Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: If marriage has many benefits, why not extend benefits to all?

Comments

Return To Article
  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 18, 2013 10:15 a.m.

    @cjb
    "Personally I don't have a problem with this .. except ... gay couples should not adopt children. Children should have a mother and a father."

    You do realize Utah allows single people (gay or straight) to adopt children, right?

  • 2plainbrownwrappers Nashville, TN
    April 17, 2013 8:37 p.m.

    @wrz --

    "There's nothing in the US Constitution about marriage."

    I was referring to the constitutionality of polygamy bans. That's the issue the Supreme Court of BC was addressing when they enumerated the harms of polygamy.

    Also, the SCOTUS decision in Loving v. Virginia declared:

    "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man'....To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. "

    Just substitute "orientation" for "race", and it will apply perfectly to our debate.

    "Equal rights for women is a function of the laws of the countries."

    Yes, laws and culture. My challenge stands.

    "It ain't gonna happen."

    It has **already** happened in several countries, and in several states.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    April 17, 2013 8:16 p.m.

    @wendell:
    "Since you seem so gung ho on gay men marrying straight women, how would you feel if a gay man asked if they could marry your daughter?"

    It would be fine with me... if I had a daughter... and if he was faithful to the commitment of marriage.

    "Don't I deserve to fully be with the person I love, just as you are?"

    Who's saying you can't? And I'd bet you currently are. But, if you want the legal benefits accorded the married, you need to comply with the rules... as I said, by marrying someone of the opposite sex. It's not rocket science.

    @2plainbrownwrappers:
    "Facts are facts, no matter who states them. And it's the Supreme Courts who determine constitutionality, not psychologists."

    There's nothing in the US Constitution about marriage.

    "I challenge you to find any society in this world where equal rights for women co-exists with widespread polygamy."

    Equal rights for women is a function of the laws of the countries.

    "Sorry, but wishful thinking isn't the same thing as reality."

    Then stop wishing for same-sex marriage. It ain't gonna happen.

  • 2plainbrownwrappers Nashville, TN
    April 17, 2013 7:56 a.m.

    @wrz --

    "All rights available via marriage are available to homosexuals... The only criteria, and it applies to all, marry someone of the opposite sex."

    **All rights available via marriage are available to blacks... The only criteria, and it applies to all, marry someone of your own race.**

    That argument didn't work in Loving v. Virginia, and it doesn't work here.

    "Supreme courts are generally full of lawyers... not psychologists."

    Facts are facts, no matter who states them. And it's the Supreme Courts who determine constitutionality, not psychologists.

    "The one religion in the mid-east that brings harm to their plural wives does so based on religious teachings."

    So what? Groups from all the major religions -- Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, etc. -- have practiced polygamy. It's not any one specific religion that leads these sects to oppress their wives.

    I challenge you to find any society in this world where equal rights for women co-exists with widespread polygamy.

    "On the contrary... It creates something of a committee where problems are worked out in a round-table type discussion... "

    Sorry, but wishful thinking isn't the same thing as reality.

  • wendell provo, UT
    April 17, 2013 7:54 a.m.

    @wrz:
    "All rights available via marriage are available to homosexuals... The only criteria, and it applies to all, marry someone of the opposite sex. Voila! the benefits suddenly materialize"

    Since you seem so gung ho on gay men marrying straight women, how would you feel if a gay man asked if they could marry your daughter? Why not ask my ex-wife, and the ex-wives of the many (truly hundreds in Utah alone) other gay men who married women, how that worked out for them?

    I am very happy that you, with your heterosexual feelings, would be able to feel validated and complete by marrying someone of the opposite sex, but not everyone is. I am physically, emotionally, and intellectually attracted to a person who happens to be of the same gender as myself. Don't I deserve to fully be with the person I love, just as you are?

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    April 17, 2013 12:44 a.m.

    @wendell:
    "Which specific rights, that were afforded to you by getting married, do you not want me to have?"

    All rights available via marriage are available to homosexuals... The only criteria, and it applies to all, marry someone of the opposite sex. Voila! the benefits suddenly materialize.

    @plainbrownwrapper
    "As the Supreme Court of BC pointed out..."

    Supreme courts are generally full of lawyers... not psychologists.

    "Several different religions practice polygamy."

    The one religion in the mid-east that brings harm to their plural wives does so based on religious teachings. They treat the infidel (to who they are not married I might add) with the same contempt. It's not the number of wives... It's the religion.

    "The combination of gender inequality with polygamy creates a high risk of abuse."

    On the contrary... It creates something of a committee where problems are worked out in a round-table type discussion... and much more satisfactorily than a one-on-one monogamous relationship.

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    April 16, 2013 8:27 p.m.

    @Rikitikitavi --

    "SSM has the undeniable outcome of messing up generations of our youth (namely my grandchildren). "

    Who says??

    I deny it.

    All the groups of child-development experts who have already endorsed gay marriage deny it.

    All the supporters of gay marriage -- now more than 50% of the US population according to multiple recent polls, which includes many religious people -- deny it.

