Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letter: Making blanket decision on gay marriage issue is ludicrous’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, April 14 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Hutterite
American Fork, UT

So what is it in these thousand plus laws that makes gay marriage impractical, and can't we modify them so it can be made to work? Or do you have another agenda?

Mad Hatter
Provo, UT

Gay marriage, contrary to the letter writer's belief, is a civil right. As for making a judgment based on some hypothetical injury to the non-gay world, this is just a ruse perpetrated by a level of bigotry no longer (if it ever was) acceptable in a free, democratic society.

The people who oppose gay marriage are free to express their opinions. No one expects them to change their views. But understand that they are living in a changing world where their opinions are becoming less and less valid. Possibly, in 20 years, we'll look back at this time in American society and wonder what the fuss was all about.

Changing demographics and attitudes are just the way things are going. Those who refuse to adapt to a progressing world will eventually be left behind. Although there are those still around who think that slavery was a real good deal for the slaves (" . . . they got free room and board"), in a few more generations there won't be anyone around who remembers the days of Jim Crow and the racism that pervaded this nation. Young people will grow up having no contact with these old attitudes.

Baron Scarpia
Logan, UT

Reminds me of the movie "Lincoln" where the president wanted to free all the slaves and make it a Constitutional amendment... many opposed it because freeing people would result in all sorts of legal questions and social challenges -- from loss of property to increased labor costs for plantation owners to ex-slaves "being different" and warranting study about if freedom would truly benefit them...

Lincoln refused to let those issues stop him from pursuing what he saw as "right" in the basic principle of America that "All men are created equal" and deserve equal rights and benefits.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

" Most people have no idea what is contained in the 1,000 plus laws that govern traditional marriage. How can they be expected to vote intelligently on the issue?"

So we should punish loving homosexuals for the ignorance of the lazy masses? Or are you suggesting we make all marriages void until the masses ready 1000 pages? I don't get your logic here other than to merely obstruct gay marriage.

"These laws should be carefully thought out, researched and debated before they are signed into law."

This seems like code for, "Lets kick the can down the road and let the next generation resolve this."

I'm beginning to see that this issue has more in common with the civil rights movement than I originally thought. We could have eliminated racial inequality generations ago. however, people like this letter writer existed back then as they do today to instruct us to, "kick the can down the road and resolve nothing."

People are making completely ridiculous arguments against homosexuals. If you are going to be against it then you surely must bring some good arguments to the table. If none can be found, then you must concede.

George
New York, NY

I have to wonder where exactly Blaine has been for the last 20 plus years considering everything he claims needs to be studied more closely has been not only studied but debated to death and beyond.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

Blanket decisions about marriage?

We have done this previously in American history.

1967.

The Supreme court ruling that allowed Interracial marriage.

So, the entire premise of the claim that 'blanket decisions about gay marriage' isn proven moot.

46 years ago.

ugottabkidn
Sandy, UT

I think Blaine should commit to the "Golden Rule" as we all should then those who profess it can truly become the Christians they think they are.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

Anyone else doubt that Blaine would become supportive of gay marriage if studies showed that they didnt have any negative impact on society? Yeah, me neither.

Btw, Blaine, there are a ton of studies out there which have researched gay marriage. Google is a wonderful tool. Try it out sometime.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'Btw, Blaine, there are a ton of studies out there which have researched gay marriage.'

I agree.

'After 5 Years of Legal Gay Marriage, Massachusetts still has the lowest state divorce rate...' - Bruce Wilson - AlterNet - 08/24/09

Line:
'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.'

Prediction:

*'Same-Sex Marriage: Who Profits?'
- Reported by ABC News – 04/ 2008 - By Aude Lagorce, Forbes magazine.

’Same-sex marriage could be boon to N.Y. tourism’ – By Harriet Baskas – MSNBC – 07/07/11

“The $142 million benefit to New York City’s economy includes spending on weddings by New York state residents who live outside the city but choose to marry here,” the report noted.”

Reality:

’NYC reaches goal of 50 million tourists’ – By Samantha Gross – AP – Published bßy DSnews – 12/20/11

'Legalizing gay marriage may improve health and reduce healthcare costs' – The UK Guardian – 02/01/13

Pops
NORTH SALT LAKE, UT

Gay marriage is not a civil right. It's a privilege offered by the state to those who meet the qualifications. The qualifications are established with the expectation that the state will receive something of value in return for benefits offered to married couples.

Gay couples do not meet the primary qualification, which, contrary to popular belief, is neither sexual attraction nor love. The primary qualification is "one man and one woman", for reasons which should be obvious - it's about the children. No child should be conceived with intentional indeterminate heritage, nor should any child be intentionally deprived of appropriate gender roles. All children deserve to be raised in a loving home with their own mother and father. For the state to legitimize any other ideal is to flirt with disaster of epic proportions.

