Comments about ‘In our opinion: Search for individual fulfillment has costs for both singles and families’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, Feb. 2 2013 6:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Maudine
SLC, UT

If you want more people to get married, than stop telling people that marriage is unnecessary or that only certain types of families need or should be allowed to marry.

Every benefit provided by a married heterosexual couple is provided by a married same-sex couple - including having and raising children.

Every argument used to prohibit or discourage same-sex marriages works equally well to discourage heterosexual marriages. And while prohibiting same-sex marriage keeps couples in same-sex relationships from marrying, that is all it prevents - it does not keep the relationships from forming, it does not prevent them having kids, it does not prevent them living in your neighborhood, attending your church, or sending their kids to your kids' schools.

By not allowing same-sex couples to marry, you are not only denying them and their children the benefits of marriage, you are denying those benefits to society and sending the message that marriage is unnecessary.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

We're individuals first, the building blocks of society and a family, if we choose. It is not, however, weird or wrong to choose not to form a family. It's a big decision that requires a lot of consideration, and thankfully one people are not making based solely on religion anymore.

Pops
NORTH SALT LAKE, UT

It is not weird or wrong to choose not to form a family. The point is that it is unnatural and leads to our demise individually and collectively. The same can be said of other aberrations, such as same-sex "marriage". We have a model that has worked for thousands of years and got us where we are today. Why are we messing with it?

We enjoy a wonderful standard of living in this state and in this nation. Even our poor are rich by historical standards. What got us here? A large part of it was the baby boom, as human beings are the most valuable natural resource.

John C. C.
Payson, UT

We think we're so smart because we have electricity and space travel. Yet we ignore our Creator and think we can change family norms to what seems pleasing to our own short-sighted interests. When families deteriorate, so will society. Unless the United States and our fellow developed nations acknowledge our debt to traditional religious moral standards we will lose power to other nations who haven't forgotten them. If we have no children we have no future. If we have children without stable home lives we still have no future. Promiscuity precludes any possibility of a stable home life.

John Charity Spring
Back Home in Davis County, UT

Victor Hugo once said, "Human meditation has no limits. At its own risk and peril, it analyzes and digs deep into its own bedazzlement. "

That is exactly the problem here. Rather than listening to thousands of years of history which prove that marriage is an essential institution for a strong society, the left-wing has sought to bedazzle itself with its own theories. These poppycockish theories are decidedly anti-marriage, and are decidedly wrong.

But that is what the left wants: the destruction of marriage and family. Then, the population will have no one to turn to but the government, which in turn gives the left more power.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

John Charity Spring,

7 billion humans on earth.

Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for almost a decade.

The reason backers of traditional marriage are loosing the fight is because they have to fabricate things.

Your claim is disproven.

Copy Cat
Murray, UT

Maudine

"Every benefit provided by a married heterosexual couple is provided by a married same-sex couple - including having and raising children."

Homosexual sex does not produce children, ever! Society does not deny homosexual couples the ability to have children. It is a law of nature. That law was in place long before any society formed.

What you are suggesting is that these people are broken and society needs to find a way to fix that. I say it is not society's role to fix that. I suggest instead that we honor their choice to engage in relations that do not produce children.

The point of this article is that many are choosing not to spend their precious time and money on marrying and raising a family, in order to seek personal fulfillment in their life, and what they are finding is that they are coming feeling empty, while those who have gone the family route are far more personally fulfilled.

It is an important piece of information for our young people, who are making life decisions, to have.

Great article!

Really???
Kearns, UT

What about the hundreds of thousands of citizens who would like to get married and have children but are denied that by their state government? It's a bit disingenuous to focus so much on the decline in marriage rates while at the same time calling on a marriage ban for those who actually want to get married and start families.

We reap what we sow. If we tell one group that they don't need--even deserve--marriage, others will listen. If you want to save and revive marriage, open it up to any two adults who chose to be in a committed relationship.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

I guess I still don't get if there are thousands of years of experience with one man and one woman committed, child producing, God sanctioned marriages as our successful model, why Joseph Smith and Brigham Young tried to change that model.

Question; how many people are we really talking about here. How many people actually choose to remain single their entire lives..or is the article actually just exaggerating a tiny group to push the world is getting more morally corrupt agenda?