    All of the religious denominations that already perform gay church wedding ceremonies deny it.

    I guess your claim IS deniable after all!

    If you expect anyone to take your claim seriously, you're going to have to come up with some actual evidence to back it up. But I'll warn you in advance that nobody has been able to find any hard evidence to support your claim so far. It'll be a big challenge for you. But go ahead, give it a shot.

    In the meantime -- I continue to thank God that we live in a Constitutional Democracy, and not a theocracy.

  • Rikitikitavi Cardston, Alberta
    April 16, 2013 8:04 p.m.

    @Gab
    Where do you get off with this "hate you" rhetoric? I simply refuse to stand idly by and let the GLBT crowd totally undermine the moral fabric of our society. SSM has the undeniable outcome of messing up generations of our youth (namely my grandchildren). I clearly understand you disagree with Biblical portrayals such as Sodom and Gomorrah. That is your choice. I plan to stand firm on Biblical teachings! No more infiltration of GLBT rhetoric into school curriculum etc.

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    April 16, 2013 2:00 p.m.

    @Red --

    "but you do need to explain how polygamy effects women and children."

    Nope. I just need to know that it causes harm. And we already know that it does (see earlier posts).

    "what is the harm..."

    As the Supreme Court of BC pointed out, "women in polygamous relationships faced higher rates of domestic, physical and sexual abuse, died younger and were more prone to mental illnesses. Children from those marriages...were more likely to be abused and neglected, less likely to perform well at school and often suffered from emotional and behavioral problems."

    Those are serious harms.

    "are you unable to respond without bringing in the religion of the abusers into the argument?"

    Several different religions practice polygamy. The uniting factor is that they all occur in societies in which the oppression of women is widespread.

    The combination of gender inequality with polygamy creates a high risk of abuse. I don't need to know which religion a polygamous man practices to know that his wives and children are at a high risk -- I only have to look at the data that is already available to us from multiple religions and multiple societies.

  • wendell provo, UT
    April 16, 2013 1:32 p.m.

    I have a question to those of you that do not support the marriage equality movement:

    Which specific rights, that were afforded to you by getting married, do you not want me to have?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 16, 2013 1:29 p.m.

    To "plainbrownwrapper" but you do need to explain how polygamy effects women and children. That is something that you cannot do without going into the religion that is actually causing the damage.

    In the countries where polygamy is accepted, is it the religion that oppresses or is it the fact that a man is married to more than 1 woman? I would counter your claims with the fact that many of the women in those other countries WANT their husbands to have a second wife so that they can have some more mature help caring for the family.

    Taking religion out of the picture, what is the harm of having a family where there are multiple women available for caring for the child or adding income to the family?

    Actually the cause is the core of the matter, just like when a person crashes a car. Did he crash because the car had problems or was the driver drunk?

    Are you going to answer the question, or are you unable to respond without bringing in the religion of the abusers into the argument?

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    April 16, 2013 11:37 a.m.

    @Red --

    "you are twisting words."

    Nope. I said nobody is born a polygamist. That's still true.

    "a majority of men would do this if it was accepted by society."

    Right. Your own words: **a majority of men**. If a **majority** want to do it, then this isn't an issue of discrimination against a minority.

    "You have yet to explain how polygamy hurts women and children."

    I don't need to explain "how" it hurts them, any more than I need to explain "how" alcohol affects one's ability to drive. Nonetheless, I have explained the general situation several times, in previous threads. It relates to women having less power in our society. You'll notice, for instance, that other countries in which polygamy is prevalent are all societies in which women are widely oppressed. Oppression and polygamy go together.

    "polygamy does not cause the problems."

    The combination of a drunken driver and a car results in a high risk of injury; the combination of a societal gender imbalance with the practice of polygamy results in a high risk of abuse.

    It doesn't matter which "caused" which -- it only matters that it's a dangerous combination.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 16, 2013 10:52 a.m.

    To "plainbrownwrapper" you are twisting words. I said that men are born with "polygamist tendancies", meaning that they are not polygamists but would seek out multiple females to mate with if allowed. I don't mean that all men, but a majority of men would do this if it was accepted by society.

    You have yet to explain how polygamy hurts women and children. So far you have only described how some religious groups hurt women using polygamy, but polygamy does not cause the problems.

    You are saying that cars are the source of problems with drunk driving.

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    April 16, 2013 8:19 a.m.

    @Red --

    "you are wrong."

    The term "polygamist" means "one who is married to more than one other person". Unless you can find a newborn infant who is already married, nope, I'm not wrong. Nobody is born married.

    " It is just a biological fact that if allowed, men will seek out multiple female partners."

    Ahhhh. As you note, this desire is shared by ALL men -- not some poor minority group being discriminated against. The reasons for outlawing polygamy, therefore, have nothing to do with discrimination -- and everything to do with the safety of women and children.

    ""if you look at many of the polygamist sects, the women are the ones who tell their husbands when and who they will take on as additional wives."

