Comments about ‘Middle class needs marriage more than jobs and tax breaks’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Dec. 18 2012 12:00 a.m. MST

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

That was a bit of a stretch even for you.

Voice of Reason
Layton, UT

Mukkake - Wow, that's an amazingly balanced view you have there on traditional marriage. Yes, of course traditional marriage is defined solely by cases of rape, abuse, and murder by stoning...and I'm sure gay relationships have NEVER historically dealt with the same challenges...of course, it's not relevant at all that traditional marriage creates by far the most stable environment for children, the only one that binds both genetic parents to the children - the adults with by far the strongest likelihood of the strongest emotional bond to the children, institutionalizes the only human relationship that can naturally produce children, has the lowest rates of childhood delinquency and domestic abuse, brings the highest expected life expectancy as measured from childhood...shall I go on? I'd love to, but I'd run out of room.

Does that mean that single parents, polygamists, gay parents, etc. are all evil and don't love their children? Of course not...but government has a compelling interest in promoting traditional marriage for the greater good of society, while not in any way prohibiting other parents who don't enjoy that situation.

Salt Lake City, UT


I'll make this as simple as possible. What is "traditional marriage"? Because, as I mentioned earlier, the institution we, in the United States, call "marriage" is not the same institution it was 200 or 2000 years ago. It is also not the same institution all over the world.

What makes a marriage valid? Religion, state, commitment, the most violent guy in the village declaring which women he owns?? Its pretty relative, isn't it?

Gays want the same LEGAL rights that have been invented the last few centuries/decades. Protections that are all new stuff anyway. Nothing "traditional" about child tax credits, modern inheritance rights (historically in the West it was everything goes to the oldest son), and so on.

"Traditional marriage/values" have changed plenty of times. So we can, and will, just keep changing them.

Salt Lake City, UT

AVOR: What you cannot do, however, is force your fellow citizens through their government to endorse a particular type of sexual relationship - homosexuality.
LDS4:I may be morally opposed to interracial marriage, first cousins marrying, Old Geezer (Hugh Hefner)/young hottie marriages, but using subjective moral opinions to restrict the rights of others is contrary to scripture and American values of equality under the law.

AVOR:I actually support allowing two adults, regardless of relationship, to designate each other for purposes of visitation rights in hospitals, medical decisions, inheritance, etc. so that a gay person can access all those rights that married people can access regardless of lifestyle.
LDS4:Whites in the South allowed Blacks public drinking fountains...You seem to advocate “separate but equal” too.

AVOR: an extremely high-risk lifestyle..
LDS4:Huh? That’s what gays in Africa say about heterosexuality due to the heterosexual AIDS epidemic there.

AVOR:..to the same plane for official endorsement and encouragement as the traditional family, ..
LDS4:Gays are no different than old or sterile heterosexual couples...neither can breed. There is no objective reason to deny them marriage.

Salt Lake City, UT

AVOR:Point is, you're never going to intellectually succeed in your argument by appealing to miscegenation, a completely irrelevant comparison about an actual physical trait-race-that doesn't change the traditional family structure. You need to make the case for why governments should endorse gay marriage as a unique benefit to society, to the same degree that traditional marriage has been shown repeatedly other thousands of years to benefit society.

LDS4:Easy. Traditional marriages raise kids. Gays do too. Denying them marriage harms those kids and families. There is a senior newlywed couple in my ward who will be NOT producing kids. Why should they be granted marriage when they aren't benefitting society? Why grant marriage to straight couples who purposely don't have kids? You want to grant marriage people unable or unwilling to produce kids and deny it to homosexual couples raising kids? How does THAT make sense? That hurts innocent kids. So much for being pro-family.

Denying gays marriage is EXACTLY like denying interracial couples marriages. Both are based on subjective prejudice rather than objective facts. That is inescapable.

Voice of Reason
Layton, UT


With all due respect, I’m not sure how you can call yourself LDS without a massive case of cognitive dissonance, since the Church is unequivocally opposed to gay marriage. And stop with the sinister comparisons to racism; you know very well that gender is legitimately treated differently in ways that race is not. If you really think the comparison’s apt, then why aren’t you up in arms about separate men & women’s restrooms, dressing rooms, etc.? These were also relics of the Jim Crow era. Recognizing the unique natures of men & women, and their natural heterosexual state, is hardly the same as racism else we’d all be no better than racists every day. It’s simply a cynical, dishonest debate tactic used by gay activists to scare people into not using their brains, one that's contested by observable reality.

And this isn’t about “denying” marriage, it’s about preserving the institution of traditional marriage in society. And if you’re not for that, then you’re due for an enlightening discussion with Heavenly Father on the subject as a practicing LDS.

Salt Lake City, UT

AVOR:With all due respect, I’m not sure how you can call yourself LDS without a massive case of cognitive dissonance, since the Church is unequivocally opposed to gay marriage.

LDS4:I agree SSM violates LDS doctrine. We LDS should oppose performing such in our temples and chapels. Denying the legal rights of marriage to gays, especially regarding Prop.8, is contrary to scripture. The Church/prophet isn’t always right. The 18 mo. mission term for elders was a mistake that was quickly dumped. Pres. Benson said that Paul meant in 1Thes.5:22 to avoid doing things that seemed/appeared to be evil. The Bible footnotes, and every other translation (English and non) show that he really exhorted to avoid all forms/manifestations of evil. Benson was wrong. President JFieldingSmith wrote that men would never travel to the moon.

Regarding separate restrooms, those physically protect women/girls. These have nothing to do with legal rights. We don’t have different tax rates or speed limits for women. Gender is not an objective reason to deny equal rights.

Why didn’t you address my points about kids or AIDS?

to comment

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