Comments about ‘Obama's vague gay marriage stance under scrutiny’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, May 7 2012 3:48 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
George
Bronx, NY

there is no reason to be vague on the issue President Obama, it is very simple, a persons individual rights and liberties should never be up for public vote. There is simply no legitimate public interest being served by denying gay couples access to the same right and privileges straight couples take for granite.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@CI;

It is true that men and women are different. There IS a legitimate public interest in supporting marriage of gay couples. OUR Families will be given the SAME protections that heterosexual families currently receive; which WILL strengthen society (if the family is the foundation of society - we HAVE families too).

For a gay guy (I honestly don't believe you are gay, btw), you take odd positions. Why would you oppose the marriages of other gay couples just because you don't want to marry?

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

@CI

Simple logic? what simple logic? every scratch of credible research and the facts from those places that allow gay marriage already shows there is no risk to allowing gay marriage or gay adoption, yet you continue to argue against it, how could that possibly be logical?

George
Bronx, NY

@CI
how is it logical to deny rights on your simple assumption that because men and women are physically different they are the only people that should be allowed to marry when all the research and all the facts show there is no social or public interest being served by holding onto such simpleton thinking?

Mick
Murray, Utah

Geroge-

Do you think the government should be able to restrict any type of "marriage"?

annewandering
oakley, idaho

Unless Romney supports gay marriage there is no political advantage for Obama to emphasize his stand on gay marriage.

Axe-man
OREM, UT

RanchHand, Tolstoy, and other commenters who've not chimed in yet repeatedly use the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy when their opinion is disproved. They use keywords to try to show a belief in the scientific process, but invalidate anything that disagrees with their point of view. Statements like "every scratch of credible research" or "no legitimate public interest" are like saying "all trees are green" in spite of blue spruces or red maples. "Well, that's not a legitimate reason" - "that research isn't credible." Each has his mind made up, and no substantial research offered contrary to their respective opinions showing children in a gay household suffer in social development compared to a nuclear family can change their minds.

Men and women are different. Moms and dads offer different benefits to their children. Calling any two people who proclaim physical love a "marriage" weakens the institution as a whole, diminishes and dilutes the marriage rights of husbands and wives, and flies in the face of thousands of years of traditional marriage. And each of these reasons is only strengthened by religious arguments that specifically define and sanctify marriage as a sacrament ordained of God.

Ranch
Here, UT

@Axe-man;

There is no requirement to have children within a marriage, therefore your argument about the necessity of a "father and mother" falls flat.

Unless you plan to refuse to allow marriage to elderly couples, sterile couples, you have no logical argument against same-sex couples marrying.

screenname
Salt Lake City, UT

Marriage has always been about children--not a mandate to have children, but it's always had at its foundation a societal approval to participate in procreation. Before you disagree with me, can you name any society in which marriage has existed, that also did not have a severe societal taboo against having children outside of marriage? Marriage has never been a mandate to have children, but it has always been a license to have children with society's blessing. In fact, that is the only uniform purpose of marriage throughout history that I can think of.

Ranch
Here, UT

@CI;

The fact that you "know many same sex couples who survive just fine without marriage" in no way negates the fact that they would do just as well, if not better, as a married couple.

The point is that you have no right to deny someone else something you don't want for yourself. You don't want it? Fine, don't do it. Stop interfering in the lives of people who want it.

George
Bronx, NY

@mick

the only time the state should restrict access to any type of marriage is if the state can show a compelling state interest in doing so. Laws restricting behaviors should be limited to those that are proven necessary to prevent public harm not based on nothing more then the unsupported opinions os of people like axe-man.

George
Bronx, NY

@counter intelligence
the reason CA is looking to restrict those types of therapies is because they have been shown to often do a serious harm to the patient and are not based in sound science. I realize it is all very confusing from the outside but within my filed it is basically considered highly unethical to tell someone that homosexuality is a disease that needs to be and can be cured. If a person presents for therapy because they are distressed about the thoughts and feelings they are having about homosexuality then the therapist can assist the patient to work through those thoughts and feelings, the final outcome of that process is driven by the client not therapist need to cure or to persuade the patient one way or the other.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@CI

how does allowing gay marriage stifle decent? We have many rights and privileges that are controversial such as gun rights but that has not stopped those that have sincerely held beliefs that there should be restrictions or an out right ban of these things from voicing their opposition. It does stop them from being able to impose those restrictions on others and I think that is where people like you get confused. You have every right to have your beliefs and to not be forced to give them up, you do not have the right to use the force of law to force others to follow your beliefs.

Mick
Murray, Utah

George-

If the state, or government, doesn't have the right to restrict the definition of marriage then any group of people who deem themselves in love have will then have the right to be married. Right now, only a man and woman fall under that definition. If you change the definition you cannot restrict any group.

There are many who believe that the state is protecting the interest of the community. Just because you don't believe that, doesn't mean it is wrong. Not everyone who believes in marriage between a man and woman hates gays. But there is good reason to protect the definition.

to comment

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