Quantcast

Comments about ‘Keeping families intact can help the country steer away from disaster’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, March 24 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Really???
Kearns, UT

I absolutely agree. The best home for children is a home with two parents who are in a caring, committed relationship. Maybe it is time we allow gay marriage so that more children can be in the two-parent families that they deserve.

Maudine
SLC, UT

Allowing same-sex marriage will increase the number of stable homes with married parents raising children.

When looking at children being raised by same-sex parents, it is important to accurately define the situation. The choice for children in same-sex parent headed households is not same-sex parents or opposite-sex parents - the choice is married parents or unmarried parents. Most same-sex couples with children know the importance of gender appropriate role-models for their children and provide opportunities for mentoring relationships.

Liberals have long recognized the importance of marriage to stable societies - which is why Liberals have long supported same-sex marriage.

As for the findings of the Regnerus Study, before anyone decides to use that as an argument against same-sex marriage, I suggest you read what Regnerus actually concludes about that study and same-sex marriage.

SLars
Provo, UT

I don't believe in same sex marriage, but I think you need a different argument. I know many instances of a single parent being better for a child than keeping a dysfunctional family together.

As a single parent that has raised my fine upstanding children into responsible adults, I resent the implications of this article.

trytobereasonable
Salt Lake City, UT

I donn't know why I even read the dnews anymore. It isn't news or even relevant opinion; just an outlet to promote LDS teachings. What does that even mean that our ancestors instinctively knew? This opinion focuses on correlations, not causal relationships. Until the difference is understood, real change won't be possible.

10CC
Bountiful, UT

Pertinent editorial. My sense is that while many may see gay marriage as a culprit in breaking down the family, the roots are far deeper, and they've been growing for some time.

As a nation we've thrived via taxation for public education. There's a major inconsistency in how education for young children is viewed, vs other governmental programs. Nobody is vilified for sending their young kids to school, even though as younger adults they can't afford their education costs directly. This program works, and works well.

Similarly, we need to stop the demonization of citizens who benefit from other social spending. Better yet, we need to mask the direct payments of governmental assistance and have those benefits applied via indirect means.

There should be no shame in a young father who is underemployed trying to be the father his kids need. Kids don't need to self-stigmatize as they interact with other kids, thinking their dad is a loser.

We need to detoxify our society from this demonization, while buttressing the American Dream and our historic work ethic.

This is particularly important as our economic system increasingly assigns winners & losers much more sharply.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

I think the reason I liked math in school was because all the teachers followed the same logic to arrive and the answer.

In terms of personal success and happiness in this world, it’s hard to find two or more people who have the same logic. It seems that when someone is telling others what to do, they have an ulterior motive of asking for the action that most benefits the teller.

The family, because of it’s inborn instinct to favor it’s own, is often deemed to be the best way to start on the road of life. It is logical to think that the desire to help their own will override any ulterior motives of the parents. But, the family is a dictatorship. And even if the family is a benevolent dictatorship, that fact holds true.

From other quarters of our world comes the council and teaching that the individual must be his own man and not depend on others. Associations are discouraged as evil forces that would take away the persons freedom and rights. Gangs, cartels, conspiracies and that most vilified workers union are shunned and sometimes violently discouraged.

isrred
South Jordan, UT

When you tell gay couples that marriage isn't that big of a deal, so it's ok that you discriminate against them and don't give them access to it--the message you send to everyone else is "marriage isn't that important because not everybody needs it". You have been shooting yourselves in your own foot for decades now.

JSB
Sugar City, ID

I fail to see how same sex marriages will do anything but further destabilize the traditional family. It will open the door to more strange relationships such as a mother and her son, two men and three women, etc. etc, etc. Gay parents cannot provide the ideal of both a masculine and feminine role model in the lives of the children. If we want a society of well adjusted children who grow up to be responsible and wise citizens with strong character, then we had better get back to the traditional family of father, mother and their children.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

If the traditional family of a man and woman could guarantee the upbringing of children to be desirable adults in this world, it would win out every time. But the fact is that it can’t. And the problems associated with same sex marriages is only a part of the reason it is failing more and more.

The master/slave relationship between parents and children has been weakened and sometimes destroyed by the technology and the explosion of contacts with people outside the family. In order to regain and maintain their guidance over their wards, They need to be more intelligent, logical and wise, rather than relying on brute force to cover up their weaknesses.

I support the notion that marriage between a man and a woman is the best choice for parents because of the availability of the knowledge and wisdom from having both male and female parents.

I don’t care what adults do with their lives, but I suffer pain when I see or even think I see children being deprived of their portion of the good life.

Emajor_
Ogden, UT

JSB,
"I fail to see how same sex marriages will do anything but further destabilize the traditional family. It will open the door to more strange relationships such as a mother and her son"

That made me chuckle. Gay marriage opponents want "one man one woman". Unfortunately, "mother and her son" falls perfectly into that category. This is why you don't rely on slippery slope arguments.

This fearmongering campaign over gay marriages destroying traditional ones is completely ridiculous, particularly when considering how tiny of a minority of marriages this will amount to. Your marriage is safe. And there are many bigger quantifiable problems for children besides whether they have two moms or two dads.

Emajor_
Ogden, UT

Now that I've read the editorial, I'm not sure how this got turned into another gay marriage debate and why the editorial board decided to conflate two separate issues. The study results cited by the editors didn't address gender roles of parents or the effectiveness of same sex couples in raising children. It addressed the disparity between committed heterosexual couples and failed heterosexual couples.

The editors ran with the study conclusions and stated "The study makes it abundantly clear that marriage is a social good". No, it makes it clear that committed stable households are a social good. To some that is a minor distinction but it shows the editors letting their bias get in the way of proper analysis. As does this: "That, as our ancestors instinctively knew, is the only logical course away from disaster". Scratching my head on that one. Some of our ancestors "instinctively knew" that mixed race marriages were wrong. or that polygamy was right.

Speaking of "pushing the magnetized needle round until it points to where we wish the North Star stood".

KanataHal
Ottawa, 00

I find some lack of clarity where the author is challenging the subsidizing of 'uneducated' young men. How did the 'less educated' being talked about earlier in the article suddenly become 'uneducated'? This reveals a very strong bias that is not supported by the argument. Would like to also suggest that a child from a small, single parent family might have better educational chances than the tenth child from a traditional family, where the funds are not available to send every child to college or university. That being said, I still would not trade my traditional upbringing for the new reality of our more modern and less spiritual world.

samhill
Salt Lake City, UT

As several of the responses here shows, the effort to push the compass needle somewhere other than North is a persistent one. And, one not much influenced by reason.

It's a sad truth that there is none so blind as s/he who will not see.

Sadly, with the inevitable effects of a continued breakdown in the family structure, there will be ever more blind people.

to comment

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