Reader comments
Gay couples in Utah urged not to sue
428 comments | Read story
Joan | 10:51 a.m. June 18, 2008
The constitution was drawn up by good men who had their faults but were guided
in their persuits by the God who gave them life. God had his hand in
establishing this great country and in the formation of it's constitution.
There should be a separation of church and state, but not separation of God and
state. There is a difference. God loves his homosexual children as he loves
his heterosexual ones, but I don't believe that means he condones the
homosexual lifestyle. Some things just "are" and one of them is
marriage is between and man and a woman. Homosexual BEHAVIOR is a sin...not
BEING a homosexual. I know many don't like to heat that, but just because
we don't like to hear or believe it
doesn't make it a non-truth. I have empathy for our homosexual brothers and sisters. It must be very hard at times, but I will not ever accept immorality in any form as the norm.
doesn't make it a non-truth. I have empathy for our homosexual brothers and sisters. It must be very hard at times, but I will not ever accept immorality in any form as the norm.
Hatch can't undrstnd rule of law | 10:52 a.m. June 18, 2008
The CA Supreme Court ruled according to the CA Constitution. What is it about
constitutionality that Orin Hatch can't understand. And isn't it a
shame that UT has a Senator who is so inadequate.
He may get away with calling anything he doesn't personally like judicial activism in such backward places as UT and the GOP majority but that doesn't make him in any way correct.
He may get away with calling anything he doesn't personally like judicial activism in such backward places as UT and the GOP majority but that doesn't make him in any way correct.
Comments continue below
Blake | 10:57 a.m. June 18, 2008
I am always shocked when I venture on to these message boards. I guess I always
expect a bit more civil and calm behavior from a newspaper that is so steeped in
LDS culture and so widely appreciated in "Happy Valley." It seems to
me that there is a lot more hatred, frustration and anger in your hearts than
anywhere else.
I deal with a lot of people that have reservations about homosexuals and gay marriage, but I never have encountered such doomsday behavior.
It makes me sad that so many people spend so much energy on negative thoughts. Take a deep breath and hug someone.
I deal with a lot of people that have reservations about homosexuals and gay marriage, but I never have encountered such doomsday behavior.
It makes me sad that so many people spend so much energy on negative thoughts. Take a deep breath and hug someone.
K.C. | 10:57 a.m. June 18, 2008
I don't discount what you say about a possible higher divorce rate among
male couples. Still, shouldn't equal treatment remain the standard.
Everyone should have the opportunity to acquire the rights and RESPONSIBILITIES
of marriage.
We can do for gay couples what we now do for straight couples; give them our blessing and hope for the best.
We can do for gay couples what we now do for straight couples; give them our blessing and hope for the best.
Jim | 10:59 a.m. June 18, 2008
whether or not gay couples would divorce at higher rates than straight couples
really has no bearing, though, on whether gay couples should be allowed to get
married in the first place.
What is Sen. McCoy doing? | 11:01 a.m. June 18, 2008
What is Senator McCoy doing for the public good? Is there any recent activity
in any type of economic stimulus package he has designed or put into effect that
makes our lives better somehow? What is he doing with his hand? Looks like
maybe he's telling a fish story and he caught a little one. To better
fishing in the future! I hear sea fish (like off the coast of California for
example) are bigger than the trout that inhabit of the fresh water streams
around here. I'd wish him the best of luck in his fishing endeavors but I
can't catch his fish for him - he has to do that himself. Better luck in
the future Scott!
The Simple Truth | 11:02 a.m. June 18, 2008
INDISPUTED FACTS:
Marriage between a man and a woman predates government. Government did not create it. But rather than merely allowing it to exist, government chose to support it. Why?
Government did not involve itself with marriage to formally bless either love, sexual gratification, or even commitment generally. It got involved because it saw its absolute dependence upon one very specific institution and no other: One man and one woman married to each other.
The reason government provided special incentives to this marriage was to strengthen that upon which healthy society cannot live without. This marriage gets unique treatment because it is unique.
Equality means treating those similarly situated the same. Gay couples ARE NOT similarly situated with heterosexual couples. Society relies in no conceivable way upon gay couples. That is why government has neither reason nor right to create incentives for its existence.
Those who say marriage (recognized by government) is about love or sexual gratification, or even commitment generally, outside of one man and one woman, operate entirely outside the bounds of both history and reason.
Marriage between a man and a woman predates government. Government did not create it. But rather than merely allowing it to exist, government chose to support it. Why?
Government did not involve itself with marriage to formally bless either love, sexual gratification, or even commitment generally. It got involved because it saw its absolute dependence upon one very specific institution and no other: One man and one woman married to each other.
The reason government provided special incentives to this marriage was to strengthen that upon which healthy society cannot live without. This marriage gets unique treatment because it is unique.
Equality means treating those similarly situated the same. Gay couples ARE NOT similarly situated with heterosexual couples. Society relies in no conceivable way upon gay couples. That is why government has neither reason nor right to create incentives for its existence.
Those who say marriage (recognized by government) is about love or sexual gratification, or even commitment generally, outside of one man and one woman, operate entirely outside the bounds of both history and reason.
Mike Mayers | 11:02 a.m. June 18, 2008
As a gay mormon, it truly makes me sad to read all these hateful things. To all
of you who say it isn't normal or natural and that it will ruin marriage,
please tell me, what is normal and natural? How will it hurt marriage? What is
wrong with 2 consenting adults who love each other having rights to be with each
other. Agree or disagree with being gay, it is not the governments right to say
what love is right and what love is wrong! As for saying we would have to
legalize polygamy, then so be it! If 7 consenting adults want to get married to
each other, then so be it! Stop trying to push your small minded,
"normal" views upon everyone else. Live and let live. Love everyone,
like Jesus taught! If you don't want a gay marriage, then don't get
one. By trying to stop it, you are doing what Satan did in the pre existence.
God gave free agency, let him decide the rest, it is not your job. Let me get
married because I deserve to! Let he without sin cast the first stone!
Oh please, Joan | 11:03 a.m. June 18, 2008
Homosexual behavior is no more intrinsically sinful than heterosexual behavior.
The only people arguing that being gay is a sin do so from a purely religious perspective that requires a bizarre willingness to accept some of the nasty and wholly irrational parts of the Bible, but not others.
Fortunately, our country is not run according to the Bible. Nor should it ever be. Our country IS run according to a respect for the rights of all citizens.
I have gay friends, family members and co-workers. They're NORMAL PEOPLE and all they want from life is to live as normally as you or I do, including falling in love and making a lifelong commitment to someone and having the laws of the land recognize their commitments and protect their legal rights in the same way that the commitment my wife and I have has been recognized by law.
The only people arguing that being gay is a sin do so from a purely religious perspective that requires a bizarre willingness to accept some of the nasty and wholly irrational parts of the Bible, but not others.
Fortunately, our country is not run according to the Bible. Nor should it ever be. Our country IS run according to a respect for the rights of all citizens.
I have gay friends, family members and co-workers. They're NORMAL PEOPLE and all they want from life is to live as normally as you or I do, including falling in love and making a lifelong commitment to someone and having the laws of the land recognize their commitments and protect their legal rights in the same way that the commitment my wife and I have has been recognized by law.
YBU | 11:05 a.m. June 18, 2008
@To Rich | 10:40 a.m.
"And to "Dixie Dan" - the LDS church already HAS given their opinion on all of this. It's up to us to decide whether or not we're willing to follow the prophets, or the world."
You can choose to follow the prophet but that means that YOU choose not to be homosexual. It does not mean that you can choose for me and my partner what is legal. Please be American and treat everyone equally.
"And to "Dixie Dan" - the LDS church already HAS given their opinion on all of this. It's up to us to decide whether or not we're willing to follow the prophets, or the world."
You can choose to follow the prophet but that means that YOU choose not to be homosexual. It does not mean that you can choose for me and my partner what is legal. Please be American and treat everyone equally.
you know the type ... | 11:19 a.m. June 18, 2008
Those who are whining loudest about this are the same type that also whined when
women got the vote and black kids attending the same school as whites.
Every few years they emerge, try to disrupt the naturally liberal society we live in, then realizing they have failed miserably, crawl back into the darkness.
Every few years they emerge, try to disrupt the naturally liberal society we live in, then realizing they have failed miserably, crawl back into the darkness.
Doug | 11:27 a.m. June 18, 2008
It is unfortunate that we live in a society where the answer to every perceived
slight is a lawsuit. Suits are usually the result of someone feeling offended.
Wouldn't life be much better if we all chose to not be offended. We have
the reins to our feelings and we can only be offended should we ourselves choose
to be. For a group of people who are so convinced that they are secure in their
beliefs, the gay community certainly chooses to be offended all too often. Such
is the case when the racism card is played over every perceived slight as well.
To YBU | 11:31 a.m. June 18, 2008
I didn't choose what acts you wish to commit. You chose that, and that
means that you also chose the consequences of it. One of those consequences that
you chose is that you are not legally allowed to marry your partner. I have the
right to legally vote with my conscience, and I will continue to do so, whether
you agree with my political choices or not - just as you will continue to choose
your actions (and consequences), whether I agree with those choices or not. I
respect your right to choose, please respect mine.
amazed | 11:31 a.m. June 18, 2008
I'm sorry that other people feel that the 15-year relationship between my
partner and I represents a threat to their marriage. If you have instilled
strong cultural values in your children, you should be confident they will grow
up with similar values. I was raised in a strong Catholic home, in a strong
Catholic community and the value most emphasized was love and respect for
friend, neighbor and fellow citizens. The fact that I have been married in the
Catholic Church (which does not recognize LDS marriages or divorce) does not
make me think any less of those people who have chosen a different path; whether
it be a temple marriage or a same-sex marriage. The two are different from my
choice, but a choice nonetheless that should be respected.
