Published: Sunday, April 14 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
"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.
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.
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.
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!
This letter is spot on.
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
*'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.
**’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
@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.
"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
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.
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
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
@Mike RichardsPlease, 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.
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.
'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
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
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
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
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments