OK. I think I've read and re-read these arguments enough. We're
asking the wrong question entirely here, every time this comes up. In the United States, we no longer have laws against basic associations. You
can set up house with any other consenting adult you care to set up house with.
Even SLC passed their equal housing ordinance not long ago.The
question we should be asking, which no one seems to bother asking, is WHY in the
world should I be required to register my partnership, of any kind, with the
government? To quote CS Lewis from Shadowlands, "A marriage is a
declaration before God, not some government official." What compelling
interest does the government have in registering marriages? It's not a
question of whether you have a "right" to associate or cohabit. Why
should the government force you to fill out paperwork about it.
@cjbYou can't make a sound argument with the word
"ought" unless you can back up your "oughts" with facts. And
there's no facts that say children raised by gays have a disadvantage of
children raised by straights, not as long as the home is loving, nourishing and
supportive.As for your statement that "heterosexual couples
can't adopt for lack of available children," surely you must be joking.
There are more than enough (too many, in fact) children waiting to be adopted,
both in the USA and internationally. You can't seriously be implying that
gays are *competing* with straights for a limited number of adoptees???
@EWthat is interesting, would you please site your sources? i would like
to read them.
@ spring street, actually the study you cite used well-to-do homosexual couples
only, not ones reflective of the population at large, nor did those studies ask
the grown children directly about their well-being. Someone did one of those
studies during the past few years and found that yes, traditional marriage
produces the most stable offspring by interviewing both homosexual parents and
@jansanInteresting that you would openly question others faith.
JanSanPocatello, IDAt the time that I read these comments there were
17 of them.Remembering that this is an LDS newspaper written for generally
LDS people, It was interesting to note that out of the 17 comments 11 1/2 of
them were against LDS doctrine on this subject.========= Interesting....The LDS Church supported anti-discrimination laws
directed toward the LGBT community.The GOP members of the Utah State
Legislature (many LDS) -- shot them down, against the suggestion of the
Brethern, and claimed "religion" was their motive to continue their laws
of bigotry.Who do I believe?The Brethern/sisters in LDS
leadership?orUtah Mormons, their culture, and the Republican
Party?The LDS church has good gay and lesbian members.I love
them, and respenct them even more than those who are so-called
'normal'.They have the deck stacked against them, yet still keep
their faith.Perhaps - once again - it is the "members" and
the "culture" who are wrong, and are not following the council or are
not in harmony of the teachings of the Church.
@lostWhere in any navigate law is it required that you be able to
procreate? Whee in science or the law does it say you must be married to
procreate? Why does it matter if a couple uses outside help to procreate? where
is the socital interest? However Race and sexuality are related because both
have been used to systematically discriminate against a segment of society for
no logo are reason.
@lost;Still wandering around in the dark? Would you like a little
light? All you have to do is ask.
@Lost in DCYou wrote:"Just because someone cannot find the
person they want to marry does not mean they do not have the right to
marry"Conversely, if you find the person you want to marry and
this person reciprocates the feeling and the desire to marry you. Shouldn't
you be able to marry? Why "your" religious taboos should have an impact
in secular society?That is the situation here. Adult, responsible
citizens find each other, yet, they are prevented from marrying each other.
While at the same time other adults, responsible citizens are able to join their
lives in an agreement sanctioned by society. That is not equal under the law.Lost in DC, you have the right to believe whatever you want to believe,
But the SCOTUS needs and will re-affirm that your believes do not impose a form
of tyranny on a minority.Lost in DC, I hope you feel free and happy
to join the one you love. I wish I could feel the same.
@JanSanYou wrote: "I think that it is really sad that an LDS person
cannot even come to and LDS newspaper and not have deal with religious
persecution"Religious persecution? What are you talking about?.
Difference of opinions constitutes ...Persecution? You must have a fragile
concept of self.You wrote:"Remembering that this is an LDS
newspaper written for generally LDS people, It was interesting to note that out
of the 17 comments 11 1/2 of them were against LDS doctrine on this
subject"I can assure you that most of our names are registered
and counted by the LDS church when releases their statistics in number of
members of the Church.
At the time that I read these comments there were 17 of them.Remembering
that this is an LDS newspaper written for generally LDS people, It was
interesting to note that out of the 17 comments 11 1/2 of them were against LDS
doctrine on this subject.Just interesting to me that so many people
feel the need to get on this paper and put down our religion with so much
intent!I think that it is really sad that an LDS person cannot even
come to and LDS newspaper and not have deal with religious persecution.
Bacchus0902,Just because someone cannot find the person they want to marry
does not mean they do not have the right to marry. I do not want to smoke, but
that does not mean I do not have the right to smoke.What you want to
do and what you have the right to do are not always the same thing. Some want
to steal, some don’t, but as long as the same rules apply to all, (NO ONE
can steal) EVERYONE is being treated equally.Tolstoy,If you
cannot tell the difference between race and gender, you need a remedial biology
class. What percent of self-contained homosexual relationships are capable of
procreation? ZERO. What percent of self-contained interracial relationships are
capable of procreation? The societal interest argument is from the
religion act signed by Clinton that gives congress the power to deny religious
rights if there is a compelling national interest. The 1st amendment does NOT
say, “congress shall make no laws concerning the establishment of religion
unless there is a compelling national interest”LDS?lib,See the first comment to Tolstoy, but in addition to “interracial”
@LDS Liberal,Your lack of a logical response again shows my point is
valid. Thank you.and what is with "Morman"?I would have thought a Mormon knew how to spell Mormon.But
then again, we all know you aren't a MormOn.
lost in DCWest Jordan, UTChris BSalt Lake City, UT===========Your logic as to who can marry who, only, and
"if" are about as lame as saying -- A Jew can only
marry a Jew,A Catholic only a Catholic,A Mormon only a Morman, A Black only a Black,An Asian only an Asian, A male only a female,
It might be taught that way in church, or in the home, but it
doesn't even come close to passing legal constitutional muster.