Who Makes the Rules? | 11:40 a.m. June 18, 2008
You can't dictate the laws of God. I don't think he recognizes the
California Constitution as his spoken word. Where is the revelation coming from
God that says this is righteous behavior? Pass all the laws you want. I
won't recognize it as legal or right unless God tells me it is. This is in
no way to mean that I would go against the laws of this country. I am a law
abiding citizen. I pay my taxes and obey the laws even if I won't agree
with them. As a professional, I would not let my feelings be known on the
subject. I would just do my job and refuse to discuss the subject.
Now you'll tell me I'm self-righteous. I'm not the one who made the rules, God did. So complain to Him, not me.
Now you'll tell me I'm self-righteous. I'm not the one who made the rules, God did. So complain to Him, not me.
Anonymous | 11:42 a.m. June 18, 2008
While you're so fixated on perversion, what do you call treating women like
second class citizens, pressuring them into having litters instead of families,
telling them they need to be perfect all the time so that they end up medicated
just to get through their days and their teenage children have the highest
suicide rate in the country.
I'll take a little of the open society of California where they have the lowest suicide rate in the West and report much higher satisfaction with their lives.
I'll take a little of the open society of California where they have the lowest suicide rate in the West and report much higher satisfaction with their lives.
BLJT | 11:47 a.m. June 18, 2008
To "The Simple Truth"
OK, I agree, government got into the marriage game (by providing incentives) because it saw benefits to society stemming from marriage. Can you honestly say, though, that there is no benefit to society of two gay people choosing to mutually support and take care of each other? Is it better for society that they remain alone? that they eventually become dependent on others or on the state?
With all due respect, I don't think that portion of your argument is an "indisputed fact".
OK, I agree, government got into the marriage game (by providing incentives) because it saw benefits to society stemming from marriage. Can you honestly say, though, that there is no benefit to society of two gay people choosing to mutually support and take care of each other? Is it better for society that they remain alone? that they eventually become dependent on others or on the state?
With all due respect, I don't think that portion of your argument is an "indisputed fact".
rights ? | 11:54 a.m. June 18, 2008
Admit it, you don't respect my right to choose or you wouldn't
exercise your right to vote to prevent my choice!
This is not at all the same. It's like saying, "You have a right to eat tomatoes. I have a right to throw them at your house. I respect your rights, please respect mine."
This is not at all the same. It's like saying, "You have a right to eat tomatoes. I have a right to throw them at your house. I respect your rights, please respect mine."
re:fr1nk | 8:35 a.m. June 18, 20 | 11:58 a.m. June 18, 2008
"4)Your idea of family isnt the most important thing to this country,
freedom is."
Your argument is weak. While we enjoy "freedom," the government HAS to make some decisions based on "morality." What if someone wanted to go out and start murdering people legally? Does that make it his or her right because we live in a "free country?" While this example is extreme, my point is that we have to draw lines somewhere.
Incidentally, I am Pro Civil Unions.
Your argument is weak. While we enjoy "freedom," the government HAS to make some decisions based on "morality." What if someone wanted to go out and start murdering people legally? Does that make it his or her right because we live in a "free country?" While this example is extreme, my point is that we have to draw lines somewhere.
Incidentally, I am Pro Civil Unions.
Anonymous | 12:04 p.m. June 18, 2008
To: "The simple truth," I hate to burst your bubble but your
�INDISPUTED FACTS� are opinion not
fact. There is wealth of research out there that shows that homosexuals marring
and their having children is not a determent to society and actually serves
benefits to society (look up the professional organizations that actually
conduct research in this area, i.e. the APA, American Pediatrics Society or the
NASW) I for one usually base my
�reason� on research, what are you
basing yours on? Do you people ever get tired of dragging out the same lame
excuses, just say you appose it on religious grounds and be done with it. I
could get behind you then, I think Gay marriage should be allowed, however, I do
not think any religious organization should be allowed by law to recognize or
condone it and I think you have every right to not approve as noisily as you
want without fear of legal repercussions, just stop hiding behind false logic.
History repeating | 12:05 p.m. June 18, 2008
It is so perplexing to me when mormons warn that gay marriage will lead to
legalized polygamy. According to early prophets that would be a good thing,
right?
Also isn't it odd that a group previously persecuted, even forced to leave their homes, because of their "nontraditional" family structure would turn around and persecute others because of their "unnatural" desire for marriage?
Also isn't it odd that a group previously persecuted, even forced to leave their homes, because of their "nontraditional" family structure would turn around and persecute others because of their "unnatural" desire for marriage?
To rights? | 12:07 p.m. June 18, 2008
I could care less what you want to choose to do in the privacy of your own home.
What I do care about is when you insist on placing YOUR rights ahead of mine.
