Actually long lasting marriage is not about 'love'. Love, sex,
passion, happiness, attraction are all emotions that can not be maintained in
large amounts for great lengths of time. A great long term lasting marriage is
based on trust, respect and a very close friendship. No two people really think
alike. A lasting marriage is one where two very different people share common
goals and a life time of commitment......I personally believe homosexuality is a
sin. Having said that. Everyone should have equal rights under the law, to
choose for themselves, the life style they want. Therefore if two or more
consenting adults, that are not related, wish to be in a union let them marry.
If homosexuals can marry, then we must allow poligamy, bigamy, community
marriage, etc...As long as they are all adults and do not interfer with my
marriage, why not? No limits....
I have to disagree with President Obama on one issue pertaining to same sex
marriage - rules allowing or disallowing such can not be left to the states
anymore than freedom of speech can be left up to the states. A U.S.
Constitutional right applies to all people in all states. The right to marry a
person, or have intimate relations with, a person of another race used to be a
felony in 30 states. Each state thought that it could make its own rules. That
is, until the U.S Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia. And the U.S. Supreme
Court will also rule that states can not make their own rules RE: same sex
marriages. All states must recognize this right to marry.
@Lane Myer, A "Red Herring" is not a formal fallacy. Do you know what
the difference is between formal and informal fallacies?The problem
with informal fallacies is that they are much harder to prove. Sometimes they
aren't provable. A formal fallacy can easily be explained with IF P, THEN Q
statements. Red Herrings are a false idea to begin with. This is because you
arguing that Jeff proposed other arguments in order to distract from the issue
at hand. But you don't really know Jeff's motives, so you would be
less correct to imply this.Who's to suggest that an argument
distracts from the "real issue" at hand? Who defines what the "real
issue" even is? I agree with Jeff and his description of one way that people
suggesting this "lifestyle" have hurt families. That has been the
majority of my personal experiences as well. While my personal experiences may
not convince you, you can't argue against them either.We all
have experiences. To each of us, they are absolutely relevant. Exclaiming
'red herring' to get people to dismiss an argument rather than give it
a chance... is a red herring. Pretty ironic.
@JeffI'm sorry if you have had some bad experiences with gay
individuals. Good and bad people come in all shape, form, races, and
orientations.Many GLBT have suffered at the hands of some
heterosexual individuals. Hopefully, they will overcome their traumatic
experiences and not judge all heterosexuals based on their terrible
experience.@ZOar63I wish life and science was as simple
as you describe it. Nobody knows the cause of homosexuality. Science tends to
favor genetics as the cause, but is still inconclusive.Other claim
is a choice based in environmental issues. Well, the overwhelming majority of
homosexuals are born to heterosexual parents. Sometimes one or more children are
homosexuals and sometimes none. Why homosexuals continue being born
despite a concerted effort to censure it. Nobody knows.Some
religious people claim homosexuality is a sign of social decadence. However, you
find homosexuality in all societies in all stages of development.
zoar63: "There would be an easy way to test that theory. Just have a gay
woman and a gay man have children. Since homosexuality is only a small
percentage of the population it seems to point to a recessive gene if that is
where you are going with this. If the theory is true then all children born to
these gay parents should all have the gene because the gene being recessive
means the children get one recessive gene from the mother and another recessive
gene from the father. If on the other hand none of the children turn out to be
gay than the theory falls to pieces."---------------If you understand genetics, it is not quite that simple. The allele of the
gene must be tripped before the gene is "turned on." In gays, nobody
knows what triggers the allele. It might be some event happening in the womb,
like an abnormal amount or irregular timing of hormones. It might be some event
during early childhood -- before school age. Either way, it is outside the
control of the individual and his family of origin.
Jeff,Do you know what a red herring argument is? Well, you are
proposing one.Facts: Only about 10% of the population is gay/bi.
90% of the population is heterosexual and they have done a fine job of
populating the earth. This has been a pretty consistant level for quite a
while, plus many bisexuals fall in love with a person of the opposite sex and
can also help. Many gays and lesbians are raising children. They are having
these kids the same way that any infertile couple who wants children have them,
ie, adoption, ivf, and surrogates. Remember, most gays have perfectly
functioning sex organs that can and do reproduce - just not always in the same
way that 90% of the population does.What you suggest in your
argument is the same as suggesting that if all women were infertile, the
population of the world would die out in one generation. We should then
discriminate and not allow any infertile women to marry! See how your argument
is false? This is not how Americans treat each other. We do not treat a
minority any different than we treat ourselves. That means we are treated
@Baccus0902"However, more interesting is your statement "if
all marriages were same sex". How would that be possible? Homosexuality and
Heterosexuality is part of our genetic code. It is not a choice."There would be an easy way to test that theory. Just have a gay woman and a
gay man have children. Since homosexuality is only a small percentage of the
population it seems to point to a recessive gene if that is where you are going
with this. If the theory is true then all children born to these gay parents
should all have the gene because the gene being recessive means the children get
one recessive gene from the mother and another recessive gene from the father.
If on the other hand none of the children turn out to be gay than the theory
falls to pieces.
Again the Lord has defined marriage as only between man and woman. A
Proclamation to the World, The Family is quite clear on this. As someone once
told me. If I don't agree with the brethern in Salt Lake, I need to get on
my knees and pray until I do. Reason is they speak for the Lord Jesus Christ.
No one else on this Earth does. At this time the only individual who speaks for
him is Thomas Spencer Monson. No one else. Just as those of you who criticize
them as irrelevant are doing nothing more than fulfilling prophesy that has been
going on since sin came into the world.Jesus Christ atoned for the
sins of all mankind as long as the repent and baptized by those who have that
authority to do so. Whether you believe this or not is what is totally
relevant. It is you who are taking your on eternal progression and destroying
it. Not I or anyone who claims as I do.Man doesn't act on
instinct. His nature is better than that. We are not in the same class as
other animals. We are here to act.
Baccus: What you are missing from what I said is that once the door is open, it
will be very difficult to shut it.It was open in the days of
Sappho--briefly for her and her colony. They all died out.Even the
Romans and Greeks, who were very tolerant of same-sex relationships, reserved
marriage for procreative couples.One thing that you imply, I need to
set clear. You seem to want to suggest that, because you think I will laugh at
my current fears, I have no knowledge or experience with gay, lesbian, bisexual,
or transgender individuals, marriages, unions, or anything else. Let me dispel
that rumor. It is not so.I have seen marriages broken by people who
were at least bisexual enough to have children, but who then abandoned their
spouses and their families for relationships that they chose instead. I have
seen people badgered and bullied by homosexuals, encouraged and recruited; I
have seen the selfishness that is characterized by a lifestyle that values
sexuality above all other relationships. And I have not seen these things in
limited proportions.No, I do not believe that same-gender marriage
will ever be anything but wrong.
My dear JeffYou read a lot of things that are not there.Gay
and Lesbians have been adopting and overcoming a lot of obstacles in order to
raise children. No compulsion is necessary.You wrote: "If
same gender marriage is legal, then it becomes legal for all. Since a large part
of the population is at least partly bisexual, what is to prevent them from
receiving the perceived benefits of same-gender marriage? You?"I
agree 100% with you. I think all people regardless of their sexual orientation
should be allowed to marry the one they love.Jeff is only matter of
time. I can assure you that in a few years you will look back and laugh at
your current fears. You will have neighbors and perhaps some relatives that will
be marrying someone of the same sex, and life will continue.
@ Baccus0902You suggest, first, that same-gender marriage would be
fine because we could survive on technology--assuming, of course, that all
lesbians would be willing to bear children. (If not, I suppose we could force
them, couldn't we?)You then suggest that bisexuals might have
heterosexual marriages, but that proves my point. I said that if all marriages
were same gender, humanity would end in one generation (unless, of course, we
force the lesbians to reproduce--your suggestion, not mine).If
"gay men and lesbians love children and want to reproduce," why engage
in non-reproductive sexuality? And why marry into forced infertility?Are you suggesting that only homosexuals who can prove genetic homosexuality
should be allowed to enter into same-gender marriages? You seem to suggest that
bisexuals may not be allowed to enter into any but reproductive relationships,
though they should be allowed to cheat if they want (because, after all, they
are "born that way"). If same gender marriage is legal,
then it becomes legal for all. Since a large part of the population is at least
partly bisexual, what is to prevent them from receiving the perceived benefits
of same-gender marriage? You?
Not 1 conservative has asnwered my question:Is marriage about Love,
or Sex?No one gets married just to have sex and have babies, yet -
that seems to be the impression every single conservative uses in this
debate.People get married out of love.People having loveless
one-nighters with no strings attached don't get married.This is
true whether one is Homo or Hetero sexual.
@ JeffYou wrote: "If all marriages were same gender, history
would end in one generation"Well, not necessarily. Many Gay men
donate their sperm to fecund the eggs of Lesbian friends and... Voila! babies
are born.Many men and women are bisexual and many have same sex
relationships and other times heterosexual relationships and marriages. More
babies are coming our way.Gay men and Lesbian women love children
and they reproduce. May be not in the "traditional" way but they do.However, more interesting is your statement "if all marriages were
same sex". How would that be possible? Homosexuality and Heterosexuality is
part of our genetic code. It is not a choice.Besides, your statement
is less valid than saying " If all women were sterile, history would end in
one generation" or, "If all Nuclear weapons the world has explode at the
same time, history would end in one generation"Those are big and
hopefully never occurring "ifs", but more likely to happen than your
fearful statement about same sex marriage.