    "Many" of the sects isn't good enough.

    For comparison: "many" drunk drivers make it home safely without injuring anyone. Nonetheless, there is a high enough risk of accidents being caused by drunk drivers that driving drunk is illegal.

    Similarly, some polygamous families may be fine representations of egalitarianism. However, there is a high enough risk to women and children in polygamous relationships that polygamous marriages are illegal, and will remain so.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 16, 2013 7:35 a.m.

    To "Contrarius" you are wrong. Most men are born with polygamist tendancies. It is just a biological fact that if allowed, men will seek out multiple female partners.

    Actually the courts have proven nothing about polygamy. They have only shown that sects that treat women as little more than cattle to be assigned and traded at will harm the women in their groups. However, if you look at many of the polygamist sects, the women are the ones who tell their husbands when and who they will take on as additional wives.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    April 15, 2013 10:03 p.m.

    @wrz --

    "That would logically lead eventually to a myriad of other combinations of marriage"

    Repeating the same untruths won't make them true.

    "Guys can't give birth to babies"

    Many women also can't give birth to babies. So what?

    "Because it's baloney."

    Nope.

    Pedophilia and bestiality -- no ability to give informed consent. And no, consent can't be removed from our legal system.

    Polygamy -- endangerment of women and children, as noted by the BC Supreme Court.

    "Both are equally aberrational."

    Nope.

    1. Nobody is born a polygamist -- nobody is born married. In contrast, there are physical differences in brain structures of homosexuals compared to heterosexuals -- it's biological.

    2. Polygamy has proven, concrete, deleterious consequences for women and children, as described by the BC Supreme Court and demonstrated by polygamous sects that have been in US courts. In contrast, gay marriages have NO proven concrete deleterious consequences. National groups of child-development experts are speaking out in FAVOR of gay marriage. They recognize that gay parents are perfectly capable of successfully raising kids, and that the stability of marriage is GOOD for the hundreds of thousands of kids who are ALREADY being raised by gay parents in this country.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    April 15, 2013 9:33 p.m.

    @Lane Myer:
    "Show me how having gay marriage... as a privilege enjoyed by all would harm you..."

    You need to cast your analytical eye further down the road of human existence... Supposing gay marriage becomes legal. That would logically lead eventually to a myriad of other combinations of marriage (such as polygamy, incest, adult/child, etc.) to the point that marriage disappears off the face of the earth... hello planet of the apes.

    @Badgerbadger:
    "Gerbil??? LOL!"

    He loves his gerbil... It's all about who we love, is it not?

    @Contrarius:
    "A man doesn't have the right to marry a man, even though a woman **does** have that right."

    Guys can't give birth to babies, either. Talk about your brazen discrimination.

    "and you have been told those reasons many times already, even though you keep ignoring them."

    Because it's baloney.

    "There are good reasons why incest and pedophilia will never be encoded into marriage..."

    There may be, but they're all discriminatory.

    "As for polygamy, the Supreme Court of BC has already proven that courts are perfectly capable of telling the difference between gay marriage and polygamy."

    Both are equally aberrational.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    April 15, 2013 8:03 p.m.

    @wrz --

    "Marriage is extended to all... The only criteria is that marriage is between man and woman."

    *Marriage is extended to all... The only criteria is that marriage is between people of the same race.*

    That argument didn't work in Loving v. Virginia, and it doesn't work now.

    "If marriage goes beyond that combination there will be no end to the possible combinations..."

    Baloney.

    There are good reasons why incest and pedophilia will never be encoded into marriage -- and you have been told those reasons many times already, even though you keep ignoring them.

    As for polygamy, the Supreme Court of BC has already proven that courts are perfectly capable of telling the difference between gay marriage and polygamy.

    When a group of Canadian polygamists recently sued for marriage rights in Canada, Canada's ban on polygamy was reaffirmed as constitutional. The court's decision noted that "women in polygamous relationships faced higher rates of domestic, physical and sexual abuse, died younger and were more prone to mental illnesses. Children from those marriages, he said, were more likely to be abused and neglected, less likely to perform well at school and often suffered from emotional and behavioral problems."

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    April 15, 2013 7:08 p.m.

    "If marriage has many benefits, why not extend benefits to all?"

    What??? Marriage is extended to all... The only criteria is that marriage is between man and woman. If marriage goes beyond that combination there will be no end to the possible combinations... such as polygamy, mother/son, father/daughter, adults marrying children, groups of mixed sexes, you name it.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    April 15, 2013 4:53 p.m.

    @Sal;

    The sky is falling, the sky is falling...

    @Mike Richards & Clark Hippo;

    It is hypocritical in the extreme to demand that your version of belief in a god is the one that is legislated and demand that all others be ignored.

    My religious beliefs are such that god doesn't care who marries whom. The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that your religious views do not trump mine. If you are worried about religious freedom, take a good long look in the mirror.

    That is why god is irrelevant to the discussion; not everyone has the same views about god that you do.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 15, 2013 3:32 p.m.