Marriage is not a "right", it is a "rite". They are
different, please look them up. Every choice has consequences, whether good or
bad. One consequence of choosing to follow homosexual behavior is that you are
not allowed to legally marry. I don't care if you want to live together
with your partner for the rest of your life, you're more than welcome to do
so. But I do care when you tell me that I am required to applaud and support
your choice when it goes against the laws and teachings of my Heavenly Father.
You don't have to agree that those laws and teachings are correct, but you
can't force me to accept that they aren't, either. When you force me
to applaud your choice, you are now infringing on MY rights, and I am perfectly
entitled to refuse to accept that peacefully.
YBU | 12:07 p.m. June 18, 2008
Not every law in America is right or just. It wasn't too long ago that
inter-racial marriages were illegal. If two people from different races were to
fall in love in 1960, should they just have said, "Oh well, this is the
consequences of our choices." or done something about it? We are doing
something about the injustice that we, as American citizens, are not treated as
equals.
I believe that Americans will know in their hearts what is true and just and will keep their beliefs in their homes and churches--not in their laws.
Two people in love and wanting to get married and make a commitment to each other is not the evil that it is being portrayed as being. Please use your passion to fight evil for those who lie, cheat, steal, and even kill to take advantage over others. There is too much demonizing of good people who want to just spend their lives married to someone that they love.
I believe that Americans will know in their hearts what is true and just and will keep their beliefs in their homes and churches--not in their laws.
Two people in love and wanting to get married and make a commitment to each other is not the evil that it is being portrayed as being. Please use your passion to fight evil for those who lie, cheat, steal, and even kill to take advantage over others. There is too much demonizing of good people who want to just spend their lives married to someone that they love.
Paul | 12:19 p.m. June 18, 2008
As I read the comments it is unfortunate to see how decisive an issue it is.
With that being said I am one who is a strong proponent of preserving the family
as the fundamental unit of society.
Man and woman are what bring children into this world and therefore I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. People have a right to choose the lifestyle they want to live but that does not mean they should be given certain rights by the Government. I am one who will actively oppose homosexual marriage but I am open to discussing this issue in a respectful manner and wish more people would do the same.
Man and woman are what bring children into this world and therefore I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. People have a right to choose the lifestyle they want to live but that does not mean they should be given certain rights by the Government. I am one who will actively oppose homosexual marriage but I am open to discussing this issue in a respectful manner and wish more people would do the same.
@To rights? | 12:07 p.m. | 12:19 p.m. June 18, 2008
How are we making you "applaud" our choices? We are only asking for
equality. There were plenty of people who were not "applauding" the
civil rights movement and to this day, think that they are the superior race,
but that doesn't make them right. Equality under the law is the law. If
you are so interested in making your beliefs into law, study history. When the
church was in control of government, they called that era The Dark Ages for a
reason.
Anonymous | 12:28 p.m. June 18, 2008
I wonder if they would let me marry my dog in Cal.?
The Simple Truth | 12:30 p.m. June 18, 2008
To BLJT:
Your question:
�Can you honestly say, though, that there is no benefit to society of two gay people choosing to mutually support and take care of each other? Is it better for society that they remain alone? that they eventually become dependent on others or on the state?�
Response:
Thank you for your good question. Having two gay people caring for each other in this way is similar to a mother and daughter caring for each other. And yes, society appreciates that. Thank you for that important addition. But gay couples, wonderful mother/daughter relations, and several other configurations, should only receive the package of marriage incentives if they are similarly situated with the one-man/one-woman institution. They are not and never can be. The only social institution upon which society absolutely depends is one-man/one-woman marriage. To grant similar marriage benefits on ANY other institution would not expand equality, it would DESTROY it.
(Readers, please refer to my earlier post for clarification and context)
Your question:
�Can you honestly say, though, that there is no benefit to society of two gay people choosing to mutually support and take care of each other? Is it better for society that they remain alone? that they eventually become dependent on others or on the state?�
Response:
Thank you for your good question. Having two gay people caring for each other in this way is similar to a mother and daughter caring for each other. And yes, society appreciates that. Thank you for that important addition. But gay couples, wonderful mother/daughter relations, and several other configurations, should only receive the package of marriage incentives if they are similarly situated with the one-man/one-woman institution. They are not and never can be. The only social institution upon which society absolutely depends is one-man/one-woman marriage. To grant similar marriage benefits on ANY other institution would not expand equality, it would DESTROY it.
(Readers, please refer to my earlier post for clarification and context)
Anonymous | 12:37 p.m. June 18, 2008
Do any of you even know that when same sex marriages were conducted in MA the
divorce rate (the second lowest in the nation after DC; UT has almost TWICE as
many per 1,000 marriages) went DOWN?
When you're not so focused on how you *want* things to be you can tune in to the facts of the matter. ;>
When you're not so focused on how you *want* things to be you can tune in to the facts of the matter. ;>
The Simple Truth | 12:45 p.m. June 18, 2008
To Anonymous:
Your �wealth of research� is contradicted by an equally large or larger wealth of research. But let�s simply all this:
Society has no need of homosexual couples to successfully and healthily perpetuate itself, while society absolutely requires heterosexual couples. Government, then, reasonably creates better incentives for those institutions it absolutely needs than for those it doesn�t.