@Lance: When are love and sexuality equivalent? If, in your urge to redefine
words like "marriage," "love," and "gay" you suddenly
find yourself redefined into a corner (do you really believe that anyone in a
committed relationship should be allowed to marry?, and,if not, how do you have
the right to make that distinction and deny the right to others?), don't
say that we didn't warn you; and don't be surprised that history is
NOT kind to you.If all marriages were same gender, history would end
in one generation.
It is telling to note that NC did not take laws against interracial marriage off
the books until 1975. I think those opposing same-sex marriage will be on the
wrong side of history as well. Anyone who thinks the expression of love in a
committed relationship by others is somehow a threat to their own values and
marriage needs to watch the doc "Loving vs. Virginia."If you
can still defend the bigotry that tried to keep that couple apart, then no
amount of appeals to decency should be expected to sway you here. The LDS at one
time felt put upon in restrictions against polygamy. These pairings are far more
"mainstream" than multiple marriages were, yet I doubt LDS would want
those demonized in a similar fashion. After all, it was a tenet of the founder,
Maybe if I was on the Mainland I would think differently, but I am not so I
don't. I would Not Vote for Same Sex Marriage. As a matter of
fact I voted against it. Same Sex marriage was shoved down out
throats by the Hawaiian House and Senate and signed by the very liberal duely
elected Gov. of Hawaii. That being the case I accept the law and the Rules as
just that the law and the rules. If it comes up again I will Vote against it.Will I go in the streets and fight for it to be changed. Very most
likely not and if the so called Christ Centered People are being mean to the Gay
Protesters I am likely to cross the street. What I am most likely to do is stay
home.Reason: I see not further harm to the basic fiber of Hawaii. I
also see some happy people and my neighbors son just got married. I was invited
I did not go. my wife and kids went. Mostly No One Dies. Mostly I would rather fight tooth and nail against Abortion where Thousands of
Babys do die.A matter of priority.
The idea that we should "take heart" and continue to defend
"traditional marriage" is a worthy one.A prevalent strategy
of proponents of same-gender marriage is to attempt to discourage advocates of
tradtional marriage with the idea that we should all give up, that same-gender
marriage is inevitable, that same-gender marriage is the last stand for civil
rights.The fact that, though non-binding polls show support for
same-gender marriage, binding polls oppose it should show those of us who would
defend tradtional marriage that fear tactics do not work in the voting booth.
If constitutional amendments are necessary, we may press for them and win, even
if we are told to give up before we begin. If we are bullied into lying to
pollsters about our true feelings about same-gender marriage, we need not be
bullied into abstention in the voting booth where our true opinions count.
@cnsThe editorial is somewhat naive. The closer same-sex marriage
gets to being a fundamental civil right the closer it will become to being
constitutionally protected. At that point the states and the voters will lose
the ability to define marriageand the judges will decide. An amendment to
the Constitution is highly unlikely.The only way that can happen is
if all the states can be convinced to support gay marriage.If the Federal
judges decide, that puts the nation in a constitutional crises since that
violates the 10th amendment.
We are living in interesting times.Our society and the whole western
world is changing its attitude toward homosexuality.The Washington
Post reported today that their latest poll, after President's Obama support
for SSM, indicates that 53% of the total population supports SSM. Also, perhaps
more interesting is that 59% of African Americans support same sex marriage.The title of this article may be confusing, "Take Heart and Stand
for Traditional Marriage"What traditional marriage? the one when
parents used to marry their children for social or economic benefit. Or the one
where people who love each other decide to make a civil contract to join their
life until the death of one of the spouses?Child rearing, gender
roles, patriarchy, matriarchy, are all terms that mean or are applied quite
differently today than 20 or more years ago.I believe SSM will have
a positive effect in society. Families created by love instead of social
conformism will make stronger marriages and more honest individuals and
society.No need for double life, no need for shame and depression
for not fulfilling the natural standards and expectation of somebody else.Be free to achieve your full God given potential.
Stephen Kent Ehat,I have read the amicus brief for the appellate
court, and I have also read the dissenting opinion of the Mormon judge in that
decision (Smith, who practiced law literally in his own private Idaho).Both the amicus brief as well as the dissenting opinion were prime examples of
Wardle's legal incompetence, and only very thinly veiled his religious
prejudices.None of them reflect well on BYU's ersatz law
school, and much of Wardle's work should be considered simply embarrassing
by intelligent people.
Marriage is a religious institution. Created by religious instsitutions to form
a man and woman into a partnership. The Government came along as a matter to
legally form partnerships for birthing and rearing children and to ensure that
such unions were not incestual. Obviously the institution of marriage has its
problems. When the do something is needed to seperate the relationship, the most
important would be co-created offspring. A court typically weights a host of
infomration and makes a legal decision on the disposition of the assets
(including children) and liabilities. So marriage has a moral value (religious)
and a legal value (license) centered primarly around offspring. However,
same-sex couples can not, and I repeat CAN NOT, produce children in and of
themselves. If consenting adults want to hang out and be buddies and share
stuff, whether hetero or homo, then form civil contracts of what you want to
share. Stop trying to justify your un-natural relationship by correlating ones
opposition to your marriage request as an infringement on your civil rights. It
is no more an infringement on your rights as it is to control guns, drivers,
etc, etc, etc,....
The media (Liberal or otherwise) seem to take the proponents view of this issue.
Considering that Homosexual Marriages (Technical terms) would represent less
than 2% of the population there is an awful lot of attention to this issue. I believe that Homosexual Marriages should be classified as Civil Unions
and allow those of us that were married under the Heterosexual Marriage concept
to keep that separation. This would give them the same legal standing, social
commitment, etc. It would not suggest that they can produce biological related
families, with stable environments for the progeny of the unions, that has been
the reason for Marriage through the years. Why should those that desire to be in
these relationships need to create such a furor for those of us in the
traditional Marriage.There has been information published in the
early 1900's that defined marriage as being between man and woman for the
intended purpose of creating a family unit. Why do so many people
begin to consider letting Homosexual marriage be equated to the same statue as
Heterosexual marriage simply because of the use of "politically correct
terms" of Same Sex Marriage.
For those of you who are writing comments here about the opinion of the U.S.
Supreme Court in the case of Loving v. Virginia and how you think it does or
does not apply to the same-sex marriage questions, please Google the following
words and read the amicus brief submitted in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
dealing with that matter:lynn wardle stephen ehat loving ninth
@LValfreIf you'd like to argue the semantics of "seeing things as
they really are, and as they really will be," I'm certain we could find
a forum to do so.Ironically, your strawman that LDS are the only ones
opposed to re-defining the marriage standard, is disingenuous.You unfairly
soapbox with little consistency.Of course we believe we have the truth.
@RanchHand"What makes you think that your morals are even
moral?"Haven't you figured it out yet? The LDS moral code
is the one true moral code and the law of humanity. That's why! They have
the only correct morals. They have the truth.I call it
ethnocentrism. Judging everyone else else as inferior to their own standards.
Real lack of cultural sensitivity and understanding.
Ted's of BH;What makes you think that your morals are even
moral?It would seem that morality indicates that glbt people should
be able to marry the person they love rather than just "live with" that
person. Morality would indicate that it is wrong for a glbt to marry a
heterosexual and for a heterosexual to marry a glbt. That is what is
"moral", imo.Morality is relative to the subject, culture
and mores of the individual as well as society. Your own morals would indicate
that you should marry an opposite sex person since that is who you are oriented
towards. It would also indicate that it would be immoral for me to marry
someone for whom I find no attraction (i.e., the opposite sex).It
follows that for me to marry someone of the same sex is moral for me yet immoral
for you, and vice versa. For me to marry the opposite sex would be immoral and
for you to marry the same sex would be immoral.I hope I expressed
I'm opposed to it on grounds of faith, morality, and standards.I have
no "scientific proof" as such for my position; yet, I'm not afraid
to hold my view, either.There will always be those who oppose, and the
more people who accept will not change the fundamental issue that is a moral
wrong; moreover, I can love the individual who loves someone of their own gender
equally to those who love someone of the opposite gender.
@als Atheist,It's no use arguing with Voice of Reason. His
voice rarely has real logical reasoning and is usually verbatim what he's
been told at church. Little evidence, a lot of faith. That's about all
the reason you're going to get out of that voice.
A voice of Reason wrote:"The disintegration of the family will
devastate us."Nobody is proposing the "disintegration of the
family" legislation.Nobody is proposing that
"traditional" marriage be outlawed.Nobody is proposing that
all marriages have to convert to same-gender marriages.Nobody is
threatening traditional marriage nor traditional families. Making marriage and
legal family bonds available to MORE people than are currently allowed can only
strengthen marriage and family.Nobody has yet shown otherwise.The beginning of reason is getting your premises right in the first
Obama has not "shifted" his stance on marriage between one man and one
woman, he has, as has been charged against Romney - "flip Floped." His
populous 'out' was mentioning State Rights. But, make no mistake just
as he declared in his first election for political advanage his belief in a
man/woman marrige - he has, for political resons, gone with the prevailing winds
that are tearing at the moral fiber of traditional marriage, declaring his
This is very simple. Marriage is between one man and one woman. That's it.
That is the definition of marriage.Gay marriage, civil union- Is
between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. It might include others genders.
That is what it is.Polygammy is- One man and two or more wivesetc.The arguement is why change the definition of marriage
to include other relationships that do not fit the definition of marriage? Gay
proponents want some of the same rights and benefits that come with marriage (ie
hospital visits, health benefits, financial benefits etc)It's
very simple. Give Gay married people or civil unions those benefits and tax
breaks.That is equal.If they feel that is not equal then
why do we call men 'men' and women 'women', why not combine
them and call them by the same term?Simple. They're not the
same. You're comparing apples to oranges.