It's about the children, not the desires of people who are sexually attracted to and/or love each other.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

Sorry Pops, if it's "all about the children", then infertile couples should not be allowed to marry. Older couples, beyond their child bearing years should not be allowed to marry. Men with vasectomies and women with hysterectomies should not be allowed to marry.

Besides:

U.S. Constitution
Article 4 - Section 2
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all PRIVILEGES and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Amendment 14
... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the PRIVILEGES or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of ... the equal protection of the laws.

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

@pops

Once again as many have pointed out on this thread just because you-choose to ignore the volumes of research in this area does not make it go away. The research could not be more clear that children do not suffer any ill effects from being raised in a same sex homes.

Liberal Today
Murray, UT

Pagen-

If all you want is profits and tourism, we shouldn't waste our time with same-sex marriage. Lots of states are doing that. We should go for something unique. Not gambling. Nevada does that right next door.

How 'bout legalized prostitution? That would be unique on this continent. Let the tourists and money flow in!

RAB
Bountiful, UT

It is impossible to discuss this issue with gay-marriage supporters because they want every benefit that comes with marriage regardless of whether or not it is applicable to a gay marriage. They know that gay people cannot have children together, so they subvert the conversation to gay people who adopt or have children from outside the relationships outside of the gay union.

They are not looking for fairness. That's just their smokescreen. They simply want their version of morality endorsed by the government. They want the government to end its currently neutral stance on the morality of gay unions and gay intimacy and instead adopt the stance that gay unions are morally good and intimacy between gays is morally right. It is a blatant attack on any who disagree with their moral views.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@RAB --

It is impossible to discuss this issue with infertile-marriage supporters because they want every benefit that comes with marriage regardless of whether or not it is applicable to an infertile marriage. They know that infertile people cannot have children together, so they subvert the conversation to infertile people who adopt or have children from outside the relationships outside of the infertile union.

They are not looking for fairness. That's just their smokescreen. They simply want their version of morality endorsed by the government. They want the government to end its currently neutral stance on the morality of infertile unions and infertile intimacy and instead adopt the stance that infertile unions are morally good and intimacy between infertile is morally right. It is a blatant attack on any who disagree with their moral views.

----------

Does this help you to understand just how groundless your position truly is?

I don't believe that Republicans are morally good or morally right. Nonetheless, I support their legal right to marry and enjoy the same rights and privileges that I do. Legal rights and privileges are for EVERYONE -- not just for people we happen to like or agree with.

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

@RAB

I find it interesting that you claim you cannot have a discussion on this issue. I have seen you on many threads making simar arguments and others refuting your claims. May I suggest it may not be that you cannot have a discussion on the issue but rather that you do not get to.deine the peramators of the discussion or declare them worthless simply because you fail to sway anyone with your arguments.

RAB
Bountiful, UT

@amazon doc
Cough cough. There is no end to this smoke. I must have missed this great movement to support infertile marriage. Your response proves my point that subverting the argument is the name of the game.

If a person’s goal was to plant a beautiful garden, but a few of his seeds unfortunately fell on rocks, he has unintentionally wasted some of his seeds. Now, if your argument is that reforms should be made to assure that no seeds ever fall on rocks, you have a sensible argument. Unfortunately, your argument is that, because a few of the seeds fell on rocks, the man should purposely dump lots of seeds on every rock.

Does this help you to understand? Of course not. Like I said. I'm wasting my time.

RAB
Bountiful, UT

@Tolstoy
Sorry, I must have missed the comments that refuted something I said.

Laws can be adjusted to assure applicable rights without changing what marriage is. Thus, the denied rights and privileges argument falls flat with respect to demanding gay marriage.

Gays can be allowed to marry without government permission or reward. Thus, the denied right to marry who they love argument falls flat with respect to demanding legalized gay marriage.

The only thing that can only be attained through legalized gay marriage is the official stamp of government approval of the morality that endorses gay intimacy and gay marriage.

It may surprise you, but our government represents religious people too--not just people who agree with you. Just because you approve of gay intimacy and you believe gay unions are exactly like marriage, does not mean that the beliefs of millions of Americans should be marginalized and everyone in our country should be forced and obligated to approve of gay intimacy and marriage.

The government MUST take a neutral stance on such a controversial issue. That is not what you are advocating.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@RAB;

It may surprise you, but our government represents GLBT people too--not just people who agree with you. Just because you disapprove of gay intimacy and you believe gay unions are not exactly like marriage, does not mean that the LIVES of millions of Americans should be marginalized and GLBT Americans in our country should be forced and obligated to have your approval of gay intimacy and marriage before they can marry.

It may also surprise you that we have a Constitution that gives GLBT Americans the right to expect to be treated equally by our government to the way it treats heterosexual couples. It may also surprise you to discover that your religious views are not the only views on the subject.

George
New York, NY

@RAB

so you have missed the last 20 years of this conversation, including the many threads you commented on?

to comment

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