Your �wealth of research� is contradicted by an equally large or larger wealth of research. But let�s simply all this:
Society has no need of homosexual couples to successfully and healthily perpetuate itself, while society absolutely requires heterosexual couples. Government, then, reasonably creates better incentives for those institutions it absolutely needs than for those it doesn�t.
rights? | 12:47 p.m. June 18, 2008
With all due respect, I am not trying to force you to applaud or personally even
to accept my relationship or agree with it. (If I were then I'd be
throwing tomatoes at your home, to continue my really bad analogy.) Nothing
about my being allowed to marry "requires" anything from you. You
have every right to continue to believe as you wish. How is this placing my
rights ahead of yours?
The point I am making is that what you cannot under our system, no matter how big your majority, is deny fundamental equal protection of the laws to a minority you happen to disagree with or dislike. But no one is making you like gay people, or applaud them, and you can continue believe and teach whatever you want about it.
The point I am making is that what you cannot under our system, no matter how big your majority, is deny fundamental equal protection of the laws to a minority you happen to disagree with or dislike. But no one is making you like gay people, or applaud them, and you can continue believe and teach whatever you want about it.
Blah, blah, blah | 12:48 p.m. June 18, 2008
Same story, same comments. Downfall of the human race, cats and dogs marrying
their owners, fall of Rome, the bible says, god created Adam & Eve not dam
& Steve. I'm not reading these stories anymore, we've rehashed
this topic for the past two weeks. Now I know how a hamster on a wheel
feels.
Change is coming, better get used to the idea. I'm gay and I know that I was born "That way", my parents know it too and somehow we manage to go on with our lives. I suggest you people do the same.
Change is coming, better get used to the idea. I'm gay and I know that I was born "That way", my parents know it too and somehow we manage to go on with our lives. I suggest you people do the same.
green mormon architect | 12:56 p.m. June 18, 2008
Divorce destroys marriage, not gender.
M. Allred | 12:59 p.m. June 18, 2008
To Joan | 10:51 a.m., and Paul | 12:19 p.m. Right on. I agree.
To BLJT (part one) | 1:13 p.m. June 18, 2008
>"Can you honestly say, though, that there is no benefit to society of
two gay people choosing to mutually support and take care of each
other?"
Sure.
Benefits given to traditional families revolve around assisting the raising of children and protecting the caregiver parent who places them self at an economic disadvantage by forgoing outside income to stay with and raise children.
Eliminate the child rearing aspect and society has no vested interest in subsidizing or fostering any other particular relationship type.
(yes, I know not every marriage produces children but most do, get over it)
Any benefits that might be bestowed on homosexual partners; health insurance, pensions, etc; are things that would benefit all members of society regardless of what kind of relationship (if any) they are in.
In other words, you shouldn't have to have to "marry" a homosexual to get health care coverage or support in your old age.
If you recognize homosexual relationships as "marriage" and grant them family benefits (intended to support child rearing) you in fact are giving homosexuals couples unfair preferential treatment over everyone else not in a traditional marriage (unattached heterosexuals or homosexuals).
....CONTINUED.............
Sure.
Benefits given to traditional families revolve around assisting the raising of children and protecting the caregiver parent who places them self at an economic disadvantage by forgoing outside income to stay with and raise children.
Eliminate the child rearing aspect and society has no vested interest in subsidizing or fostering any other particular relationship type.
(yes, I know not every marriage produces children but most do, get over it)
Any benefits that might be bestowed on homosexual partners; health insurance, pensions, etc; are things that would benefit all members of society regardless of what kind of relationship (if any) they are in.
In other words, you shouldn't have to have to "marry" a homosexual to get health care coverage or support in your old age.
If you recognize homosexual relationships as "marriage" and grant them family benefits (intended to support child rearing) you in fact are giving homosexuals couples unfair preferential treatment over everyone else not in a traditional marriage (unattached heterosexuals or homosexuals).
....CONTINUED.............
To BLJT (part two) | 1:13 p.m. June 18, 2008
CONTINUED........
In other words, whatever benefits you think will accrue to society by having homosexual "marriages" tap into the family benefit pool should be extended to all citizens.
Diverting those scarce benefit dollars to homosexuals who "marry" postpones the day when all Americans can receive health care coverage, for example.
Further, treating homosexual pairings like "marriage" unwisely drains available family benefit dollars from the critical and underfunded support of children in our society.
It is more perverse when you consider that children are the most poverty stricken demographic segment of society, homosexual couples the most affluent.
Giving family benefits to homosexual couples steals healthcare and bread from the mouths of impoverished children.
That seems a high price to pay to feed the vanity and manufactured "victimhood" of homosexuals.
We don't really want to do that, do we?
In other words, whatever benefits you think will accrue to society by having homosexual "marriages" tap into the family benefit pool should be extended to all citizens.