    This letter is wrong. Marriage, as defined by US law, and all benefits are extended to all.

    What this letter and so many people are proposing is not extending benefits to all, but is a redefinition of marriage. What so many of them fail to recognize is that once this gate is opened, the LGBT community will go after religion. It is already a matter of fact that they are going after those businesses that don't accept gay marriage. How much longer until they go after churches for not bending to their will?

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    April 15, 2013 3:07 p.m.

    "Everyone has the same rights to marry in the United States, including gays and lesbians."

    Actually, no, they don't.

    A man doesn't have the right to marry a man, even though a woman **does** have that right. Similarly, a man has the right to marry a woman -- but a woman doesn't have the same right.

    That's gender discrimination.

    " A gay man has the same right to marry a woman that I do. A lesbian has the same right to marry a man as any woman does.In fact many do."

    A white man has the same right to marry a white woman as I do. A black woman has the same right to marry a black man as any black woman does.

    Do you see why that argument doesn't make any sense?

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    April 15, 2013 2:30 p.m.

    procuradorfiscal
    Tooele, UT

    "...We're talking here about marriage. And I qualified for that license by making an application, paying the proper fee, and meeting age, affinity, health, and gender legal requirements.

    Had I applied for a license to wed my sister, both my neighbor's daughters, my elders' quorum president, or my gerbil, I would have been properly denied."

    Gerbil??? LOL!

    But I so love my Gerbil!!! It is who I am, and I can't change that. Our children will be so cute!

    Thanks for helping me laugh and the insanity of some of these arguments for same-sex marriage.

  • American Boy American Fork, UT
    April 15, 2013 12:39 p.m.

    Everyone has the same rights to marry in the United States, including gays and lesbians. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman that I do. A lesbian has the same right to marry a man as any woman does.In fact many do.

  • The Skeptical Chymist SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    April 15, 2013 12:20 p.m.

    @Clark Hippo

    I would like to correct you on one point. You claim that "the federal government can step in and tell churches they must fund birth control." This is false. The government is telling church-owned businesses that they must provide insurance coverage for their employees that funds birth control. The churches themselves are under no such obligation. They would likewise tell a business owned by the Church of Christ, Scientist that they must cover the cost of needed blood transfusions for their employees as well. Do you object to that too?

    Regulations pertaining to the health and safety of employees are permitted in all civilized countries. The problem is that if a church wishes to be involved in a business, they need to be regulated as a business. If they are unwilling to do that, they should sell their business to someone who accepts that the government has the right to lay down laws as to how a business treats its employees.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    April 15, 2013 12:17 p.m.

    @ClarkHippo --

    "you ignored the majority of his argument."

    We're only allowed 200 words per post. :-)

    "they must fund birth control"

    This is a discussion about marriage, not birth control. I'm not going to waste my 200 words on a diversionary tactic. But if I did, my response would include a lot of facts about government funding and participation in government-related programs. Anything related to government can't discriminate.

    "I easily see a time, likely within the next five years, in which you will see same-sex couples file lawsuit after lawsuit and hold press conference after press conference demanding to be married either in Catholic, Southern Baptist or LDS Churches."

    You have the right to foresee anything you like. That doesn't mean it's actually likely.

    "For those who says this, go ahead and read Howard Chua-Eoan's Time Magazine article of June 26, 2011, entitled, "The Bittersweet Victory: Why Gay Marriage Still Isn't Marriage,""

    You should read it yourself.

    Here's a central statement from that article: "The state cannot force a church to change its beliefs. "

    The article doesn't actually support your argument at all.

    Now, how about addressing my rebuttals to Mike's post?

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    April 15, 2013 11:44 a.m.

    @amazondoc

    You said Mike Richard's argument fails on all counts, yet you ignored the majority of his argument.

    The fact that the federal government can step in and tell churches they must fund birth control is only the first step towards what only the most naive individuals can see.

    I easily see a time, likely within the next five years, in which you will see same-sex couples file lawsuit after lawsuit and hold press conference after press conference demanding to be married either in Catholic, Southern Baptist or LDS Churches.

    Of course, some will say, "That's ridiculous. No one will force churches to marry."

    For those who says this, go ahead and read Howard Chua-Eoan's Time Magazine article of June 26, 2011, entitled, "The Bittersweet Victory: Why Gay Marriage Still Isn't Marriage,"

    No doubt Howard's opinion that true marriage equality won't happen until all churches allow it (i.e. forced) is one shared by many, although they won't admit it.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    April 15, 2013 9:51 a.m.

    @Mike Richards --

    "Many people care about God and respect His definition of "marriage". Those people are insulted when 2.5% of the population demand that we throw out God's definition of marriage and substitute it with a counterfeit definition to appease those to whom God is irrelevant."

    1. LGBT folks make up roughly 3-5% of the US population, depending on which estimates you believe. In contrast, LDS members make up less than **2%** of the US population. Do you really want to start making arguments about discrimination based on a particular group's size??