I am a person of faith. My partner of many years and I were married, by a rabbi,
in a mainstream Temple, before God and our families. It gave social and
religious standing to what was already, for many years, the most important
aspect of our shared lives. We are married as our faith defines us. People are free not to believe in God the way we do, of course. And religions
may carry out different rites and set their own conditions for those rites.
That's about faith, though, and I think we have to respectfully acknowledge
that we may all never agree, nor do we have to. We are fortunate
that in our country, no one's faith is more important under the law than
anyone else's. That protects all of us. Now we are looking to protect our
most important relationship civilly so that we are not legal strangers to one
another. We share a house, a car, a mortgage, bills, decisions about what to
have for dinner and decisions about life and death.Heterosexual
couples get to protect their most important relationship with a single CIVIL
marriage contract. We need to protect ours as well.
I have YET to hear 1 conservative say that "marriage" is about LOVE and
COMMITTMENT.It's always a very focused one topic = sex, Sex,
SEX.My hetrosexual marriage is all about Love, Friendship,
Companionship and Committment, period.Nothing else really
matters.Anything else is an extra.
JP71Same sex marriage naturally excludes a father or mother. Society will
naturally degrade as children do not have a father and mother in the home. We
have already seen this in societies with large amounts of fatherless
families.KJKKids being raised by 2 same-gendered parents are
still better off than kids being raised in fostercare or by a single parent. 2
Gays raising kids may not be ideal, but it's better than the alternative.
Society is better off because gays are raising kids rather than letting them
languish in foster care.AVORTherefore, while the court
didn't necessarily establish a definition of marriage- they equally
didn't establish a basis or precident for gay marriage either- thereby
invalidating gay marriage proponents' frequent and inappropriate
exploitation of Loving v Virginia.KJKLoving ruled that a
subjective unneeded restriction on marriage (race) was unconstitutional. Bans
on same-sex marriage likewise use a subjective unneeded restriction and
therefore Loving DOES set a precedent for challanging such bans. Lovings
proponents, including the original decision which the Supremes overturned, used
religious doctrine as justification for their position as do SSM opponents.
Loving is ideally suited to overturn SSM bans.
Redefining any legal term after thousands of laws have been past with that term
is disingenuous and deceitful. It should never be allowed. It undermines our
entire legal system. If two men want to have visitation rights in a hospital,
let's write a law that allows it. But to redefine the term marriage is
ludicrous. It just so happens that California already had domestic partner laws
that gave same-sex partners the exact rights that married partners had. That
was the sensible thing to do according to our legal system. However, after
those laws were past, same-sex organizations cried discrimination as an attack
on the term marriage, which has been defined one way for thousands of years and
was the definition in the minds of the legislators when they past thousand of
laws.Consider this: you sign a contract to buy a car from a car
dealer. The dealer changes the definition of "car" to include
"go-carts" and delivers a "go-cart". Silly, right? Why would we
allow the definition of a legal term to change after signing the contract?Frankly, if this was really about civil rights, the LGBT community
should be happy in CAL.
Isn't this article supposed to be in the opinion section? Or is the DNews
endorsing this across the board as their policy?Are opinions allowed
in professional, objective journalism?
Yes take heart and stand for traditional marriage .... for yourself! Leave
everyone else to their own pursuit of happiness. Why is this not acceptable?
The above comment obviously goes with a different article. Oops as Rick Perry
would say ;)Comment I meant to post:My heart goes out to
gay people. As I see it, somehow their wires got crossed through no fault of
their own and consequently life has got to be a bit more difficult. I
can't imagine someone telling me I should stop being attracted to the
opposite sex so I appreciate the struggle a gay person must feel. I've
always treated gay people with respect, including friends, clients and
relatives. But I stop short of saying that homosexuality is a perfectly fine
alternative to heterosexuality. There should be accommodations for
those who choose to live in same-sex unions, but society should not be obligated
to recognize them as legally indistinguishable and absolutely no different from
I have no reason to disbelieve this woman's story. She strikes me as
credible from what I have read and the interview I saw on youtube.It's puzzling to me that so many brilliant minds can think in terms of
numerous dimensions, imaginary numbers, multiple universes, etc. and yet find
the concept of a spiritual dimension coinciding with this physical one just
impossible to believe.
@VOR you have not sighted the bases for your claim that the court sights
heterosexuality , I am very very familiar with the loving case and I do not
recall any reference to heterosexuality. Again you cannot claim something as a
fact when you do not provide actual support for your claim. Again I would like
to see some facts to support your claim that they courts where speaking to
heterosexual marriage as the archetype of marriage since the loving ruling
clearly does not state for even elude to such a conclusion. I really do not
understand what you think you are accomplishing by continually trying to make
secular claims you cannot support.
These stories of churches supposedly being forced to permit same-sex weddings do
not tell the entire story. The truth is that they were renting these places as
a public business, a for-profit business. Since it was no longer a non-profit
religious institution, but rather a for-profit wedding hall rental business,
they had to abide by the state laws that they not discriminate in their business
based upon sexual orientation.If you wish to keep your church as a
church, and not a way to make profit, then you will not be required to accept
Is traditional marriage important to the majority of America? I have my doubts.I
know that I am in the percentage that feels traditional marriage with a father
and mother is CRITICAL for our society to survive however America has
deteriorated drastically morally over the past decade and I think America is
dangerously close to becoming Europe. Traditional marriage is worth fighting for
but it may not be 50% or more of Americans that want it. I personally think
America has fallen off a cliff morally as well as many other ways. America has
more government dependent people than ever before and that number is growing.
Americans have fallen in their values and work ethic and I'm not sure we
can say that we are a great nation any more - at least as a majority and that is
really sad for our children and grand children.
The disintegration of the family will devastate us. Believe that or not,
we're all consigned to the consequences of our actions. That is very
real.---spring street,What I maintain is
what Rehnquist solicited in dissenting from Roe v Wade- that in order to cite
constitutionally and lawfully binding doctrine as existing in the constitution,
one has to be able to point to where it can actually be read. Privacy and gay
marriage cannot be found anywhere in the constitution. While I can easily point
to where the court referenced the heterosexuality of marriage- in qualifying
marriage as a union associated with reproduction, being "fundamental to our
very existence and survival".Furthermore-The court
may not have predicated marriage as a patented heterosexual union for legal
precedent to exist. But in stating that marriage was "fundamental to our
very existence and survival" the court at very least qualified the archetype
of marriage that they were ruling on at the time.Therefore, while
the court didn't necessarily establish a definition of marriage- they
equally didn't establish a basis or precident for gay marriage either-
thereby invalidating gay marriage proponents' frequent and inappropriate
exploitation of Loving v Virginia.
This is how same sex marriage will be detrimental society. The natural purpose
of sex is to procreate. Man and woman come together to procreate and create a
family unit. This unit is an incubator for children to grow and develop. It is
scientifically proven that children without a father or mother in the home are
adversely affected. The father and mother each provided separate and distinct
nurturing for children that is essential for their development. The family
unity with a father, mother, and children are the building blocks of a
productive society. Same sex marriage naturally excludes a father or mother.
Society will naturally degrade as children do not have a father and mother in
the home. We have already seen this in societies with large amounts of
fatherless families. To say that what someone else does in there does not
affect me is false. No man is an island. The financial collapse was brought
about by people making poor financial decisions that they thought affected no
one but them.
TruthseekerSLO, CA8:41 p.m. May 21, 2012================== Agreed!I'm going to cut and
paste your excellent comment!Read the Book of Mormons people.THAT is was the greater wickedness that ultimately destroyed the
Nephites, it had nothing to do with sexual immorality.God
destroys the wicked, by the wicked.In this case, the unbelieceing and
immoral Lamanites destroyed the even MORE wicked Nephites - who had the
gospel, but rejected it, shunned the poor, allowed the Gadianton's to take
control of their civilization to get gain, $$$, per Mahan Economics 101.
Everything these days is about the gays. I think with all the attention
they've garnered, regardless of whatever the outcome of the political
battles, they've gotten what they wanted--which has little to do with
marriage and more to do with a desperate cry for attention.
Nobody has a problem with "traditional marriage." Keep your traditional
marriage. Nobody will stop you. What bothers gay rights activists is people
trying to force gay people to not live their life they way they feel is best for
them.I know it's hard for someone who is religious to
understand, but what is actually happening is that the religious freedom of
homosexual individuals is being taken away by those who would proscribe a better
lifestyle for them.
"We're not in trouble because gays want to marry or women want to have
some control over when they have babies. We're in trouble because CEOs are
collecting exorbitant pay while slicing the pay of average workers, because the
titans of Wall Street demand short-term results over long-term jobs, and because
of a boardroom culture that tolerates financial conflicts of interest, insider
trading, and the outright bribery of public officials through unlimited campaign
"donations."Our crisis has nothing to do with private
morality. It's a crisis of public morality -- of abuses of public trust
that undermine the integrity of our economy and democracy and have led millions
of Americans to conclude the game is rigged.What's truly
immoral is not what adults choose to do with other consenting adults. It's
what those with great power have chosen to do to the rest of us."Robert Reich: "Of Bedrooms and Boardrooms"
@linus please forward us your bill of ownership and we will leave the word
alone for you to define however you wish until then you have no more claim to it
then anyone else.
@lehiaggie;The best way to stand up for your morals is to live them.
Forcing others to live by your morals only shows your insecurity in them, and
is not moral but rather, is immoral (didn't God choose Jesus' plan
rather than Satans' because Satan would "force" others to be
moral?)@Linus;Don't be so sure.
I'm ok with gay marriage. Religious groups have too much power.
