, but still biological) and environment in the early years of life. Those who claim that it is a choice for most people are perpetuating misinformation. Which is bad.

Jason F.
Provo, UT

Globetrecker - There may be a small number of people who "choose" to be gay - but it's very likely that most of those people were bisexual in the first place. Incidentally, of the dozens of gay people I've met and talked to about their feelings, all of them have stated that they were attracted to their own gender as soon as they started feeling sexual attraction. It could be that they were all lying in hopes of supporting the "gay agenda," but I kind of doubt it.

The "homosexuality as a product of father abuse" thing is a holdover from many decades ago, and has been rather thoroughly disproven (as much as NARTH-esque organizations, in their desperate desire to believe that there wouldn't be any gays if society would condemn it more and if fathers would stop beating their children, would like us to believe that it's true.)

For most people, homosexual feelings are present at the earliest stages of sexual maturity, and, as most unbiased studies would indicate, are the product of biology (see: twin studies, digit-length studies, birth order studies, etc) and environment during early childhood (but not abuse.)

Go Utes
Salt Lake City, UT

@atl134 10:38

You may choose to interpret my comments as "offensive" if you wish. I can't control your thinking on that. If you do not see any difference between having a tendency and acting on that tendency then we are indeed in two different universes. Is attacking drug use an attack on a drug addict? If we outlaw marriage between ten year olds, are we attacking the ten year olds? As I noted, these are very important issues to society and need to be discussed. If my very civil comments that state my view are offensive to you, you will struggle in this debate.

As for families doing fine, I am amused by this Massachusetts statistic. As if to say that divorce is the only bad thing that can happen to a family.

I will tell you what: If we have a constitutional amendment that says that gay marriage will not prohibit my adoption agency from refusing to put kids in gay marriages, protect my chapel from being forced to be used for gay weddings, protect my children from being taught in school that gay marriage is acceptable, etc., then I am not opposed to gay marriage.

jasonlivy
Orem, UT

Live as you will, but there are consequences to your choices. The sins of lust: pornography, homosexuality, promiscuity, premarital sex, etc are depravities of an immoral society. Consequences will soon follow as we continue on this path of perversion whether you agree or not. This is not a new problem for our current civilization but has poisoned most advanced civilizations throughout the history of the world. We are not exempt from the same consequences.

The line between love and lust is so obscure that the two are almost synonymous in this day and age. So many are told that they should give in to their desires because they are good. "Wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

We are free to choose. Choice, whether good or bad, comes with consequences. A marriage, the most vital union of any civilization, should not be trifled with. Our very societal foundation will crumble as we perverse this sacred institution.

Go Big Blue!!!
Bountiful, UT

If gay marriage was just about two people committing to spend their lives together I would not have a problem with it.

What is really going on is like when the camel is trying to putt his head in a tent. The camel is not going to be happy until it is all the way in the tent. There is no way the camel fits in the tent. The camel doesn't believe that it will destroy the tent but it will if it continues to push its way in.

Same sex marriage is a major step for changing everything in the legal system regarding homosexuals. Adoption, taxes, school curriculum, religous rights, and the boy scouts just to name a few of the things that will most likely be impacted by same sex marriage.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

Concerned and Involved |
"RanchHand, I am not a bigot. In fact, ... I simply stated that one can choose to not act upon certain temptations."

---
Your actions, refusing to allow civil equality, are bigoted actions.

"Temptation" = "Sin", no?

IMO, Living any other life than the one God gave me to live would be "sin". I don't adhere to your belief system. Therefore, why should it apply to me?

---
"I will reconsider my position on gay marriage when there are examples of gay couples "waiting" for marriage. I have seen zero evidence that they require either a religious ordinance or a secular approval. Although it may be old fashioned, it is still a ritual that is a conditon prior to sexual activity."
- Woody

Riiiight. Don't allow us to marry and then tell us that you'll "let" us marry once we abstain until we marry. Illogic at it's finest.

jasonlivy
Orem, UT

Accept Gay Marriage, and then what? Will it stop there?

The answer is a frightening, but emphatic, NO! Once this is condoned, then we will be labeled a bigot if we don't accept the homosexual behavior completely.

