Comments about ‘Both sides of same-sex marriage debate focusing on family’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, July 13 2012 9:24 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

Is having same-sex parents ideal? No. Few opposite-sex parents are ideal. They may subject their kids to second hand smoke, belittle education, are criminals, don't provide a well balanced diet, etc...Why are such couples allowed to marry and raise children, but a lesbian couple, both with graduate degrees in Marriage, Family and Human Development from BYU, who are active in a church, who are actively involved in the child's local school, who live in a safe neighborhood, who have one parent stay home and make nutritious well balanced meals and raises the child with no day care, where neither parent smokes, drinks, does drugs, etc...are NOT allowed to marry?

Voltaire stated, "The best is the enemy of the good". Denying same-sex couples the right of civil marriage leaves their kids with nothing, when they could have had something good. Does that make any sense at all? The lesbian couple mentioned above may not provide the "best" child-rearing environment, but they do provide a very "good" environment.

Why are gay couples who are too old or unable to have kid denied marriage when kids aren’t a factor?

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

Matthew Brown has written a very balanced article which is a refreshing change from much of what has been written over the years about this issue.

While I am not gay, I do favor gay marriage. Most of the arguments against it are very similar to those that favored a ban on interracial marriage a generation ago. Nobody would think to make those arguments today. Likewise, studies clearly show that children that come from affluent homes do better than those who come from lower income homes. Nobody would ever consider restricting child rearing based on income. The same could be said for any number of other factors we could chose from as well.

At the end of the day this is about acceptance. Those who drove the 2004 campaign against gay marriage have caused everything they hoped to avoid. People are coming to know gay neighbors, co-workers, and relatives. They are changing their opinions dramatically. The cast majority of those thirty years old and younger have no trouble with gay marriage. That is the future.

Schwa
South Jordan, UT

The idea of prohibiting same-sex marriage is counter to what conservatives claim to love, and that is freedom. This is one group trying to force another group to live a certain lifestyle through force of law.

the truth
Holladay, UT

RE: Schwa

IF want gay marriage then take it out of the government's hand.

and make it purely a church thing.

What business is it of the government to be involved and be giving privileges and rights based on marriage?

Take [power away from the government and you get what you want.

As long government is involved and more than half the people do not want you will not get it.

Let churches solely define marriage and then gays can go to whatever church supports it.

Freedom doesn't come from government power and control nor the courts.

When one group (like the gays) forces another group's hand politically you will always have this "loss" of freedom for some one.

Linus
Bountiful, UT

For some time gays and lesbians have had the freedom to pursue the lifestyle of their choice. This isn't about denying anyone the freedom of choosing their lifestyle. It is about hijacking the sacred sacrament, covenant and institution of marriage and perverting it to diminish its value in society. In this way the irreligious are able to subvert that which the religious hold most dear. This is a trend. Some of you are glad, but the day will come when you will reap what you sew.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

Well if you all think it's just about marriage then maybe you should be advocating getting gov't out of the marriage business and giving gay and straight couples civil unions with the rights marriage currently gives out.

Linguist
Silver Spring, MD

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 was wonderful. It gave social and religious standing to what was already, for many years, the most important aspect of our shared lives. As the rabbi himself noted, he’d married many couples before, but never one that already felt as married as we clearly were.

People are free not to believe in God the way we do, of course. And their religions may carry out different rites, and may 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.

Now we are looking to protect our most important relationship legally, 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 marriage contract. We need to protect ours as well.

Marco Luxe
Los Angeles, CA

To Linus, who said this "is about hijacking the sacred sacrament, covenant and institution of marriage and perverting it to diminish its value in society."

However, when asked, NO ONE thinks THEIR OWN MARRIAGE has in any way been diminished in the countries and states that have legal equality. This belies the logical fallacy of Linus and other fear mongers.

No straight marriages will be negatively effected; many gay couples and their children will be positively effected; thus marriage equality can only be a social good. Only unjustified fear and prejudice prevent our country from becoming a more perfect union.

to comment

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