@ Chris B.Is this your best argument against SSM?May be
common sense is a not as common as people say.
Really Chris? You just embarrass yourself with such comments. Give us one
ligitimate state or societal interest for blocking gay marriage.
Everyone has equal rights. You can marry a consenting adult of the opposite
gender.It's not true to say that everyone but gays can marry
who they want to.A man cannot marry his brother.Nor his
father.Nor his pet rock.Even if he wants to.Is this discrimination?No, just common sense.
@lostAgain lost this the EXACT same failed logic used to try to justify
not allowing interracial marriage. If you have any actual evidence to support an
actual ligitimate state or societal interest in not allowing same sex marriage
please present it.
No matter how you justify, it has been,and will always be wrong.
Voting on someone else's rights puts your own at risk because you set a
precedent that the rights of others are optional, which makes your own rights
optional.That is not America.
Dear Lost:You wrote: "find someone of the opposite sex of legal age
who is not already married, and you can marry them"Hopefully you
mean Him or her intestad of "them"It really bothers me to
state the obvious, but, I guess sometimes it may be necessary.The
LDS church has a large number of single members, heterosexual members, many of
them wanting desperately to get married . However, they don't seem to find
the right person. Why? You know the answer, because they don't seem to find
the person that their hearts wants. Marriage is more than sex.
Marriage is about love, commitment, friendship, similar interests, etc. etc. sex
and gender are only two components.Lost, why are you against SSM?
How SSM affects you personally? If it is for religious reasons...Then,
shouldn't be a personal choice?If you answer me these
questions, I may understand you and others better. Thank you for your clear and
the same marriage rules that apply to heterosexuals apply to homosexuals. find someone of the opposite sex of legal age who is not already
married, and you can marry them.Since the same rules apply, there is
no discrimination and no one is being denied any rights.
How many children have two homosexual parents ever created together in the
history of the world?ZeroMother nature has spokenAnd I agree
A better argument is that children ought to have a mother and a father, and same
sex relationships called marriage (or not) should not lead to adoption of
children by such couples, especially when heterosexual couples can't adopt
for lack of available children. - cjb Lack of available children?
Unless there are 'zero' every child needs parents. And, I am pretty sure gay couples do not have accidental children. As for any implication that gay parents somehow bring 'harm'
to unwanted children of heterosexual couples, that has alos been disproven. By the American Academy of Pediatrics. Here is the date,
title, source, volume and page number: "In most ways, the
accumulated research shows, children of same-sex parents are not markedly
different from those of heterosexual parents." - AMERICAN
ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS (AAP) - 'Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by
Same-Sex Parents' - POLICY STATEMENT - PEDIATRICS Vol. 109 No. 2 February
2002, pp. 339-340 - Pulished: 02/01/10
@cjbsorry but as has been pointed out to you before your claims about
children are blatantly false. A short search of the research including a 20
longitudinal study by NYU shows that children raised by homosexual couples
suffer no ill effects and function on the same level as those raised by
heterosexual couples. its time for you to drop this lie it has not and will not
work in any court of law and has lost its footing in the court of public
The argument against same sex marriage is that it somehow hurts traditional
marriages. I don't see the link. - cjb I agree.
There is, no evidence of the 'harm' gay marriage brings America.... almost a decade later. **'After 5 Years of Legal Gay
Marriage, Massachusetts still has the lowest state divorce rate...' - Bruce
Wilson - AlterNet - 08/24/09Line:'Massachusetts retains
the national title as the lowest divorce rate state, and the MA divorce rate is
about where the US divorce rate was in 1940, prior to the Japanese bombing of
Pearl Harbor.' Massachusetts was the first state to legalize
gay marriage in 2004. For any factual evidence against gay
marriage, please cite date, author and source. I would love to read
O K I'll say it Mandate. There
Evidently the shift between the rejection of gay marriage to the acceptance of
gay marriage has sped up over time. I mean within a 4 year time span the shift
has grown largely and even organizations who once supported the ban of gay
marriage has now weakened their stance on it. Although they may not fully
support the action of gay marriage they no longer fully oppose. I don't
understand why the nation continues to prolong what is inevitably going to
occur...and that is that gay marriage will be legalized.
Correction: "heterosexual couples can't adopt for lack of available
[healthy, white infant] children."
The argument against same sex marriage is that it somehow hurts traditional
marriages. I don't see the link.A better argument is that
children ought to have a mother and a father, and same sex relationships called
marriage (or not) should not lead to adoption of children by such couples,
especially when heterosexual couples can't adopt for lack of available
"Victory" will be the legalisation of same sex marriage. Let's get
it done' we've got way more important things that should be 'the