My biggest issue with this whole debate is that so many acquaint this to race. The mere fact that we believe the act of homosexuality is morally wrong automatically qualifies us as bigots. There is no discussion. There is no reasoning. If we don't agree with those who have chosen this lifestyle, we are bigots...period.

They will have zero proof that those who are gay actually have no choice in the matter. Almost every person I know who's gay has consciously made a choice after being involved for many years in a heterosexual family relationship involving children. They've been swayed by the current manmade fallacy that desires and passions are to be explored and pursued. Do whatever makes you feel good...

I will never accept the act of homosexuality. It's a violation of the eternal laws of God! These laws govern the universe and we must abide by them or face the consequences...

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

If gays can't marry because they can't produce kids, should sterile/infertile couples be allowed to marry? Why?

Should couples who refuse to have children have their marriage licenses revoked since they aren't "contributing to society" any more than a same-sex couple?

Should women over the age of 50 be allowed to re-marry since they won't be producing any children? Why do they need to be married?

If a gay couple has kids from either adoption, previous "straight" relationships, rape, "inheriting" them from a deceased sibling, etc...should they be denied marriage? Would those kids be harmed if their "parents" aren't married? Are the kids of straight couples harmed if their parents aren't married? Why the difference?

In our secular government, marriage is a civil contract and the Savior said that we should render unto Caesar the things of Caesar. Giving CIVIL standing by our CIVIL government regarding CIVIL rights is clearly a matter of our CIVIL government and therefore not any business of the church. Remember, the scriptures forbid us from using our religious opinions to harm the liberties of others. Why do we keep insisting on doing so?

Legal Eagle
Spanish Fork, UT

Every person has the freedom to choose their path. Once chosen, we each get to enjoy the consequences of those actions.

If you want to get married in Utah, find someone of the opposite sex you are compatible with and get married.

If you want a gay relationship, that is your choice, don't try to force society to accept your choice as a good one.

Belching Cow
Sandy, UT

@Kevin Kirkam
"If gays can't marry because they can't produce kids, should sterile/infertile couples be allowed to marry?"

Yes

"Why"

Because the marriage is for a man and woman couple.

"Should couples who refuse to have children have their marriage licenses revoked since they aren't "contributing to society" any more than a same-sex couple?"

No

"Should women over the age of 50 be allowed to re-marry since they won't be producing any children?"

Yes, if they are getting married to a man.

"Why do they need to be married?"

I don't know. Maybe you should ask one.

"If a gay couple has kids from either adoption, previous "straight" relationships, rape, "inheriting" them from a deceased sibling, etc...should they be denied marriage?

Yes

"Would those kids be harmed if their "parents" aren't married?"

They will be harmed if their parents are gay, married or not.

"Are the kids of straight couples harmed if their parents aren't married?"

yes

"Why the difference?"

Because one of the marriages is between a man and a woman. The other is an immoral union between people of the same sex.

Legal Eagle
Spanish Fork, UT

Marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of society. Giving a stamp of approval to anything else will put holes in your foundation and if continued will fail.

I lived in Baltimore for several months, and saw the effects of a society where a huge number of people were not married. It was really sad. Problems don't stand in line for their turn to be dealt with. They multiply and make each other worse.

If your mother and father aren't married, you have a significantly higher chance of committing crime, doing drugs, living on welfare, and otherwise failing to be a positive influence on America. Are you doomed to fail? Of course not. But the sad fact is without a Mom and a Dad, you have a much tougher life ahead.

Men and women are made for eachother. Emotionally, socially, and biologically. One cannot be complete without the other. I know this from personal experience.

If you are dealing with gay tendencies, you have a challenge that you may or may not overcome in this life. Desiring something does not make it good for you or socially acceptable. (No matter what others say.)

22ozn44ozglass
Southern Utah, UT

I will make my questions a little more plain and direct.

1. Those who practice intergenerational sexual relationships state that they were born with these desires and that they have no choice. What is the gay rebutal to this claim?