Diverting those scarce benefit dollars to homosexuals who "marry" postpones the day when all Americans can receive health care coverage, for example.
Further, treating homosexual pairings like "marriage" unwisely drains available family benefit dollars from the critical and underfunded support of children in our society.
It is more perverse when you consider that children are the most poverty stricken demographic segment of society, homosexual couples the most affluent.
Giving family benefits to homosexual couples steals healthcare and bread from the mouths of impoverished children.
That seems a high price to pay to feed the vanity and manufactured "victimhood" of homosexuals.
We don't really want to do that, do we?
Soooo... | 1:15 p.m. June 18, 2008
If gays can't reproduce, and appearantly this is the SOLE reason for
marriage to have been invented, the question would be then where do they come
from??
Answer: People like you have children like me. HA!!
Answer: People like you have children like me. HA!!
Anonymous | 1:25 p.m. June 18, 2008
It seems to me that poligamy should have been given more emphasis in the courts
than gay marriages. You find one Bull elk or Bull Cow that services many
heffers. True they are not married but it is natural. You do not see in nature
any male animals with male animals. Gays then have become lower than the
animals and are now going against nature. When you go against nature you always
lose.
Someone on the board said prove to me that a gay marriage has hurt a normal person. I say to you prove to me that violence on television is bad for kids. I can't prove it, but I know it exists.
Someone on the board said prove to me that a gay marriage has hurt a normal person. I say to you prove to me that violence on television is bad for kids. I can't prove it, but I know it exists.
Thanks blah blah blah | 1:31 p.m. June 18, 2008
I agree with everything in your post. I keep coming back here, though, hoping
naively that at least some people are moved by logic and reason (to say nothing
of compassion and justice) and can see things with different eyes like my
parents do.
To Still Waiting | 1:33 p.m. June 18, 2008
To Still Waiting:I'm still waiting for someone to come forward and show
that his or her marriage has been harmed by someone else's gay
union/marriage.
Gays brought about, spread, and still are spreading AIDS. You know the virus that kills people. One of the gays biggest talking points is that AIDS doesn't just effect gay people. Children have it. Well, if it weren't for gays, the virus wouldn't have infected a friend or a neighbor, or somebody's child.
Is that a good answer?
Gays brought about, spread, and still are spreading AIDS. You know the virus that kills people. One of the gays biggest talking points is that AIDS doesn't just effect gay people. Children have it. Well, if it weren't for gays, the virus wouldn't have infected a friend or a neighbor, or somebody's child.
Is that a good answer?
YBU | 1:33 p.m. June 18, 2008
"Government, then, reasonably creates better incentives for those
institutions it absolutely needs than for those it
doesn�t."
Not really. There will always be heterosexuals that will conceive children. The USA is not in a tailspin with birthrates to the point that we have to try and bribe people to have babies.
The reason for privileges in marriage is to protect those who have entered into this agreement. Read some of the rights that are afforded to married people and ask how they help children, (ie. a spouse does not have to testify against their partner.)
Read the history of marriage. It has changed dramatically just in the last couple of centuries. Churches did not become involved in this "rite" until around 1400. Monogamy was not even the norm until the Roman Empire. Women were property. The marriage defination that most of the posters seem to be fighting for is one of the 1950's. The notion that God ordained this institution from the begining of time does not fit history.
Not really. There will always be heterosexuals that will conceive children. The USA is not in a tailspin with birthrates to the point that we have to try and bribe people to have babies.
The reason for privileges in marriage is to protect those who have entered into this agreement. Read some of the rights that are afforded to married people and ask how they help children, (ie. a spouse does not have to testify against their partner.)
Read the history of marriage. It has changed dramatically just in the last couple of centuries. Churches did not become involved in this "rite" until around 1400. Monogamy was not even the norm until the Roman Empire. Women were property. The marriage defination that most of the posters seem to be fighting for is one of the 1950's. The notion that God ordained this institution from the begining of time does not fit history.
Wahrheit | 1:34 p.m. June 18, 2008
[Dear moderator]
To YBU:
Contrary to your claim, following prophets means more than choosing as an individuals whether to live a homosexual lifestyle:
"The principles of the gospel...require that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints oppose any efforts to give legal authorization to marriages between persons of the same gender...
"We encourage members to appeal to legislators, judges, and other government officials to preserve the purposes and sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, and to reject all efforts to give legal authorization or other official approval or support to marriages between persons of the same gender."
--LDS News Release 14 August 2006
�The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints favors a constitutional amendment preserving marriage as the lawful union of a man and a woman."
--LDS News Release 7 July 2004
�...Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same gender, undermine the divinely created institution of the family. The Church accordingly favors measures that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and that do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship."
--LDS New Release 19 October 2004
To YBU:
Contrary to your claim, following prophets means more than choosing as an individuals whether to live a homosexual lifestyle:
"The principles of the gospel...require that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints oppose any efforts to give legal authorization to marriages between persons of the same gender...