Now you call it "marriage equality, do you?" You used to call it
"same-sex marriage." The truth is that for a majority of citizens in
the 30 states where the people have defined marriage as between one man and one
woman, we just don't like to have our language hijacked. Marriage is what
it is. It isn't what it isn't. And what it isn't is a
relationship between two of the same sex. Never has been. Saying it is
doesn't make it so. Some of us could stand for a new word to be coined
that becomes defined as "a commitment of fidelity between two lovers of the
same sex." Make one up. You are free to have a word; just not the
adulteration of a word that means so much to the rest of us. How about
"gammorage?" Thus you wouldn't be offending anyone.
I guess I need to explain my post a little more. Jesus taught in a particular
sermon that he considers the way we treat even the "lowest" of people in
society as an indicator of how much we truly love him. "Inasmuch as ye have
done it unto the least of these, ye have done it unto me." Are
we treating certain people with less dignity than they deserve? Do we vote to
deny them the rights or privileges that others are allowed just because we
don't agree with their lifestyle? If so, we may need to look deeper into
our convictions and maybe change our ways.
@VORSo "fundamental to our very existence and survival" equals
",marriage between man and woman?" do you have any evidence to support
your interpretation or is this like all your other secular claims?
@vor so because the judges did not rule the way you wanted them to they
are illegally invalidate your vote? this is where once VOR's arguments have
once again been disproved we move into the your a victim stage. It could not
possibly be that you are wrong could it? If not you do remember that
constitutional lesson you provided above? If you truly represent the majority
as you think you do you can work to have a constitutional amendment changing to
reflect your views on this issue rather then p[laying the victim when you are
not allowed to just take others rights away.
sorry htat should have read it of course could not possible have been that the
@vorI am sorry VOR but your interpretation of the court ruling is a huge
assumption especially by someone that always demands that anything not spelled
out word for word in the constitution is not a right. It of course could
possibly have not that the legal protection, rights and responsibilities given
by marriage are fundamental to our very existence and survival right? no of
course not it must be your interpretation. oh wait you have now more proof of
your interpretation then I do of mine. what was your point of bringing up this
case again? I have ot give it to you though it was at least somewhat of an
lehiaggie: "If I choose to not stand up for my morals and faith just
because someone else thinks my beliefs short sited, backwards or discriminatory,
then I have no true morals or faith to prove"-----------Please stand up for your morals! I want everyone to do just that!You missed the part about making "a law that hurts a number of
people." Why can't you believe and support your morals WITHOUT passing
laws that harm others? Why can't everyone believe and live as they want
to, as long as it does not HARM another?I do not care about what you
believe and you should not care about my beliefs as long as we can live together
in this great country. But as soon as I start passing laws that force you to
live the laws of my faith, I have crossed a boundry and have started to infringe
upon your rights.As my mother used to tell me, "your rights end
where the other person's nose begins."Many people are
living in states and countries that accept gay marriage. They are not fighting
nor pushing each other to live a certain way. Why can't we?
"If you have to make a law that hurts a number of people, just to prove your
morals or faith, then you have no true morals or faith to prove."If I choose to not stand up for my morals and faith just because someone else
thinks my beliefs short sited, backwards or discriminatory, then I have no true
morals or faith to prove.
I find it so incredibly ironic that conservatives who say marriage is all about
L-O-V-E, Take it completely out of the equation as to defining marriage,
and instead devote 100% of their time and attention to defining marriage solely
by S-E-X.I bet their minds would be changed if they reversed their
thinking [i.e., a LOVE centered committment, rather purely Sexual.]I
know that's how I view and define my heterosexual marriage.
@VoR;Food is also necessary for "our very survival";
therefore all food must be "male and female". Water, even more
necessary than food must also be "male and female".Do you
see how that line can be interpreted?Your problem is that you just
don't like sharing.
A voice of ReasonWe do NOT live in a democracy. We live in a
Constitutional Republic. We have a constitution that protects the minority from
the whims and tyrany of the majority. To amend the constitution to allow the
majority to subjucate a minority to a second class citizenship would be a
travesty of what we have stood for as a country.One does NOT vote on
whether or not a tax-paying, law-abiding citizen can have all the rights and
privileges that other citizens are enjoying. THAT is un-American and, in my
The Supreme Court defined marriage as between a man and a woman.When
might you ask? Ironically in Loving vs Virginia.While defining
marriage as a civil right, the same court also defined the union in question
when stating that marriage was "fundamental to our very existence and
survival". According to that time, it could have meant nothing else.If the same constitution before and after Loving vs Virginia accepted
outlawing polygamy and gay marriage, then the same constitution must be altered
to accept it now.Gay proponents frequently argue that "the same
constitution allowed slavery, do we still practice that?" But I'm not
even saying the constitution is morally perfect perfect. While morally wrong,
slavery was IN FACT lawful. Here's an educational lesson for everyone: This
is why we have the power to ammend the constitution! No one wants to do that
anymore, because they want to be dictators of this country and make all the laws
themselves. People don't want democracy anymore. Otherwise, they
wouldn't be trying to convince the judicial branch to illegally invalidate
my vote based on rights that the founding fathers and the people in this
democracy never put there.
"The commandment to multiply and replinish the earth is in fact still in
effect."And God's declaration "It is not good for man
to be alone" preceded the multiply commandment. God sought a SUITABLE
HELPER for Adam...they looked through all the ANIMALS first and found no
suitable helper for him so God mad a woman (a SUITABLE helper for a man tasked
with fathering an entire species). A woman is NOT a SUITABLE helper
for a gay man any more than a lion would have been a suitable helper for
Adam.God did not say "It is not good for heterosexuals only to
I find it odd that the Constitution protects rights and when we interpret that
to include groups previously excluded from sharing those rights, we have people
demanding a constitutional amendment that denies rights. So we would end up with
a "Yes but" constitution granting rights for some but denying them for
others. The best thing we can do it in the name of God and we know how we see
eye to eye on Him or is it Her.
"We are not just individuals. We belong to a society whether we like it or
not. We have a responsibility to that society. The choices we make affect that
society for good or ill."-----------And may I add
that a society that discriminates against a segment of that society just because
the majority feels, believes, has prayed about or simply feels better than those
in the minority already has a very ill community."If you have to
make a law that hurts a number of people, just to prove your morals or faith,
then you have no true morals or faith to prove."
I couldn't help but respond to the following statement..."To continue to say that gay marriage somehow "threatens"
traditional marriage is just ignorant. Like saying my neighbor watching porn in
his house threatens the traditional physical relationship my wife and I have.
What people do in their own homes and lives doesn't threaten those who are
not involved."To say that one member of society does in private
doesn't affect anyone else is very naive. The very example cited does not
consider many elements of the damaging affects of porn and how it not only
affects those closest to them but many times neighbors and larger members of
society. We are not just individuals. We belong to a society whether
we like it or not. We have a responsibility to that society. The choices we make
affect that society for good or ill.
I'm still waiting for a solid reason to prevent two people who love each
other from marrying and raising a family. Many knee-jerk conservatives here site
the evils of letting two of the same sex from adopting. I can give you real
world examples of the ONLY people adopting children with chronic health issues,
the children over a year old and mixed-race children are same sex couples. So
what really is better for those children? Also, do you really think that if same
sex marriage is allowed that your wife or husband will immediately leave you for
a person of the same sex? Please turn off your right wing radio and start
*'Gallup Poll: Majority of Americans support gay marriage' - By
Elizabeth Stuart - DSNews - 05/20/2011'For the first time since
Gallup started studying the issue in 1996, the polling organization found a
majority of Americans favor legalizing same-sex marriage.Fifty-three
percent of Americans answered yes to the question...'
@O'really"It would muddy the water and confuse the definition of
what marriage "Alright (insert name of hypothetical 5 year old
son/daughter I'd be explaining this to) marriage is when two adults who
love each other very much decide that they want to spend the rest of their lives
together. So they have this big party where they make that promise. There, that was pretty easy.
@aceronix"For those who are advocating legalization of same-sex
marriage, which of your parents would you have foregone?"A silly
question since I'd have two parents in both situations. Let's not
forget that Utah allows single people to adopt.@Bill in Nebraska"The United States is headed for Sodom and Gomorrah. "Why
are you referencing a story where there are no consenting same-sex relationships
and the only supposedly moral guy in the story offered his daughters to
attackers (which to me would've meant he just lost his ticket out of town)?
"The Lord WILL NOT recognize a same-sex marriage nor should
we."Doesn't matter. The Constitution is the law of the
land, not the Bible."The commandment to multiply and replinish
the earth is in fact still in effect. "Gay people are gay. I
know...shocking isn't it? They're actually more likely to plan on
having kids one way or another (adoption, having a surrogate mother, etc) if
they're married than if they're not. Plus we've done enough
multiplying, haven't you read the water issue articles here the last week
I don't understand why conservative folks who want more freedom and less
governmental influence in their lives support both federal and state
governmental control of marriage. Government controls the definition of
marriage. Government controls who can get married. Government controls who can
conduct marriage ceremonies. Can some conservative folks explain why they
support government regulation of marriage?
I support traditional marriageAND I support gay
marriages.It is not hard to support those things that make us a
better country - and treating every citizen as an equal - even if you do not
believe the same things - makes us better people.
Voice of reason;1. So what? This says nothing about families or living
arrangements.2. Biologiclly speaking..90% of the species has no interest
in co-habitating with someone of the same sex..so the procreation of the species
is just fine, even if every gay person were married to another gay person.3. All marriages need to be state sanctioned..(we authorized that). Try
getting married in the temple without a state license.4. You did just
Define the principle of marriage as hetrosexual..and then gave everyone access.
Your definition is the point of all of this.5. Just a re-statement of
26. Pure speculation and your opinion. If you follow your opinion
however, wouldn't you have to ban all adoptions as not ideal.7.Again
so what? A substantial number of children are raised in households without a
mother and a father and thrive. How does this have anything to do with same sex
CatsIn New Jersey a Church ... Catholic Charities ...LDS4Those
have been addressed ad infinitum. You sound just like anti-Mormons bring up the
same old things.Normal GuyThe argument that states once
disallowed inter-racial marriages is not relevant to this discussion.
Inter-racial marriages between men and women are identical to traditional
marriages in every way since they have the ability to procreate, they provide
children with a father and a mother, etc. Same-sex marriages do none of this.LDS4If producing children is a requirement, let’s ban post
menapausal women, the sterile and infertile from marrying. Be consistent.sjgf@lds4gaymarriage:"What about infant born to lesbians
conceived via IVF?"Governments have policies. Medical doctors
have codes of ethics.LDS4The child possibly came from a rape
or from sex with a man just to get pregnant. The child possibly was her dead
sibling’s and now she is raising it or was adopted privately or from
overseas. Gays will always get kids and denying same-sex marriage simply denies
innocent children the rights and protections straight couple’s kids get
automatically. Why are you supporting this war on innocent children?
Popularity is not necessarily justice. If Utah and North Carolina were allowed
to vote on whether or not to allow African Americans to vote in the past they
would have voted it down.
What I see here is an editorial that promotes discrimination of American
Citizens, basing it's reasoning on Religion. (Note to DN editors, America
is NOT a Theocracy, we have the First Amendment to prove it).I see a
number of people using lies to justify discrimination against American Citizens.
If it is necessary to lie to promote your agenda, is it really the agenda you
should support (does God need you to lie or is he the "God of
Truth"?)I see a number of people floundering, trying desperately
to find non-religions means to justify discrimination. Many are using
"slippery slope" arguments. Can dogs/cats/trees sign a marriage
license? This whole editorial is just sad.
re:ulvegaard"Parent's in New England being jailed for keeping
their elementary school children home from school the day same sex
mechanics"FALSEThe father of a child was arrested
when he refused to leave the school grounds after a meeting with the school
superintendent involving a book his child brought home from school discussing
different kinds of families--varying in type from 2 parent to single parent to
animal families, including same-sex families. The book did not discuss sex or
even marriage in any way, shape or form. The father was requesting the school
pre-notify him of any discussion involving same-sex relationships. The school
refused, citing it was only required to notify parents involving sex education
and maturation programs.
@lds4gaymarriage:"What about infant born to lesbians conceived
via IVF?"Governments have policies. Medical doctors have codes
of ethics.The people of our society rejected their forefathers
several years ago when they started chanting the mantra, "You can't
legislate morality," and as a result we have a growing number of situations
where people are being immoral.For as long as our government has
been involved in such things, until very recently, it has forbidden such things
as allowing same-sex couples to adopt. Similarly, the medical profession
required that a woman could only be a recipient of IVF when she was married --
yes, to a man.As society has continued to decline, these policies
have been thrown out the window by left-wing extremists.We need to
return to the days where both the Government and the Medical profession treat a
child as a person of value, rather than as a doll for one or two non-married
persons use as an emotional security blanket. This would mean that they would
require a woman to be in a stable heterosexual marriage before allowing either
adoption or IVF.
@VOR As has been pointed out to you before, your arguments are not
necessarily ethical or unethical just unsound.1) and 2) are you
really so unaware of modern science to believe the only way to create life is
directly between a man and women?3) and 4) the ninth and fourteenth
amendments as well as several judges disagree with you.5), 6) and 7)
funny the AMA, APA, NASW and APS (all the experts on humans physical and
psychological needs) and all the credible research disagree with you. Now if you magically have found some actual credible secular evidence to
support these claims we would all like to see it, if not then maybe you should
stick with your religious arguments.
[... that people who have faith commitments to scriptural guidance on families
and who appreciate the powerful outcomes afforded by biologically intact
families should take heart.]You confuse people who have faith
commitments with people who wish to make their "faith" conscription for
all citizens.[ As we have seen in California, unelected judges are
playing decisive roles as they assess whether clear majority support for
traditional conjugal marriage somehow runs afoul of constitutional
protections.]Judges are unelected per the Constitution. Got a
problem with that?[ But the elite media's truncated story of a
tectonic shift on this profoundly important concern flies in the face of the way
these issues are working themselves out at the grass-roots level. ]You, the Deseret News, is the "elite media." What's happening at
the grass-roots level is increasing acceptance of homosexuals and same-gender
marriage. Your painting of NC as some educated, cosmopolitan nexus is curious.
I challenge the Des News to break down to demographics of North Carolinians who
voted. I bet the financial analysts in Charlotte and the scientists in the
Research Triangle may not have voted the way you think.
re:ulvegaard"The problem is and has already been demonstrated in
several areas --- there are other impacts that are felt. Parent's in New
England being jailed for keeping their elementary school children home from
school the day same sex mechanics"Not true. The facts:Parker(s), Wirthlin(s) v. Town of Lexington (and various school
administrators) There was NO discussion of sex or sex mechanics in the
classroom. In 2005 kindergarten student Jacob Parker brought home in his book
bag a called "Who's in a Family" which depicted different families,
including single-parent families, an extended family, interracial families,
animal families, a family without children, and two same-sex families. The book
said nothing about marriage. Jacob's father requested the school inform
him ahead of time if/when any discussion of homosexuality relationships might
take place. The school district required pre-notification to parents ONLY for
discussions involving sexual education. The family met with school
administrators several times and Jacob's father was arrested when he
refused to leave the school until his demands were met. The families
filed suit, lost at both the District Court and Court of Appeals.
Really?? What does that have to do with same gender marriage? Big disconnect
In this debate about denying somebody the privilege of marrying who he or she
loves, I would like to quote somebody that many of you claim to follow:"Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye
did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me".
A Scientist,The burden of proof is on you. You claim that I or my
opinions are unethical and your argument is 'but there are too many reasons
to list here'. It isn't scientific, logical, or even worth
consideration.I offered those reasons solely to satisfy those who
seem to think I can't argue anything without a religious premise. I still
hold that there is not, nor should there be a "no religious reasons
allowed" sign in the voting booth. Michael Sandel, a Harvard professor of
philosophy and one of the most demanded philosophy professors in the world- has
explained with more than adequate secular and Aristotelian reasons why it is
only logical to invite religious arguments on this issue and on others.But alas, it appears the anti-religious will not accept the terms of my
argument and when I provide rhetoric according to their own terms I am termed
unethical and not explained how or why.We live in an age where the
LDS Church is continually proven, even daily. Labeling the truth as something
else doesn't hide it. It can't be hid. Moral safety only comes through
accepting it, not denying it.
re:CatsThe two examples you cite involved use of public funds. Can't
discriminate and use public funds. New Jersey doesn't
recognize same-sex marriages, so it had nothing to do with whether same-sex
marriage was legal or not. The New Jersey church was allowing public use of its
pavilion AND getting a special local tax exemption. When they denied a gay
couple use of the pavilion, they merely lost the tax exemption for the pavilion.
LDS family services in Massachusetts doesn't place children
with gay couples and they have not had to stop their services. Catholic
charities received state funding for their services (and actually had placed 1
or 2 children with gay couples--until it came to light in the Boston Herald
newspaper). Catholic Charities could continue to facilitate adoptions as the
LDS church does--without state funding.
@VORWhat is outlandish is that despite the fact that it has been pointed
out to you time and again that science and the facts do not support your
arguments you continue to make the same ones over and over. Go back and read
any other thread you have posted on on this subject and you will see everyone of
these arguments have been addressed and proven false before. repeating the same
failed logic over and over is not going to make it factual.
Cherilyn Eagar,Religion does not get a free pass. So you are right.
When SS marriage is ruled constitutional because denying it can't be
justified, religions will be put in a tough spot to defend their current
positions. I agree with you on this.
"Parent's in New England are being jailed for keeping their elementary
school children home from school the day same sex mechanics was
And one more observation:SSM may not negatively affect or destroy my
own marriage of 27 years, but it most definitely would taint and weaken the
Institution of Marriage. It would muddy the water and confuse the definition of
what marriage means, the nuances, the understanding that children have of what
to expect about what marriage means. It would confuse and weaken future
generations of marriages. It simply isn't in the best interest of children.
Same sex marriage is fundamentally about selfishness and about attempting to
normalize something that as I said before -defies logic, reason and biology. Now many keep saying there is NO logical reason to prohibit same sex
marriage. The reasons are there and are abundantly clear. They just need to be
read and considered rather than ignored.
5) I maintain that an intentional 'dysfunction' of the union
biologically required to reproduce will result in other human dysfunctions as
such a union is by design unable to adequately succor or nurture children
biologically and psychologically according to their needs.Not every
straight couple has the demure nurturing mom and the no-nonsense dad. Gays and
lesbians are diverse personality wise with some being more masculine and some
more feminine. There are also factors that are more important in raising kids
than having diverse parenting styles. Smoking vs. non-smoking, Stay-at-home
parent vs. daycare, nutritious meals vs. the nearest drivethrough, etc... When
all of the factors are considered, many gays provide a much better environment
than many straights.6) I maintain that while life sometimes
necessitates substitutes a mother's love for her own infant is
psychologically ideal.What about infant born to lesbians conceived
via IVF? Should that kid suffer due to the state not granting him the same
protections it does to other kids? 7) I maintain that men and women
have different traits to offer, that biologically and psychologically children
benefit most from the succor of both.See #5 above.
