Comments about ‘Institute goes to bat for marriage’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Feb. 6 2009 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended

What effect has economics had on traditional marriage? It takes two incomes to have a family. The lack of health care stains families. You marry someone and you never enjoy time together. Your kids are outsourced to child care. When you have time, you need to recover to go back to work.

RE: Anonymous | 10:49

that's ridiculous logic.

1) If it's about weeding out an undesirable trait how do you explain the fact that homosexuality has been around almost since the dawn of man, and studies show that the percentage of gays vs hetero's in this world has remained static since they started counting? If anything the soundest conclusion is that being gay or not isn't persuadable, isn't contagious, and makes the case that people are born gay.

2) YOUR conclusion based on Darwin shows you are no Darwin. Nature could well have furnished same sex attraction in order to curb overpopulation. Take all the gay people throughout history, convert them to heterosexuality, make them procreate children and there would be such an overwhelm in today's population that the world might well be unable to sustain the entire human race. These claims that gays would spread their "disease" and threaten human existence are ridiculous. Gays have been around forever. They've lived together, they've come out in public and their percentages haven't changed. They ALREADY live together, treat their partnership as a marriage, and they haven't destroyed the earth or threatened human existence yet.

Enter name: Pro-Choice Patton

As people who believe in the equality and liberty of all American citizens, our responsibility is not to give our lives to protect the rights of gays, but to make the Mormon fanatic freak shows give their lives in trying to take them away!

re Albemarle | 10:16

what is it about freedom or religion, speech, and parental rights is it that you don't understand? freedom of religion means any given group of people have the right to believe the same things, congregate, and practice what they want as long as it doesn't infringe on other's rights. It translates into separate groups of people who are free to believe and practice different things without fear of reprisal or interference. what you say is like saying, "dang, if we let the catholics believe in a holy trinity it's gonna shut down my ability to believe in a God of flesh and bone..." Letting gay people have something you have in no way hinders you from your ability to practice religion as you see fit. It doesn't stop you from marrying or going to church or praying to god in any way, shape or form. If anything, you are interfering with their right to practice their beliefs. You're imposing your religious views on them, not the other way around.


@Milo Johnson | 12:00

Do you wear flip-flops and does your wife work outside the home?

Prophets have made statements on these too.


It is disgusting that these people think that they have the right to judge for other people what is immoral and what is moral...to each his own, live and let be, etc. etc. What you do in the bedroom does not determine whether you are a good person or bad person. I think that the moral thing to do is just to work on your own set of morals and not try to dictate them for everybody else!

re plubious

Man am I glad that you're not in charge of the human experiment. The gays are already here, they have been here throughout history. They do and have already lived together in partnerships. There numbers have been stable forever. If they as a minority haven't already displaced your traditional family from the center they're not going to do it in the future. Families fray over many things and having one gay child hasn't brought on crime, vice, and violence. Traditional Christian religions and other religions have killed more people than gays over the years. Families break up because heterosexual couples break up and divorce and devastate their children. Most gays don't have children at home. You have pedophiles in your traditional families, child abusers and beaters, heterosexual couples have opted for two working parents for an additional car. Heterosexuals put their kids in daycare with employees who do it for money, the kids don't get parental love. Leave the gays out of your condemnation. Own up to your own destruction of society and quit pointing fingers. Our national demise will end when YOU start seeing the problems YOU create.


Does allowing same sex marriages take away the rights of other people somehow? If so please let me know. Many have commented on this but I am still unclear on how this will negatively affect ones own current marriage.

@Plubius |

please provide any hard evidance for any of your claim.


It takes away the rights of children to grow up in home with a mommy and daddy.

Definition of Hate

LDS4gaymarriage.org | 11:30 a.m.

Non-sequitor! Your debate skills are lacking.

I looked at your D&C 134:4 and I'm still looking for how you define denial of a right as *hate*. It talks about using religion to deny a right --which, I agree is wrong-- but that still doesn't define hate as being a denial of right.

Perhaps you need a re-think.

Californian @1 @94131

* "What you do in the bedroom does not determine whether you are a good person or bad person." **

This proves how obsessed the same-sex advocacy group is about sex, and how they can't avoid projecting your obsession onto everyone else. Marriage isn't about sex.

What anyone does in our bedrooms has nothing to do with same-sex "marriage."

Prop. 8 has nothing to do with forbidding sexual activity between consenting adults of any gender, age, size, shape, color, occupation, or political persuasion. If you and 20 friends of various genders want to have an orgy in the privacy of your home, then loudly proclaim your love and commitment for each other, feel free to do so. But don't ask society to call it a marriage or to teach in school that it is normal.

Far-fetched? Maybe. But once we begin to tamper with the definition of any institution that has a specific, long-standing definition accepted by every civilization in human history(like marriage), it's wide open--in the infamous words of Gavin Newsom--whether you like it or not.

Milo Johnson

re: Patsy
No, my wife does not work outside the home, and it is a financial burden but a great blessing to my children. I am not aware of the flip-flop commandment; enlighten me and I'll be happy to chuck my flops.

@1:03 p.m.

Exbound on that. What rights are you reffering to?What evidence is there that a same sex household is a more negative environment to grow up in as opposed to a household with a traditional marriage? Also, not every marriage involves having children. My sister doesn't have nor want any kids with her husband. But the children issue aside, what rights pertaining to current marriages does legalizing same sex marriage take away. The pamphlet that was handed out that night mentions this but did not specify any of these rights. I was hoping someone could answer this seriously, and not try to be argumentative. This is a serious issue and I am seeking real answers. Also you know of any studies done on any of these topics please point them out to me.


re: wayneo
I too had a nephew who played with girls toys from the time he was 3. He always played Barbie's with the girls and never wanted to play with the boys. I'm perplexed by the Sutherland Institute. I don't know if I agree with the Prop 8 folks either. I'm LDS, but in my experience I think being gay is something your born with. Why does the Sutherland Institute have to make marriage into such a FIGHT?


To my knowledge, it has been less than twenty years in the history of humanity that mariage has been redefined by gay-rights activists as the possible union of two people of the same sex. This very fact should tell anyone that something has gone terribly wrong in the way the world defines the family unit. It takes indeed a lot of arrogance to pretend that 20 years are enough to prove the new family model valid after thousands of years when the contrary was the norm.


Plubius - "Gay marriage, broken families, casual co-habitators are not stable units upon which society makes progress.."

LDS - Wouldn't it make better sense to do what we can to make those MORE stable? Giving marriage to gay families will be a blessing for their kids. But I guess the kids in gay families can be considered as "collateral damage" in the war on equality.


Check this out Milo -

We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who preside over them [even] if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told do by their presidents they should do it without any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves. (Joseph Smith - Millennial Star, Vol 14, Number 38, pages 593-595)


rights - It takes away the rights of children to grow up in home with a mommy and daddy.

LDS - Then let's take the kids of divorce and single parents and put them in foster homes where they'll have both a mom and a dad. Since having both is SO VITAL for the kids, it would be easy to justify taking them away from their parents until the parent remarries. It's for the good of society.


Definition - I looked at your D&C 134:4 and I'm still looking for how you define denial of a right as *hate*. It talks about using religion to deny a right --which, I agree is wrong-- but that still doesn't define hate as being a denial of right.

LDS - I didn't say that it defined hate. It simply states that denying others their rights based on our religious beliefs is sin.

"Religious freedom does not imply nor provide license to infringe or impose upon the rights and liberties of others."
(L. G. Otten and C. M. Caldwell, Sacred Truths of the Doctrine and Covenants )

"That this Church, while offering advice for the welfare of its members in all conditions of life, does not claim or exercise the right to interfere with citizens in the free exercise of social or political rights and privileges. "
(James Rueben Clark, comp., Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)

to comment

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