    2. According to multiple recent surveys, more than **50%** of the US population now supports gay marriage -- many more than just the gay people themselves.

    3. Many gay people are religious. Quite a few are pastors or serve other religious functions. God is not irrelevant to them at all.

    4. Many religious people **support** gay marriage. They don't believe that gay marriage damages "God's" definition of marriage at all. Why does your interpretation of God win over theirs?

    5. Neither the US Constitution nor Federal or State laws protect you from being "insulted". Sorry about that.

    Your argument fails on all counts.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    April 15, 2013 9:34 a.m.

    Mike: "Those people are insulted when 2.5% of the population demand that we throw out God's definition of marriage and substitute it with a counterfeit definition to appease those to whom God is irrelevant."

    ===========

    I am so sorry, Mike, but NO ONE has a right to protect themselves from not being "insulted" by treating other Americans as "less than." Enjoying the benefits and privileges that you will not share with others because you feel "better than they are" is not an American principal that fits in our constitution.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    April 15, 2013 8:26 a.m.

    procuradorfiscal,

    Show me how having gay marriage (weird, minoritarian) as a privileges enjoyed by all would harm you or any other religious person. Show me how it has harmed those LDS members in Canada, Iowa, or the Netherlands. Prove to me that gays have caused harm by enjoying the same right of marriage in DC.

    I think it is pretty easy to show the harm that has come from NOT allowing gays to marry. Just the financial harm is tremendous.

    Why can't you treat gays as equal citizens? Are you that much better than they are that you deserve these privileges and benefits and these law-abiding, tax-paying gay citizens do not?

    Who is arrogant?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 15, 2013 8:19 a.m.

    Pretending that we live in a vacuum where government intervention into religion does not exist is a myth. Right now, today, government is forcing companies to provide "heath insurance" that pays for abortions and for birth control. Government is forcing companies owned and operated by religion institutions to provide those services.

    In every major religion, the sacrament of marriage predates the creation of the United States. Arguing that a secular definition of "marriage" does not harm anyone is disingenuous. Redefining any word that is recognized primarily in a religious context harms religion and those who align themselves with religion.

    Arguing that government will not force its "doctrine" onto religion ignores what government is already doing - forcing religious organizations to fund birth control and abortions.

    Arguing that God is not needed or wanted in marriage insults every person to whom God is paramount.

    Many people care about God and respect His definition of "marriage". Those people are insulted when 2.5% of the population demand that we throw out God's definition of marriage and substitute it with a counterfeit definition to appease those to whom God is irrelevant.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    April 15, 2013 7:28 a.m.

    @Pops --

    "The state offers certain perquisites to a couple and expects, in return, that the couple may reproduce"

    Unless you start declaring that infertile heterosexual couples aren't allowed to marry, this argument is baloney.

    "Gay unions do not produce children"

    Gay unions "produce" children in the same way that infertile straight couples do. More than 100,000 gay couples are **already** raising children in this country alone.

    "gay couples cannot provide appropriate gender roles for children"

    Multiple national groups of child-development experts have announced their support for gay marriages. They -- the **experts**, mind you -- realize that children grow up just fine in gay-run families.

    The AAP's position statement declares, in part: “There is an emerging consensus, based on extensive review of the scientific literature, that children growing up in households headed by gay men or lesbians are not disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents" and "Marriage strengthens families and benefits child development".

    Gay couples can offer just as much to society as infertile straight couples. If you want to dismiss the gay couples as supposedly offering "nothing" to society, you'll have to dismiss the others as well.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    April 15, 2013 6:43 a.m.

    Why not extend Marriage benefits to all?

    Personally I don't have a problem with this .. except ... gay couples should not adopt children. Children should have a mother and a father. Even better children should have a mother and a father who live with them and helps to raise them.

    What is wrong with giving gay people the legal benefits of marriage other than adoption, and other than calling it marriage, so that people don't in time confuse the issue and think that because gays are married they ought to adopt kids too?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    April 15, 2013 5:37 a.m.

    Christian 24-7

    @Ranch

    If you do not believe in God, why do you want His endorsement, called marriage, of your union?

    Go create a civil secular union to bypass the God you deny.

    But don't expect those of us who believe and worship appropriately to deny Him with you.

    ---

    Frankly I don't care who/what or where you worship. I don't seek "god's" endorsement; the "Civil" secular union we're seeking is called "Marriage"; you religious people don't hold a patent on the word.

    @Pops;

    The only threat to society from same-sex marriages is in the one in your head.

  • Sal Provo, UT
    April 14, 2013 11:04 p.m.

    I don't have a problem with Gay marriage. My problem is with God. He has through modern prophets said, no. My faith in God and my love for Him trump my love for my Gay friends and relatives. God is always right. When the majority supports what He says is wrong then His spirit begins to withdraw from the earth. It doesn't leave a vacuum. Natural catastrophes, violence, climate changes, and plagues increase.

    I'm sticking with God on this one; it's safer for all.