Observations: 1) Denying a marriage license to gays or lesbians will not in any
way keep them apart. I believe they will continue to seek out each other and
share their love. It is not making those relationships illegal. They still
would have every right to love and live with whomever they wish. They simply
shouldn't call it marriage because instinctively, even kids know two of the
same gender don't get "married". That defies logic (and biology)2)The definition of "traditional" marriage has fluctuated but it
has NEVER in the history of mankind included two of the same gender. Marriage
whether arranged by the families, whether the wife is seen as a slave and
nothing more, whether the couple has children or not, whether the participants
are 17 or 107 has ALWAYS included at least one of each gender. SSM never has
been a variable.3)Heterosexuals have indeed already weakened and
messed up the purity of marriage, but two wrongs don't make a right. When
making soup and rotten ingredients are added by accident or on purpose, adding
MORE rotten ingredients isn't going to improve the soup.
ulvegaardParent's in New England being jailed for keeping their
elementary school children home from school the day same sex mechanics was
discussed.LDS4Sorry Wolffy, but I want to see a reference on
this. I ain't buyin'.A voice of Reason1) I maintain
that it takes a man and woman to create a child.SO?2) I
maintain that as a species the biologically-sound choice is promoting
traditional marriage.OK, but since gays raise kids too,
shouldn't we promote SSm to protect those kids and promote families?3) I maintain that state-recognition isn't a right, and we the
people authorize our government.The Supreme Court said otherwise.
It also deals with Equal Protection and Due Process.4) I maintain
that the equal protection of the laws doesn't redefine principles but
applies the same law to everyone- that in not denying any citizen the right to
hetero-marriages, the clause is satisfied.The Saudis say the same
thing. No citizen is denied the right to worship at a mosque...to
The United States is headed for Sodom and Gomorrah. When it becomes a welcome
site across this country is when this nation shall fail to stand as it once did.
We are no longer the richest country in the world, nor the most powerful. This
is impart to the drop of our morals and the morality of this the United States.
Everything will effect you. Probably not in this life but in the life to come.
The Lord WILL NOT recognize a same-sex marriage nor should we. Today we do not
call it a marriage of two individuals living together nor are they offered the
rights of marriage until they actually marriage. The same should hold true for
anyone who is outside a marriage of man and woman.Until people
understand that just because it feels good doesn't mean it is good. The
commandment to multiply and replinish the earth is in fact still in effect. A
same-sex couple can not have children except man intervene. It is UNNATURAL as
anything can be.The Lord has spoken and so shall we. We must take a
stand or else all mankind is finished.
The most common argument I am hearing on this board by the pro-gay marriage
group is:"Does heterosexual marriage either diminish or threaten
same-sex marriage?"Let me ask a follow-up question.Is being a mechanic diminished or threatened by changing the definition of a
horse to mean a large animal with a trunk that used to be called an elephant?
Probably not, but why change the definition?Is being entitled to
Social Security diminished or threatened by changing the definition of
"taking a census" to mean counting aliens from Mars? Probably not, but
why do something outlandish?Why do we want to change the definition
of "room-mate" to be "marriage"? I think it is great that people
find companionship. But "marriage" specifically means a man and a woman
forming a special lifelong partnership. It does not have anything to do with
same-gender relationships.The only purpose I have observed in the
call for changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex partnerships is
to give them moral standing in the community. It is specifically an attempt to
redefine morality, and to force people who abhor this to be required to legally
ehat,Nobody is talking about plural marriages. That appears to be
something only religious people can concoct.What part of
"couples" don't you understand?
@Cats:"He hasn't done one thing for gay marriage."Whoa! Have you missed all the stories in the last 3 years?After centuries of gays not being allowed to serve openly in the military,
Obama pushed for, and obtained from Congress, the change to allow gays to serve
openly in the military. That was followed up very closely by allowing gays in
the military to be married.You are right, though. He hasn't
done ONE thing for gay marriage. In fact, he has done SEVERAL things for gay
Voice of Reason,It is completely unreasonable and unethical to use
any one or all of your assertions as a basis for civil law.The
ramifications of all that you "maintain", taken seriously, would have to
be extrapolated in so many unethical, impractical, and unacceptable ways than
could possibly be listed here.I continue to question your moniker.
cjbChildren should have a Father AND a Mother. Legal acceptance of gay
marriage makesit less likely that during any adoption process children can
be sent exclusively to hetero sexual couples.LDS4Even if every
adoption agency in the country only gave kids to straight couples, gays would
still get children through surrogates or IVF, previous heterosexual
realtionships, foreign adoptions, "inheriting" kids from dead or
disabled siblings, etc... IOW, gays will ALWAYS have kids. We now need to ask
ourslves whic course of action is best for those kids - A. Give
their parents marriage so that the kids will have the benefits and protections
that kids from straight familes get (2 parents who can make medical decisions
for them, visit them in the hospital, give them insurance, receive visitation
and child support in case of a parental divorce, etc...).B. Deny
the parents marriage and thereby deny those benefits and protections to those
kids. So the bottom line is whether we homosexuals so much that we
are will to punish innocent children in order to back up our claim that we we
love families? HUH? REALLY?
There are myriad reasons why same-sex marriage weakens the family, but chief
among them all is the impact on children. As David Blankenhorn, founder and
president of the Institute on Human Values, notes: “One can believe in
same-sex marriage. One can believe that every child deserves a mother and a
father. One cannot believe both.”Children brought into a
same-sex marriage home have no choice in the matter. Their God-given right to be
raised by both a mother and a father has been summarily taken away. Granted, we
have situations of divorce or early parental death that create this scenario,
but when we establish government policy it is incumbent upon us to look out for
the rights of these children who cannot speak for themselves. For those who are
advocating legalization of same-sex marriage, which of your parents would you
God created marriage as between men and women thousands of years ago. Society
has agreed with this format and set up laws around it for centuries. Only
denying an individual access to this kind of marriage is to deny their civil
rights. Denying individuals the right to marry any gender they want isn't
to deny anyone their civil rights. Instead, allowing individuals to marry any
gender they want would be creating rights that no one has ever had.The argument that states once disallowed inter-racial marriages is not
relevant to this discussion. Inter-racial marriages between men and women are
identical to traditional marriages in every way since they have the ability to
procreate, they provide children with a father and a mother, etc. Same-sex
marriages do none of this.
CatsI think President Obama's decision not to defend the DOMA
is one thing he has done. Further, his choice to let progress go forward as it
happens in state by state is a step forward --- versus when Pres. Bush would go
and public statements saying that every time a step validated same sex marriages
it was a threat to traditional --- i.e. heterosexual marriages. President Obama
has never said same sex marriages were a threat.I think I would take
- even if it's political - his backing of same sex marriage then a decision
not to ever back same sex marriage. I'll take backing now as supposed to
never. Question - haven't all rights been won - politically?
To those who claim that SSM will not affect religious freedom, there are already
examples of religious freedom being affected...One example: In New Jersey a
Church who allowed couples of all religions to use their facilities for weddings
were told they could no longer keep the facility open unless they allowed
same-sex couples to have their weddings there as well--a clear violation of
religious freedom. Catholic Charities is a valid example as
well--they were forced to shut down rather than violate their religious freedom.
That is immoral and against the interests of many children who needed help.A homosexual relationship will NEVER be a marriage, worlds without end,
and no law will ever change that. We can make laws that say a horse is a dog,
but a horse will never be a dog no matter how many laws are passed.I
don't care if those who oppose gay marriage are on the "wrong side of
history." It only matters if we are on the right side of God.
You don't have to dislike gays to vote against gay marriage. I remain
friends with my gay co-workers despite their knowledge of how I vote and my
knowledge of how they vote.
Dear County Mom,"What if we nolonger allow the government to
define marriage? What if every couple that is of legal age, whatever their
sexual orientation, can be joined in a union at the court house. They are then
joined in a legal union and have all the same rights."Consider
this:MARY: Hi!CLERK: Hello. How may I help you?MARY: My name is Mary. This is my husband, John. And this is our financee,
Joan. We'd like you to issue a marriage licence. Joan is bisexual (the
"B" in "LGBT") and she is "of legal age" (as county mom
requires) and wants to marry "whatever [her] sexual orientation," and
thus "have all the same rights" as anyone else.CLERK: Uh,
no. Can't do.MARY, JOHN, and JOAN: Well, then, okay.
Here's a summons and complaint. We'll see you in court.*
* * *The Provo Daily Herald's editorial opinion this past
Friday essentially threw in the towel, claiming same-sex marriage is inevitable.
If the legislative history of this sort of inevitability is any indication,
traditional heterosexual marriage has a bright, happy future. Though it has many
assaults, from within and without, it will endure.
I appreciated Cherilyn Eager's comments. It is easy to say that because
gay people get married, it can't affect my heterosexual marriage.The problem is and has already been demonstrated in several areas --- there
are other impacts that are felt. Parent's in New England being jailed for
keeping their elementary school children home from school the day same sex
mechanics was discussed. Parents can keep their children home during
heterosexual based sex education topics, but not homosexual topics.
"Equal?" "Fair?" No, too often such agendas which seem
plausible and fair enough on the surface have undertones which are not so easily
seen. Remember Nancy Pelosi's philosophy "We have to pass this
legislation to find out what is in it."No, lets investigate the
I'd ike to clarify my comment. The civil ceremony would constitute the
"marriage." The religious ceremoney would be a blessing of sort for
those who wish it, but the civil cereomony would confer all the rights and
responsibilities of what we call "marriage."
It really worries me when people start seeing things as natural. It also worries
me when we want to make people's law above God's law. As christian, it
worries me we are trying to please others and we care less about pleasing God.
This is an opinion of an educated, middle-age person. More importantly, being
rural and not educated does not mean ignorant on principles and values. I have
seen many educated people with no moral compass.And yes, what Obama
did was a simple political maneuver. Saying he agrees and later saying it is up
to the states was the same as Ceasar washing her hands.