"We encourage members to appeal to legislators, judges, and other government officials to preserve the purposes and sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, and to reject all efforts to give legal authorization or other official approval or support to marriages between persons of the same gender."
--LDS News Release 14 August 2006
�The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints favors a constitutional amendment preserving marriage as the lawful union of a man and a woman."
--LDS News Release 7 July 2004
�...Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same gender, undermine the divinely created institution of the family. The Church accordingly favors measures that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and that do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship."
--LDS New Release 19 October 2004
Not LDS, but thankful for Utah! | 1:38 p.m. June 18, 2008
Penelope is right. We moved to Utah 15 years ago, because I was a PTA volunteer
in California, hanging up posters in my son's junior high halls, and got to
a stack all about homosexuality. There were a dozen different kinds. All
featured kids looking confused, frightened, or sad. All suggesting that if you
liked someone of your own sex, you were normal, correct, and persecuted! It gave
an 800# you could call. I'm not proud of this, but I called the number. I
pretended to be a 14 year-old boy, confused about his sexuality. (What child of
that age hasn't been at one time or another?) What followed was twenty
minutes of the heaviest recruitment-brainwashing I had ever heard. By the end of
it, I was nearly convinced I WAS gay, and the person I spoke with almost had a
date set up to meet me! I was horrified! I went straight to the principal. I
only wish I had recorded the conversation, because he didn't believe me,
and said we were REQUIRED to hang the posters. We left the state. We chose Utah
because it was said to be "backward". I've never looked back.
Thank God for Utah!
YBU | 1:42 p.m. June 18, 2008
"Giving family benefits to homosexual couples steals healthcare and bread
from the mouths of impoverished children.
That seems a high price to pay to feed the vanity and manufactured "victimhood" of homosexuals.
We don't really want to do that, do we?"
Well, if we did what so many of you wanted and married a person of the opposite sex, we would have all those "family benefits" and then where would you be? It would be the same drain, wouldn't it?
You seem to be using us to pay for you and yours if you will not give us benefits too.
Falacious argument.
That seems a high price to pay to feed the vanity and manufactured "victimhood" of homosexuals.
We don't really want to do that, do we?"
Well, if we did what so many of you wanted and married a person of the opposite sex, we would have all those "family benefits" and then where would you be? It would be the same drain, wouldn't it?
You seem to be using us to pay for you and yours if you will not give us benefits too.
Falacious argument.
To BLJT (part one) 1:13 p.m. | 1:45 p.m. June 18, 2008
>"Can you honestly say, though, that there is no benefit to society of two gay people choosing to mutually support and take care of each other?"
Sure.
Benefits given to traditional families revolve around assisting the raising of children and protecting the caregiver parent who places them self at an economic disadvantage by forgoing outside income to stay with and raise children.
Eliminate the child rearing aspect and society has no vested interest in subsidizing or fostering any other particular relationship type.
(yes, I know not every marriage produces children but most do, get over it)
Any benefits that might be bestowed on homosexual partners; health insurance, pensions, etc; are things that would benefit all members of society regardless of what kind of relationship (if any) they are in.
In other words, you shouldn't have to have to "marry" a homosexual to get health care coverage or support in your old age.
If you recognize homosexual relationships as "marriage" and grant them family benefits (intended to support child rearing) you in fact are giving homosexuals couples unfair preferential treatment over everyone else not in a traditional marriage (unattached heterosexuals or homosexuals).
....CONTINUED......(above).......
>>moderator,part2 posted but not part1?<
Roadster | 1:50 p.m. June 18, 2008
I think if parents had confidence in their own influence and their
religion's ability to guide their youth then they wouldn't worry about
what 'the world' is doing.
I think if LDS members read their writings properly they are told to 'never mind' what the world is doing and to get on with their own 'business'.
In fact, delaying the 'inevitable world wide evil' COULD be seen as tantamount to delaying the second coming of Christ.
I say bring it on! Have a little faith in yourselves and let everyone else play the game as they see fit and stop acting like a bunch of 'christian right' evangelicals ranting over every thing that (shouldn't) doesn't affect you!
Put you eyes back on the goal and rise above the fray, life's much easier then.
I think if LDS members read their writings properly they are told to 'never mind' what the world is doing and to get on with their own 'business'.
In fact, delaying the 'inevitable world wide evil' COULD be seen as tantamount to delaying the second coming of Christ.
I say bring it on! Have a little faith in yourselves and let everyone else play the game as they see fit and stop acting like a bunch of 'christian right' evangelicals ranting over every thing that (shouldn't) doesn't affect you!
Put you eyes back on the goal and rise above the fray, life's much easier then.
straights couldn't care less | 1:51 p.m. June 18, 2008
People who are dead-sure confident in their sexuality could care less what other
do with theirs.
I am afraid that those who whine the loudest on this issue just may have some latent homosexuality within them that they are afraid to examine.
That's a quirky fact of human nature.
I am afraid that those who whine the loudest on this issue just may have some latent homosexuality within them that they are afraid to examine.