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    April 14, 2013 9:40 p.m.

    From the perspective of the state, marriage is a quid pro quo arrangement. The state offers certain perquisites to a couple and expects, in return, that the couple may reproduce, and, if so, will raise children in a safe and healthy environment such that society is preserved through the generations. Gay unions do not produce children, and gay couples cannot provide appropriate gender roles for children, thus the state hasn't, and shouldn't have, any interest in gay "marriage". If two men or two women desire to form a civil union, let them do so, but the legal burden rests with them, not the state, because, again, they offer nothing to the state, that the state desires, in return.

    Thinking that gay "marriage" will not have long-term harmful effects on society is somewhat like the two little boys lighting the dried june grass on fire, expecting that it will burn only so far and then somehow extinguish itself, when in reality it will consume the field, the forest, and the homes. Wishful thinking and good intentions are poor substitutes for reason.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    April 14, 2013 9:36 p.m.

    If you do not believe in God, why do you want His endorsement, called marriage, of your union?

    Who asked for that?

    LGBT simply want access to the 1,100+ legal rights and protections offered other Americans.

    Like tax breaks:

    'Gay Americans pay MORE taxes for FEWER rights' - By Suze Orman – CNN – 02/25/13

    'We all have 83-year-old Edith Windsor to thank for in pushing the issue of same-sex marriage equality on to the national front. Edie and her partner Thea were together for 40 years. How many marriages do you know that have lasted that long? But when Thea died in 2009, Edie was hit with a $363,000 federal estate tax bill because as a same-sex couple they were not eligible for the unlimited marital deduction. Are we really a nation that says it is fair and just to demand Edie pay a $363,000 penalty because she is gay?'

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    April 14, 2013 9:18 p.m.

    @Ranch

    If you do not believe in God, why do you want His endorsement, called marriage, of your union?

    Go create a civil secular union to bypass the God you deny.

    But don't expect those of us who believe and worship appropriately to deny Him with you.

  • The Skeptical Chymist SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    April 14, 2013 6:33 p.m.

    @Mike Richards

    You ask, "Is it the role of government to dictate doctrine to religion?" Absolutely not!! I absolutely stand with you in wanting to keep government out of religious doctrine. I strongly feel that as long as no one is harmed, government should stay completely out of religious doctrine. That is why I support same-sex marriage. If a religious group has decided that two members of the same sex should be free to marry, I think government should not restrict that choice. They should support it, offering the same benefits to members of that church as to other churches.

    You are absolutely free to choose your religion, and for your religion to restrict the ordinance of marriage to those you deem suitable. Many religions refuse to marry a member to a person outside of that faith. That is their right. They can limit marriage only to individuals who have been confirmed in that faith, they can limit marriage to people of the same race, or of a certain age, etc., as they wish. However, there is no reason why government should impose the restrictions of one religious group on everyone. That is tyranny.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    April 14, 2013 5:06 p.m.

    Hey Mountainman,

    or is it Einstein? (sorry, I get you confused)

    It has heterosexual communities who have had different definitions of marriage - as you call it -
    Polly relationships. Do I need to go back and re-state history?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    April 14, 2013 5:09 p.m.

    @ClarkHippo'

    Yes.

    @Mike Richards & procuradorfiscal;

    "God" is irrelevant. You can't even prove he exists.

    Mike Richards says:

    "It is an act of supreme arrogance to force your non-belief as being the correct way to view marriage."

    -- The irony, it burns.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 14, 2013 4:16 p.m.

    Re: "It is an act of supreme arrogance to assume that your religious views should trump everyone else's."

    Agreed. So the tiny liberal LGBT cabal should stop pushing its weird, minoritarian, [ir]religious views on everyone else.

    It's a manifestation of their fundamental arrogance.

  • Gabrielle SLC, UT
    April 14, 2013 4:15 p.m.

    BTW...

    It is your right to hate me, to stand on your soapbox and scream that hatred at the top of your lungs.

    It is NOT your right, however, to codify that hatred into law.

    One is free speech.

    The other is discrimination.

    It is time all y'all learned the difference.

  • Gabrielle SLC, UT
    April 14, 2013 4:12 p.m.

    Word!

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 14, 2013 3:59 p.m.

    The Skeptical Chymist,

    Is the role of government to dictate doctrine to religion?

    Is the role of government to define a "religious ordinance" as something secular just because you dictate to government that God has no place in your idea of marriage?

    It is an act of supreme arrogance to force your non-belief as being the correct way to view marriage. Mankind was created by God to enable us to live on earth as He lives in heaven. God instituted marriage on earth as His way of life. He instructed men to marry women and women to marry men to carry out the process of procreation. Any other form of "coupling" logically and physically cannot carry out that process. He taught us that marriage is eternal, not just "until death" as is preached by most religions. When a religion has no authority to seal on earth those that will be sealed for eternity, do you really think that they have authority to act in God's name as his religious representatives?

    Saying that because you don't believe God or his prophets somehow gives you authority to speak for God defies logic. God does not require your permission.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    April 14, 2013 3:52 p.m.