My first issue is with the notion of 'Traditional' marriage. There is
no such thing. There is a suggestion of it from one of Paul's epistles, but
the bible is rife pleural marriage, concubines, and handmaidens. Our modern
notion of traditional marriage is based on more of a business arrangement.
Marrying for love only became a regular occurance in the world in recent
decades. 1 man 1 woman may be a good option, but that is based on what has
evolved within society, not edict or even facts. I think there is
one solution. If people and their social or religious groups want to own their
own definition of marriage, let them. The LDS church already does this with
thier Temple Marriage, which supercedes the law and theoretically grants you the
possibility of an eternal partnership. That said, their needs to be
a civil contract in place available for every consenting adult who wishes to be
wed to another person. Civil Union seems like the best option for that.
Old Wanderer, how about this: This is how they do it in Europe. Everyone must be
married civilly first. Then, those who wish can have a really nice, done by
your bishop in your church old fashioned religious marriage ceremony. Your place
of worship will not be defiled.
This debate has been going on for years. For years I have asked the question,
how does marriage equality in any way, threaten or cause harm to anyone? And
for years, nobody has answered that question. I hear "threats to traditional
marriage" threats to the family over and over, yet the threats only exist in
the imaginations of those who seem threatened. Same sex marriage has been in
practice in Massachusetts for eight years now. Not one family has been ruined,
not one church has been harmed, not one traditional marriage has dissolved. This
perceived are non-existent. It's time to change the dialog.
What if we nolonger allow the government to define marriage? What if every
couple that is of legal age, whatever their sexual orientation, can be joined in
a union at the court house. They are then joined in a legal union and have all
the same rights. Then they can have whatever cerimony they wish in what church
they choose and call their union whatever they want. That would leave
"Marriage" to man and wife as defined by God in the Bible.
"Simply because a majority agrees on a policy does not make that policy a
moral or correct or wise policy. Schools obviously need to restore the teaching
of logic."-Cherilyn That's a pretty good point to be making
on an editorial that argues that because 30+ states have voted on this that not
recognizing marriage equality MUST be good policy.
Ms. Eagar, uuummm, so what? So the Catholic church realizes that adoption
services must follow the laws and they realized that they weren't? How
does this fact prevent anyone finding another adoption service? Try choosing
love, acceptance and inclusivity and I promise that instead of ruining your life
and society as you know it, it will make you happier (not to mention the world
being a better place). Let's move on to more important issues.
Someone correct me but how can you say marriage is a civil right? What about
little sister or dog?
I think the goal of traditional and gay is the same - building a strong family.
Allowing gays to marry would not weaken families, it would strengthen them.
For, many gay couples have children and those children, like any, need stability
and care. An example: In many states it's difficult to ensure children of
a gay partner. If the issue really is about taking care of family, then
allowing gay marriage is the Christian thing to do.
to Cherilyn Eagar 9:42 a.m. May 20, 2012You mis-state the Catholic
Chaities case. They could hae continued to disciminate against gay couplies all
they wanted; they just couldn't get public money if they chose to
discriminate They were never "required to abandon [its] religious tenet to
place children for adoption in SSM homes". Nothing kept them ffrom applying
their own standards to their adoption policies. They chose to play politics
instead of just go the way they always had without public funds. They made their choice; the blame, if any, for that choice is theirs. No
religious liberty issue was involved.
As for the anti-religious on previous articles who complained that my arguments
weren't secular enough... here's some medicine for you:1)
I maintain that it takes a man and woman to create a child.2) I
maintain that as a species the biologically-sound choice is promoting
traditional marriage.3) I maintain that state-recognition isn't
a right, and we the people authorize our government.4) I maintain
that the equal protection of the laws doesn't redefine principles but
applies the same law to everyone- that in not denying any citizen the right to
hetero-marriages, the clause is satisfied.5) I maintain that an
intentional 'dysfunction' of the union biologically required to
reproduce will result in other human dysfunctions as such a union is by design
unable to adequately succor or nurture children biologically and psychologically
according to their needs.6) I maintain that while life sometimes
necessitates substitutes a mother's love for her own infant is
psychologically ideal.7) I maintain that men and women have
different traits to offer, that biologically and psychologically children
benefit most from the succor of both.These aren't wild and
outlandish. Denying them is.
I too oppose same sex marriage although the argumunts put forth by the opponents
of it arequite weak. Let me help this cause with. thefollowing
argument which should have beenobvious from the beginning.Children should have a Father AND a Mother. Legal acceptance of gay marriage
makesit less likely that during any adoption processchildren can be
sent exclusively to hetero sexualcouples
Here is the REAL traditional marriage. The wishes of the woman do not matter.
The father treats his daughter as chattel and decides who (or when) she marrys.
The prospective husband has to ask (and have) her father's permission to
marry her. She has no say whether she wants, or doesn't want to, marry the
prospective husband -- her wishes are not considered, and the father and
prospective husband impose their will on her. The marriage is often used to
ratify and cement a bargain/treaty between families/countries. There is no need
to "protect" or "defend" this traditional form of traditional
marriage.Participants in same-sex marriage do not threaten
"traditional" marriage. They are not "wired" to engage in, or
have any interest in, "traditional" marriage. The REAL threat to
"traditional" marriage comes from people like Brittany Spears, who do
not value "traditional' marriage in the first place.The
best way to handle this, and stabilize society in the process, is to made
"civil union" the regular registered relationship regardless whether the
relationship is same-sex or opposite-sex, and allow the couples to obtain a
"marriage" from whatever religious organiation to which they belong, if
Cherilyn: "First: Catholic Charities has closed its adoption services
because the law is a "no discrimination" law, meaning it was required to
abandon its religious tenet to place children for adoption in SSM homes, which
it refused to do. "You're missing the critically important
legal point. Catholic Charities was accepting public funds, and in doing so
they agree to abide by public laws regarding discrimination against people based
on race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc.If Catholic
Charities want to abandon their claim to public funding, they can be as
restrictive in their policies as they want.You misrepresent the
issue when you claim that religious liberty is in any way at stake here.
Let's be honest. It is reasonable to suppose the real opposition to same
sex marriage is based on a literal reading of the story of Sodom & Gommorah
and a fear that the United States of America will be destroyed if SSM is
legalized.That is the irrational belief undergirding religious
opposition to same sex marriage. Admit it.
When I was growing up, a "super majority" of states banned interracial
marriages. The reasons were remarkably similar to those who object to gay
marriages. There were appeals to the Bible, and the insistance that such
marriages would undermine society. Today a ban on interracial marriage would be
unthinkable. The same will be true of gay marriage bans.I believe
that fear and ignorance will give way to hope and compassion. The rising
generation has grown up in an age where gays are no longer inclined to dwell in
the shadows out of fear of violence. More Americans know them as friends and
neighbors, not as frightening caricatures in the popular culture of rapidly
receding age. In ten years a super majority of Americans will be in favor of gay
marriage. In a generation it will be common place. Society will not crumble. We
have always become stronger by rejecting prejudice, whether it be against
blacks, gays, or Mormons for that matter.
@Old Wanderer"If same-sex marriages are allowed then my
bishop/minister must perform these marriages just as he performs traditional
marriages. If our churches are used for traditional marriages and receptions
then they must be opened to celebration of same-sex marriages."That's completely false. Just look at the Boston, Massachusetts LDS
temple. They've had no issues with the matter of the church limiting temple
marriages to only those LDS couples who are deemed temple worthy. Gay marriage
would not change this.@Cherilyn EagerCatholic Charities in
Massachusetts had the option to not place children in same-sex households, but
to do so they would've had to not take gov't funding. LDS Family
Services does not take government funding so they've been able to continue
like before. If you take state funding then you have to follow state
Again, the editorial board is looking in the rearview mirror for the future of
Utah. Being able to see what the future holds, should be of paramount importance
to an editorial board. If you can't see what will be fair treatment for
everyone in Utah's future, I would suggest a little broader travel to
overcome your xenophobia. The happiness of all people should be openly valued
by a state wide newspaper.
Final entry:Schools must teach reading, writing, and computation
skills, but nothing can be taught in a moral vacuum. And it is not the
government’s job to teach social engineering, which can only be a secular
religious view.Because the majority of young people accept SSM,
somehow that justifies SSM. This is another fallacy - “argumentum ad
populum.” Simply because a majority agrees on a policy does not make that
policy a moral or correct or wise policy. Schools obviously need to restore
the teaching of logic. The public school must also give full
disclosure and to identify itself as teaching a religion - secular humanist
religion - that it may be counter to Judeo-Christian religious beliefs. Religion aside, before this nation embarks on a full-scale experiment,
accepting SSM on TV and film and in the schoolroom, where are the long-term
examples in history where acceptance and promotion of SSM has been successful to
the stability of society and especially how it has produced a growing population
necessary for prosperity?
Oh, I do stand for traditional marriage - because I stand for marriage
equality.Take heart, DesNews, and stand for civil rights. This
editorial says absolutely nothing except that we should support popular
prejudice for no good reason.
Divorce is the biggest threat to traditional marriage. Infidelity could also be
considered a threat to traditional marriage. To continue to say that gay
marriage somehow "threatens" traditional marriage is just ignorant.
Like saying my neighbor watching porn in his house threatens the traditional
physical relationship my wife and I have. What people do in their own homes and
lives doesn't threaten those who are not involved.
@Cats, I don't suppose your man Romney has ever made an announcement purely
for political reasons.