Andrew
American Fork, UT

Selfishness is destructive and tends to the ruin of one's life over time. I think that is the point of the article. That seems pretty straightforward to me. If we share our lives with others including raising a family we and society will be better off in the long run. I am a much better person since I have been married and raised children.
I think if we see the value in other people and our interactions as more than functional but genuine we will be happier.

FWIW. The article is not about gay marriage.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

When we have 7 billion people living on a relatively small planet of scarce resources, am I the only one that thinks single (or married) people choosing to not to have children is not only NOT a problem, but may actually be part of the solution?

Liberal Today
Murray, UT

Maudine

"Every benefit provided by a married heterosexual couple is provided by a married same-sex couple - including having and raising children."

Whether you believe in God, evolution, or mother nature, you must surely realize that NO CHILD has ever been conceived from a HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIP!

Society hasn't made that choice; it is natural law of this world.

I don't think it is man's job to overturn any of the laws of nature, from gravity to child conception or anything in between.

Furthermore, you claim to be standing up for people who are homosexual, but it reality you are declaring that they are broken by their inability to conceive children, and that it is society's job to fix their brokenness. You are wrong on both counts.

Respect would dictate that if people choose a partner with which they know that they will never have children, we honor their choice to not have children, and not tell them they are broken and need fixing.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

“The great error of the last 50 years is that conservatives think that they should unthinkingly endorse laissez-faire economics, but as presently conceived the free market destroys most of the things conservatives value; it destroys traditions, family life, societies, cultures, and established ways of doing things. The market place, as understood by contemporary neo-liberalism, is something no genuine conservative should support or endorse.”--Phillip Blond, conservative British author (Brits use the term neo-liberalism to describe conservative economic policies)

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "It is not, however, weird or wrong to choose not to form a family."

Yeah, it is. Both weird and wrong.

It's selfish and contrary to the natural order of the universe. It has negative consequences for both the individual and for society.

An actual choice is not offered to some, and God is mindful of their hearts and desires. But to CHOOSE to limit oneself to a selfish, solitary life is just wrong.

Mukkake
Salt Lake City, UT

Andrew:
[The article is not about gay marriage.]

It's about the rising number of singles. Some are heterosexuals who choose not to marry, some are homosexuals who wouldn't choose to marry, but some are homosexuals who would choose to marry, if they were allowed.

If the goal of this article is to encourage marriage, then all 3 groups need to be looked at. There are probably a bunch of reasons why some gays and straights don't want to marry, but there is really only one reason why gays who want to marry aren't: the law. So we could quickly increase the number of married adults if we allowed gay marriage.

Liberal Today:
[NO CHILD has ever been conceived from a HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIP!]

But plenty are conceived in homosexual relationships, by use of a surrogate.

Do you deny the validity of the straight families who use surrogates or adopt, do to infertility? If not, than why is a straight couple using adoption/surrogacy anymore valid than a homosexual couple doing the same?

donahoe
NSL, UT

Look at the data provided in Table 133 online from "U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics Reports (NVSR), Births, Marriages, Divorces, and Deaths: Provisional Data for 2009, Vol. 58, No. 25, August 2010":

US divorce rate is 3.4 per 1000 mariages.
Utah is higher at 3.6; Idaho is 5.0; Wyoing is 5.2; Nevada is 6.7.

Massachussets is only 2.2.

Why this difference? It is primarilly due to better jobs in the blue states.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@procuradorfiscal
You're doing a good job of explaining why Utah is #1 in the nation for anti-depressant usage. In a state where LDS women outnumber men 3:2 in the 20-40 year old demographic, it's really no surprise that hearing a constant barrage of people like you suggesting there's something wrong with being single could lead to issues.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: ". . . a constant barrage of people like you . . . ."

You're not related to my youngest son, are you?

Mukkake
Salt Lake City, UT

procuradorfiscal:
[Re: ". . . a constant barrage of people like you . . . ."

You're not related to my youngest son, are you?]

Well, in your son's defense, you're obviously the kind of guy who will take any opportunity to disparage him, even anonymously on a message board.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Coming from the "Virtue of selfishness" crowd, and the "I built this by myself" business mantra of the neocons it seems a bit hollow to call single people "selfish."

Those attacking others who choose not to breed simply because they can, doesn't make any sense.

Both weird and wrong, is believing that "God has blessed us so much that we can't afford to feed you any more."

to comment

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