    'Gay couples who want to adopt have to go through the same legal hoops and wait just as long as straight couples.'

    Actually, this is simply not true.

    Allow me to show you...

    *’Catholic charities ends Illinois adoption civil unions dispute’ – By Sophia Tareen – AP – Published by the DSNews – 11/15/11

    ‘The group had wished to continue its state contracts, while also referring unmarried couples who want to be adoptive or foster parents to other agencies, citing principles of religious liberty and freedom of conscience.
    The state of Illinois had said that longstanding practice is discriminatory, a violation of the new law, which allows unmarried couples — gay or straight — to legally enter into civil unions.’

    That's right.

    The very same group that advocated against gay marriage...

    also works to deny gay adoption because gay couples are not....

    married.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 14, 2013 3:47 p.m.

    Re: "I'd like to know who made 'procuradorfiscal' qualified to parent(assumption)?"

    God.

    But that's beside the point. We're talking here about marriage. And I qualified for that license by making an application, paying the proper fee, and meeting age, affinity, health, and gender legal requirements.

    Had I applied for a license to wed my sister, both my neighbor's daughters, my elders' quorum president, or my gerbil, I would have been properly denied.

    Because none of those weddings meet proper qualifications.

  • The Skeptical Chymist SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    April 14, 2013 3:16 p.m.

    @Mike Richards

    Please, if you want to talk about "God's ordained plan" for marriage, talk about it with your church leaders or with other members of your church. Please make sure that your church conducts marriages the way that you think God ordained it.

    You must recognize, however, that there are many different religious views among the inhabitants of this country. Churches other than yours are blessing same-sex marriages, which they believe are viewed approvingly by Almighty God. Further, no one has shown that there is any harm to society when same sex-marriages are permitted. Why should you have the right to impose your religious views on everyone else?

    Government cannot recognize one set of religious views as being correct and another as being wrong, unless there is demonstrated harm to an individual or to society. Therefore, your views as to "God's ordained plan" for marriage should carry no weight in discussions of government-approved marriage at all.

    It is an act of supreme arrogance to assume that your religious views should trump everyone else's.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 14, 2013 12:42 p.m.

    God "ordained" marriage and specified that it is to be between a man and a woman. What is your doctrine of marriage? Does it include God or is it something that you created?

    God's doctrine of marriage emulates the eternal law of marriage. What is your doctrine of marriage. After whom did you model it?

    God's purpose of marriage includes strict purity before marriage and strict fidelity within marriage. What constraints do you put on sexual activity.

    Whenever someone counterfeits anything, those who know the "real thing" take offence. Marriage is being counterfeited.

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    April 14, 2013 11:46 a.m.

    Those who advocate for same-sex marriage are using the symbol of the equals sign to represent their cause, arguing, "We just want to be equal. Nothing more or nothing less."

    Are you sure about that?

    Because to be equal means being just that, equal. In other words you have to take the bad with the good, just like everyone else.

    Gay couples who want to adopt have to go through the same legal hoops and wait just as long as straight couples.

    The same goes with looking for a house or apartment, finding a job or getting loan from a bank. If you truly want equality, you'll be treated the same as everyone else in regards to these too.

    You want to protest in front of a church or political office, go ahead. But don't be surprised then if people come to your gathering places with protest signs as well. And sorry, you can't call it a "hate crime" because you're equal, the same as everyone else.

    So, do you still want to be equal now? Does it sound just as appealing now as it did before?

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    April 14, 2013 11:16 a.m.

    I'd like to know who made 'procuradorfiscal' qualified to parent(assumption)? Did he get some special license and training or did he qualify like the rest of us through example from his predecessors? I sorry folks, but I have never felt threatened by this topic. As far as I know, no lesbian has tried to "convert" my wife to desert me. And Mountanman, keep stretching, soon you will be tall enough to play in the NBA.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    April 14, 2013 11:05 a.m.

    "Would "all" include incest, pedophilia, polygamy, polyandry or bestiality? Be careful now, we don't want to discriminate do we? Choices have consequences! Once you "redefine" marriage, where do you stop?"

    Excellent question!

    So lets use your own slippery slope logic. If we strictly define marriage between a man and a woman then where will it stop? Will we strictly define it as a man and a woman of the same faith? Race? Family? Where will it end!? Remember, choices have consequences!

    I'm afraid that pretty soon marriage will be lost. Freedom will be lost. Dating will be lost. Soon, two families will essentially agree upon their offspring being put together without any consent from the offspring.

    See what the slippery slope mentality can do? Lets have RATIONAL discussion please

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    April 14, 2013 9:41 a.m.

    @procurador --

    "There are just some things some people don't qualify for."

    "Some people" like infertile women, perhaps?

    Infertile couples marry all the time. They also adopt children, or use artificial insemination or surrogacy or have kids from previous marriages.

    As long as infertile couples are allowed to marry, your talk about "qualifications" is irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage.