That's a quirky fact of human nature.
The Simple Truth | 1:51 p.m. June 18, 2008
You fail to comprehend the nature of an
�incentive.� An incentive is designed
to encourage one to do �X� instead of
�Y.� If both
�X� and
�Y� have equal consequences, no
incentive exists.
Please comprehend the point: Government created incentives to enter man/woman marriage because it is required for society to exist. No such dependency exists with homosexuals. Reason permits government to create incentives to enter society�s most important social institution. How can this be said more clearly?
To give every other human configuration an identical package would destroy every incentive to enter any of them. This is a matter of deductive logic based on the meaning of the word �incentive.�
Please comprehend the point: Government created incentives to enter man/woman marriage because it is required for society to exist. No such dependency exists with homosexuals. Reason permits government to create incentives to enter society�s most important social institution. How can this be said more clearly?
To give every other human configuration an identical package would destroy every incentive to enter any of them. This is a matter of deductive logic based on the meaning of the word �incentive.�
RE: Mike Mayers | 1:56 p.m. June 18, 2008
Your comment leaves me with all kinds of questions. For one thing, in the case
of the adulterous woman contained in the bible, although she sinned, Jesus
continued, "go thy way, and sin no more". Whether or not she did go
her way and sin no more is not recorded. It's one thing to know
what's wrong and do it anyway - sin - . It's another to deliberately
advocate measures that entirely contradict the beliefs you claim to hold. I
mean haven't read "The Proclamation of the Family"??? Could that
document be more clear??? Have you talked with your bishop about your
condition? - aren't homosexuals ex-communicated? I don't know how
someone can come out and say publicly that they're a 'gay Mormon'
- I mean it's like "I'm a drunk Mormon" - - - regardless of
whether or not they're repentant it's just entirely contradictory.
Maybe they could say, "I've struggled with same-gender
attraction", but otherwise your logic just makes very little sense to me.
What makes sense to me is Adam and Eve and romance. Call me ignorant if you
want, I'm just being honest.
To:Anonymous | 1:25 p.m. | 1:59 p.m. June 18, 2008
"You do not see in nature any male animals with male animals"
If you had checked your facts before posting, you would know that there are many instances where animals displaly homosexual unions. Just check. It really is a part of nature too.
If you had checked your facts before posting, you would know that there are many instances where animals displaly homosexual unions. Just check. It really is a part of nature too.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
Utah state Sen. Scott McCoy talks during a domestic partner registry debate in February.
- Gifts for gamers 5:27 p.m.
- Acquired immunity may not help 5:15 p.m.
- Mitchell called intelligent, controlling 5:11 p.m.
- Many count pennies in recession 5:09 p.m.
- Clinton class sweet on candy 5:06 p.m.
- Alta rejects canyon subdivision 3:33 p.m.
- Adult sports leagues offered 3:19 p.m.
- Oil prices spike 3:06 p.m.
- Stocks turn higher 3:03 p.m.
- Nature's Way leaving Utah County 3:02 p.m.
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
893 - Cougars beat Utes in overtime481
- Max Hall issues apology360
- Hall reprimanded by MWC290
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal281
- Utes won't respond to Hall195
- BYU is champion of the state140
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies121
- Cave to be sealed with body inside119
- Rivalry Week is highly profane91
Live 'Twittologue' Dec. 2, 4:00 p.m. with Jason Chaffetz. Click for more.
I wanted to tell them not to go. I dropped subtle hints. "My money is on...
When I was a kid, I worshipped my grandpa. He was undoubtedly my hero....
Latest comments
If you don't have the fire in your gut you shouldn't be competing in any...
So many of you say that Hall should be held out of the bowl game by...
You really need to feel sorry for a 24 year old man with his whole life ahead...
With all respect to the General currently in charge of operations in...
Our conference is a joke! Our best team got smoked against New Mexico, who...
I'll just let the hypocrisy of you calling Max Hall "classless" while...
A word to the wise: If you are a wife or a mother of a BYU player just stay...
Max said some dumb things. That is all. I am sure that he regrets it now....
I just looked at the photo of Coach Whittingham's wife and daughter beside...
He doesn't think of anyone but himself. He has nothing that stops him from...
Advertisements
I have a gay co-worker and good friend who is a fairly high profile gay rights advocate in Boston and has been for years. I had an interesting conversation with him about this whole issue. He is in a real struggle between wanting equal rights and his belief that male gay couples would divorce (if allowed to marry) at a much higher rate than heterosexual couples which would end up hurting their cause. He believes female gay couples would have a much better track record in marriage than heterosexual couples but is very concerned that the promiscuity in the male gay community would quickly hurt the gay marriage cause.
I am not trying to spread a stereotype but rather relay what a strong gay-rights advocate said he and others like him are genuinely concerned about. Heterosexual marriage fails at roughly 50% and we all know infidelity is rampant - but apparently my friend believes it is much worse in the male gay community.