Second: In states where SSM is legal, schools are required to teach these
alternative lifestyles in sex ed courses, violating the First Amendment rights
of parents who believe SSM is immoral. The unintended consequence of
allowing kids to "opt out" is a discriminatory practice itself. And the
kids on the playground simply share what they've learned anyway. So we must ask, what is the purpose of school: social engineering, or to learn
to read and write and to become literate? Or is it to teach the student a moral
foundation? I believe it is both. So when the accreditation
committee comes to a church-owned school such as BYU and declares its Honor Code
“immoral” here lies the dilemma. In its core, education
is a religious endeavor. To force one religion - the state's secular
religion - on all children is discriminatory and violates the US Constitution.
To be continued…
For those who believe that legalizing SSM has no impact on supporters of
marriage between a man and a woman, let me cite two examples in two separate
posts: First: Catholic Charities has closed its adoption services
because the law is a "no discrimination" law, meaning it was required to
abandon its religious tenet to place children for adoption in SSM homes, which
it refused to do. This is a religious liberty issue. That SSM will
affect YOUR marriage is entirely a red herring argument. To be
How does same-sex marriage affect my hetero-sexual marriage? It dosn't
affect my marriage, but it affects me in other ways. If same-sex marriages are
allowed then my bishop/minister must perform these marriages just as he performs
traditional marriages. If our churches are used for traditional marriages and
receptions then they must be opened to celebration of same-sex marriages.Same-sex marriages will, if allowed, alter some of our traditiona and
even our places of worship. as we have been told many times,
"hate the sin, but love the sinner".
How about we take heart and stand for fairness, love and happiness?My marriage will never be threatened because two men get married. I love and
trust my husband, and he loves and trusts me. Nothing in our life or marriage
will change because two men or two women got married. Nothing.
I believe in marriage as being a contract between a man and a woman. I
don't, though, support governmental regulation of marriage. Two people
can't be married without government approval. A person can't perform a
marriage without government approval. Marriage is a social contract, and I
believe the definition of marriage should be left to social groups. It
doesn't bother me that the definition of marriage might vary from one
social group to another social group. I believe that social groups should be
free to define marriage however they want, and people considering joining a
social group can consider that group's definition of marriage when they
contemplate whether they should join that group or not.Government
does, I believe, have a concern about civil rights of people, and I think that
civil unions, or similar agreements, are a valid way for government to provide
for civil rights.
Setting religious arguments aside, I think there are good secular reason for not
changing the definition of marriage.1. I think it's important that we
continue to incentivize traditional 1 man - 1 woman marriage. Plenty of studies
have shown that this is the optimal environment for raising our future taxpaying
citizens (children). We also incentivize people to purchase homes, high mileage
cars, or energy efficient improvements on our homes. It doesn't mean that
society abhors those that chose not to do those things, it just means that
society wants to incentivize behavior that is in the best interest of society as
a whole.2. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, altering the
definition of marriage would create a legal "slippery slope" that would
provide legal footing to force society to begin incentivizing other marital
permutations such as incestuous relationships, polygamy, poliarmory,
beastiality, and eventually (once the "age of consent" is lowered in the
law books) pedophilia. I believe that those who say this wouldn't happen
are naive.I for one say - please don't tamper with the
definition of marriage.
Thank you for highlighting the President's Moderate tone. Unfortunately,
far to many people, especially on the pro-gay marriage side, even make an
attempt to understand the real and valid concerns of the people on the other
side of the argument. Compromise is only possible when understanding and
compassion are present.
Same sex marriage is no threat to traditional "one man one women"
marriage. But, if same sex marriage is denied either by legislation or by
popular vote, there is unequal treatment under the law, a clear violation of
constitutional principles.Let's be honest, opposition to same
sex marriage is largely rooted in the notion that homosexual conduct is sin, and
that condoning same sex marriage promotes sinful activity. There is also the
question of where it all ends - an important issue in this state's culture.
If the law allows same sex marriages, how long will it be before someone raises
the issue of legalizing polygamous relationships? And,who might not want that
can of worms opened?
What this article fails to mention (and other Robert George based editorials) is
the support for marriage equality in the Research Triangle and urban areas of
North Carolina, and the now almost cliche voting differences between older and
younger voters. Marriage equality for gays and lesbians has support from the
young, educated and urban demographics, while the older, rural demographic voted
against it. This split suggests an inevitable change over time.Perhaps that is why anti-gay marriage advocates like Mr. George and
conservative editorials like this one, ignore how few "traditional"
marriages and intact families actually exist. Rather than tackle the HUGE
problems impacting traditional marriage like divorce, financial insecurity, and
so on, they just focus on denying civil marriage protections to a politically
vulnerable minority group.To quote Doug from the Pixar movie
Admittedly same sex marriage is a weird idea. But take heart? Please explain
whyanyone needs to. Please explain how if gays are allowed to marry how
anyone'sTraditional marriage would be at risk.
The editorial is somewhat naive. The closer same-sex marriage gets to being a
fundamental civil right the closer it will become to being constitutionally
protected. At that point the states and the voters will lose the ability to
define marriageand the judges will decide. An amendment to the
Constitution is highly unlikely.
What you failed to mention about the North Carolina vote is that the voters who
did turn out are not representative of the population. A number of polls show
the majority of Americans are OK with gay marriage, while those opposed are
rapidly becoming a minority. It's just that many of those who do not
actively oppose gay marriage were not motivated enough to show up for the vote.
And don't get too proud; the North Carolina initiative also restricted
same-sex civil unions, which most voters did not realize before casting their
vote. A well-informed demographic, yes? Unlike abortion, acceptance
of gay marriage has been a very rapid shift, and one that social conservatives
will likely lose in the future, just like the Civil Rights movement. So prepare
thyself, the world is changing around you. BTW, I've yet to
hear any argument that convinces me that civil marriages between members of the
same sex in any way diminishes traditional marriage. Nothing but illogical
slippery-slope arguments and unfounded religious regurgitations.
I just can't go along with this one. I know good, valuable people that
this affects, and I believe in my heart that it's not a choice. This
position seems cruel and unChristian.
Like all the other editorials, court cases, and other arguments against marriage
equality, this editorial completely fails to make the case. There is no
compelling argument for denying marriage equality for same sex couples.Indeed, this editorial presents a false choice. Being in favor of traditional
marriage does not require one to be against same sex marriage, nor vice
versa.As a person who has enjoyed the blessings of "traditional
marriage" for several decades, I support and believe in traditional
marriage. But I also support same sex marriage for those who love in a different
way than I do. Legalizing same sex marriage does not weaken traditional
marriage, it only extends the blessings of marriage commitment to others who do
not currently enjoy those blessings.How is that a threat to my
marriage?It is not.
It is telling that this editorial offered no evidence supporting the denial of
this basic civil right except through a vague appeal to religious authority and
popular prejudice. This is not surprising - the opposition to
same-sex marriage has nothing other than religious tradition to rely on - all
rational, testable claims in support of their opposition fail badly under legal
scrutiny.My heterosexual marriage is neither diminished nor
threatened by a same-sex couple celebrating their love and mutual commitment by
getting married. Neither is yours.Civil right aren't things
you vote on. That's why they're called "rights."
Obama made this announcement purely for political reasons just as he was leaving
for a big fundraiser in California in which many of his big bundlers are gay.
They were putting heavy pressure on him to come out and he did. At
the same time, his announcement didn't take one step toward implementing
anything. It was only a statement. He hasn't done one thing for gay
marriage. This move was NOT courageous or sensitive. It was purely political.
Thanks for the valid points and we will continue to stand for traditional
marriage as being the union of a man and a woman. To me anything other than that
IS other, and should not be called or treated the same. If some want to act in
other ways that is their choice, but I wish they wouldn't continue to try
to impose such a distortion on the rest of us by using the force of laws, to
include them when it is biologically impossible for such a union to multiply.
In reading of nations like Japan now are selling more adult diapers than
baby ones and the crisis coming of not enough new generation to even just
replace their parents it is eye opening. Then like in China or other countries
who have restricted births of girls, by using abortion, what will happen in that
generation to their population? How important the laws of nature ( God )
are to the welfare of the planet! It seems some want to protect
"nature", save owls and lizards etc but can't seem to care about
saving our own species ? Some cry over stranded whales but what about
adopting abandoned downs babies?
There are going to be LOTS of "events" and "happenings"before this next election. I wouldn't put too much stockin
anything either candidate decides to support in the next 6 months. That
"event" was to rally support from theleft-wing of the Democratic
party for Obama for 2012.Next week, it will be Seniors being targeted for
a big campaign. The following week, it will be something else.And
Romney will be giving luncheons all throughout the Deep South trying to
rally support from the non-denominationalborn-again christians. It is all
part of the campaign process.
A better direction for anyone that has a heart would be to support love and
commitment where ever it exists. This editorial sounds like something from
Little Rock AK in the '60's. Somehow I just can't understand how
someone else's happiness will diminish mine.
Very well put, Deseret News. Unfortunately, there are few in the media with the
courage to stand up for traditional marriage and for the family. The family is,
in fact, the fundamental unit of society. Upon it rests everything else that is
good and wholesome. In order to be conceived we each required a mother and a
father. Nature decreed it thus. Who are we then to change the natural order of
things, to deprive a child who has no choice in the matter to be raised without
either a mother or a father?
I appreciate the recognition that Obama still thinks it should be left to the
states. I find it interesting though that an editorial titled in part
"stand for traditional marriage" never really gave reasons to stand for
it. Plus it's kinda relative, I support marriage between a man and a woman,
heck I want to have one of those myself someday. Nobody's voting on banning
mixed-gender marriage though so it's not hard to stand for since nobody is
standing against it. Yes I know what is being meant... okay so there's got
to be a reason to be against same-sex marriage, and it has to be a
constitutional reason too since religious reasons for laws are unconstitutional
(that's why sharia law is unconstitutional).