    In fact, more than 100,000 gay couples in this country are **already** raising children -- whether you happen to think they are "qualified", or not.

    In addition to other benefits of marriage, we can improve the lives of those children by allowing their gay parents to marry. Marriage will improve the stability of their families, and we all know that stability is good for kids. In fact, the major national groups of child-develop experts *support* gay marriage, because they know that kids grow up just fine in gay-led homes if those homes are stable and loving.

    You should stop thinking about who may or may not "qualify" for your personal imaginary vision of the perfect family. Start thinking about all those thousands of real life kids out there, instead.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    April 14, 2013 9:29 a.m.

    **’Gay Ca. veteran sues over denial of benefits’ – By Jessica Gresko – AP – Published by Dsnews – 02/01/12

    ‘The lawsuit announced in Washington involves a 12-year veteran of the Army, Tracey Cooper-Harris. After leaving the Army she married Maggie Cooper-Harris in California in 2008. Two years later, Tracey Cooper-Harris was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, and she has received disability benefits through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs as a result. But her application for additional money and benefits that married veterans are entitled to was denied.’ – article

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    April 14, 2013 9:28 a.m.

    *'Kept From a Dying Partners Bedside' - By TARA PARKER-POPE - NY Times - 05/18/09

    '...the couples had prepared for a medical emergency, creating living wills, advanced directives and power-of-attorney documents.'

    And yet, even with Living Will, Medical Directive, Power of attorney and emergency contact information...

    Janice Langbehn was kept from the bedside of her dying partner, Lisa Pond.

    They were together for 18 years.

  • Kent Buckner West Valley City, UT
    April 14, 2013 8:49 a.m.

    In a recent article, Richard L. Larson wrote (and I agree with him), "There is no “right” to marry whomsoever or whatsoever we please, or profess love for. Such a right is as most other “rights” claimed by those in our society who feel somehow shortchanged, slighted, or disadvantaged. The “right” is not codified in any legal document, much less our founding documents, just like the “right” to health care, or the “right” to a good job. Heterosexual marriage, however, is codified in natural law, as attested by biological and anthropological fact. The test is simple: try building a civilization or a society from scratch with anything other than natural law, heterosexual marriage.

    "Marriage, historically, has always represented the legal, moral, and cultural recognition of the binding relationship of opposite sexes. Merely ‘definitionally’ reducing marriage to nothing more than a state legitimized relationship between "people that love each other" is antithetical to the factual basis to our existence as a civilization. The fact is, marriage has always been about protecting society, at least in part, through the possibility of propagation, protection and the creation of family units."

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    April 14, 2013 8:38 a.m.

    This letter is spot on.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    April 14, 2013 7:07 a.m.

    Extend the benefits of marriage to all? Would "all" include incest, pedophilia, polygamy, polyandry or bestiality? Be careful now, we don't want to discriminate do we? Choices have consequences! Once you "redefine" marriage, where do you stop? That is unless you want to discriminate against someone's "benefits". Think it will stop with same sex marriage? It won't!

  • anti-liar Salt Lake City, UT
    April 14, 2013 12:41 a.m.

    I don't agree with the apparent belief of the author that all should be allowed to marry. However, his letter's actual argument is valid, and I respect it. I think that in an eagerness to win recruits, religion is being marketed to appeal to the worldly values of many young adults, instead of preaching the pure Gospel of Redemption. For example, we see stories of church-member football players and such, as though to convey the message, "See? Being a member is cool, after all," when the issue is not one of "cool," but rather spiritual life and death, now and for eternity. Likewise marriage, it seems, when instead it should be marketed for the benefits that are absolutely unique to marriage between a man and a woman.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 14, 2013 12:33 a.m.

    Re: "It takes a special kind of cold heart to proclaim innumerable benefits of something and then actively fight to deprive an entire group of people a chance to enjoy those blessings."

    Yeah -- the same kind of heart it takes to deprive men the chance to enjoy the blessings of giving birth. Or 3 foot 6 little people the chance to enjoy the blessings of NBA stardom. Or quad amputees the chance to enjoy the blessings of defending the Nation as an infantryman.

    There are just some things some people don't qualify for.

    Law, nature, decency, morality, circumstances beyond their control, even common sense, may be to blame. But that doesn't change the nature of the disqualification.

    No amount of pretense, sophistry, or political correctness can change it.

    Heart or no.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    April 14, 2013 12:14 a.m.

    "It takes a special kind of cold heart to proclaim innumerable benefits of something and then actively fight to deprive an entire group of people a chance to enjoy those blessings."

    That's what I don't get. Opponents of gay marriage decry the supposed lack of stability in homosexual relationships -- and then they turn around and try to prevent gay people from getting the tools they need to INCREASE that stability. How does that make any sense?

    Yes, marriage is important. Yes, families are important. Yes, stability is important. Yes, children are important. And since marriage increases family stability, which helps children, anybody who realizes that thousands of gay people are **already** raising children should SUPPORT gay marriage -- not fight against it.