2. If being homosexual is not a choice and therefore having gay marriage is a civil right, and constitutionally granted and protected, how do gay activists counter those who practice and/or advocate intergenerational sexual relationships and intergenerational marriage because they were allegedly born with the biological, psychological or genetic programing that dictates this lifestyle and desires to have their marriages made legal and recognized?

3. How do gays rebut those people who practice and seek intergenerational sexual relationships and marriage plan to change the definition of marriage to accommodate their lifestyle and preference?

4. Why did ILGA wait until 1994 and the fallout from a Congressional review of UN funding to expel NAMBLA?

5. Why are gay activists now so set on distancing themselves from their stated platforms of the 70's which included repealing all laws and statutes regarding the gender,number and age of persons who may enter into marriage.

Answers not ad hominem.

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

Belching Cow | 3:11 p.m. April 22, 2011
Sandy, UT
@Kevin Kirkam
"If gays can't marry because they can't produce kids, should sterile/infertile couples be allowed to marry?"
Yes
"Why"
Because the marriage is for a man and woman couple.

KJK - So, the bottom line is that you have no logical rebuttal. As long as the couple is a man and a woman, that's all that matters. Where is the logical backing? If marriage is about producing kids, the aforementioned heterosexuals have no need of marriage since they can't produce kids. Why do they need state sanctioning? How are their needs for state sanctioning any different than those of same-sex couples?

Disallowing same-sex marriage harms same-sex families and especially the kids. How can we LDS claim that we are pro-family when we are pushing laws that harm familes and children?

22ozn44ozglass
Southern Utah, UT

"*After 5 Years of Legal Gay Marriage, Massachusetts still has the lowest state divorce rate.' - Bruce Wilson - AlterNet - 08/24/09
'Massachusetts retains the national title as the lowest divorce rate state"

Given the thousands of non MA resident gay couples who come to Massachusetts to get married and then return to other states, unless the MA divorce rate includes a longitudinal tracking of the current state(divorced,separated, annulled) of all the non-resident gay MA marriages it would be an abuse of statistics to repeatedly quote these statistics and then infer that SSM did not increase the divorce rate in MA and that SSM/legal partnerships have an equal or lower divorce rate than heterosexual marriages.

However, studies in two other countries with a longer history of SSM/legal partnerships do in fact reveal that SSM/legal partnerships have a signficantly higher divorce rate than do traditional marriages.

Until you can prove that the MA divorce rate statitics include tracking all of the non-resident SSM's for divorce, the statics you repeatedly quote must be held suspect

thriver7
Salt Lake, Utah

The expert witness opposed to gay marriage in the court case that was heavily funded by the LDS church had to admit that by supporting gay couples to marry, statistics show that it improves the quality of life not only of the individuals but also of their community. He went so far as to say: "When America accepts gay marriage we will be more American." -

This is the guy AGAINST gay marriage.

The problem: no one can demonstrate how gay marriage damages society. Has Massachusetts collapsed? Canada? Spain? Argentina? Heterosexual people didn't stop getting married and having babies in these places when the law changed.

This is the mission statement of Deseret Media "treating all with dignity, respect, humility and integrity." Seems to me that is what gay folks are asking for: to not be treated as second class citizens, to be welcomed into the human family, to receive the same 1100 or so federal benefits given to married folks.

The more we reject them - the louder they'll get.

Uncle Charles
Where freedom and liberty reign, utah

@Sank You, Doctor: Many people have many attractions to different things. The problem is acting on the attractions we are not supposed to. The LDS church has never stated that homosexuality is a born trait, ever.

2 men being together or 2 women will never, ever be the same as a mother and father with their family. Or do you deny the differences between man and woman?

@teri88: you are making strawman arguments with your AOF12 posting. No one is telling homosexuals they can't believe what they want. What is being stated is that the state does not have to legally recognize their behavior. Can you see the difference between the 2?

It's ironic you are telling God that His ideal doesn't work in our society so man should come up with something that is acceptable to man. Silliness. You don't lower the bar because people aren't meeting it, you educate them until they do.

The standard was set in the Garden of Eden: man and woman married for eternity. If you don't know how the Law of Moses was fulfilled you need to get back to church and learn.

to comment

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