Published: Tuesday, April 16 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
The arguments Reid makes here are the same arguments made against mixed-race
marriages. They weren't valid then; they aren't valid now. Bigotry
and prejudice weren't valid then, and they aren't vaid now. The
purpose of religion is to guide and end enhance the way people live THEIR lives.
It is NOT to try to impose its practices and dogma on all of society. It is
NOT to act lika a tyranny of the majority. Reid is wrong.
Another article on marriage? Dnews, you do recognize that there are other issues
to write about, right?
Self-Evident truths are a saber that cuts deep. Marriage is between a man and
women. However, both Democrats and Republicans, and in this case gays, are
driven, not for 'civil rights', but for control. Liberty is a foreign
concept. Liberty for gays means not just changing society, but changing God,
and second, aligning themselves with the power of government to achieve its
ends, hardly conducive to liberty in any sense. The hard part is watching
Republicans and Democrats jump on board to the Anti-liberty movement.
bandersen,Please show me where this has happening in states or
countries that already have gay marriage - where they are trying to change God.
I think you have stepped a little too far onto the fear-mongering wagon.Tell me how life is different for LDS members in Massachusetts. Tell me
how oppressed members are in Canada or Norway. Give me specifics on how gays
are changing God in Spain or South Africa.Maybe people are just
starting to see that the oppression of gays is immoral itself! Maybe people are
starting to see that not sharing the benefits and privileges that we enjoy as
married citizens is UnAmerican and Unconstitutional.Maybe some of us
Whose morality are we going to enforce in law? Jewish morality where it is
wrong to eat shrimp? Muslim morality where a woman should cover their head in
public? The LDS morality where "strong drinks" should not be consumed?
These moral beliefs (Standards) are not universal so codifying them in law would
essentially be forcing citizens to follow specific religious standards which is
a violation of the first amendment.Does this mean that the
government should not promote any sort of morality? No, as there are morals
(Ethics) that span religious and secular belief, such as the Golden Rule, where
harm to a citizen or group can be objectively demonstrated. Thus laws against
murder, fraud, stealing, etc are valid within a secular government, such as
ours.There is no demonstrable harm resulting from the government
recognizing same sex marriages so the morality against same sex marriage is a
religious standard, not an ethical one. No harm to children or individuals.
Traditional marriages are unaffected. The converse is true as there is
demonstrable harm to same sex couples and their children so laws preventing
their recognition should be repealed.
Reid favors marriage. What he's clearly opposed to is sex between people of
the same sex. If it were impossible for gays to have sex, Reid might favor
same-sex marriage. Let him take comfort, therefore, in knowing that gays living
together without the benefit of marriage are unlikely to have more sex if they
live together as a married couple. In fact, if studies of straight married
couples also hold true for gays, married gays would have LESS sex than those who
merely live together.
Lane Meyer: How do you define suppression? Doesn't 'suppression'
mean just 'disagreement' to you? If I believe gay marriage is
immoral, destructive of God's plan, destroys a child's perspective of
God, affects societal norms, and changes the future into a dark place, am I a
bigot? I am quite against the federal government defining marriage. The
Constitution gives the states this role. Livelongandprosper: What
do you mean by 'morals' and 'ethics'? How can a government
promote 'morality' that has no standard? You are promoting what I
know is immoral. If so, who decides what is 'moral'? Someone in a
cubicle? As far as the Golden Rule, where is there any 'objective'
measurement to promote that? If I am not mistaken, the golden rule is something
of the heart, not something to be explained and encoded into law. Hearts are
important, but not with government. Government only can operate by rules and
laws. Even murder, fraud, and stealing are mischieviously (i.e. abortion)
defined by political definitions, not universal truths. No, without God,
anything is acceptable. Those Defining 'morality' or
'ethics' without Him succumb to a secular notion of what that
is,something tyrants are prepared to do.
Interference and division. Clouding reality with superstition. Same role it has
played in most arenas.
banderson: "I am quite against the federal government defining marriage.
The Constitution gives the states this role."Then I presume you
oppose the Defense of Marriage Act and the proposed federal constitutional
amendments that would define marriage as one man/one woman. I also presume you
support the extension of federal benefits (such as military family housing,
social security spousal benefits, the ability to file joint federal tax returns,
untaxed spousal inheritance, etc.) to same-sex couples that are legally married
in those states that allow it. State laws can have repercussions in federal
Sexual morality is not merely a religious idea, though all of the largest world
religions generally agree on standards of sexual morality and marriage.It is in the best interests of any state--even states that reject religion--to
control sexuality. Even most proponents of same-gender marriage agree that
certain lines should not be crossed (rape and incest should not be
decriminalized, for example). The underlying issue is where to draw the line;
drawing the line against the encouragement of homosexuality is not purely a
religious idea, but religious people certainly have religious reasons for
discouraging the practice.I believe firmly that, as a religious
person, it is my right--even my duty--to maintain the line against a
governmental encouragement of homosexuality, and, like Sen. Reid, to try to
redraw the line back toward encouraging hetero-gender marriage, discouraging
divorce and unwed and underage sexuality, and supporting stable child rearing by
mixed-gender parents.Further, the argument that because there are no
immediate, obvious ill effects from same-gender marriage it should be allowed
ignores the historical record: NO society that encouraged homosexuality over
heterosexuality (including same-gender marriage) has EVER survived more than
There are any number of "Golden Rules". 1-He who has the gold makes the
rules, 2- Do unto others before they do unto you, 3-he who has the gun makes the
rules, etc, etc, etc. So, which Golden Rule applies?
From the author:If society is to be preserved, legislation must be
advanced and upheld by the courts to protect the moral well-being of the many,
even if a few regrettably suffer as a consequence. All I can say
about a statement like that is: WOW.
The Founding Fathers thought slavery was moral. Many religious people used the
Bible to justify slavery and the Civil War. The same arguments about morality
and the Bible were made to argue against inter-racial marriage.We
now view slavery as immoral and see no reason to prohibit inter-racial
marriage.Some religions support same-sex marriage. Why should the
religious beliefs of those who oppose it have precedence?The LDS
Church considers the use of alcohol as immoral, but there are laws allowing it.
Should we do blanket bans on every thing that any religion considers immoral?
Or are we just going to treat this one thing differently? And if we are
treating this one thing differently, why?
Maybe you missed it, but the protestors are crying out for religions to give up
THEIR beliefs. You don't tell a person that their beliefs are wrong simply
because you think differently. How much are the protestors willing to give up
their OWN beliefs? From what I can see, they are unwilling to compromise. How do
they expect religion to give them even a passing glance when all they do is
complain and offer no possible solutions to this dilemma? The constitution
protects the right for people to practice their beliefs in peace. It goes both
bandersen (9:58am): I am defining an Ethic to be a moral with some objective
measurement of harm. I am defining a Standard to be a moral that causes no harm
if it is not followed. If someone steals $1000 from you, then you don't
need to believe in God to measure that $1000 and the harm the loss of that money
has done to you. Abortion is in a gray area where there are good arguments on
both sides of the issue that may be resolved with greater scientific
understanding. Same-sex marriage in not in a gray area. Arguments against it
follow a religious Standard and not an Ethical objection or are based on
fallacy.The Golden Rule, or ethic of reciprocity, is more about
conduct than about what is in your heart. Jesus expressed this rule as "So
in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up
the Law of the Prophets" (NIV translation). This rule has been espoused long
before Christianity in many cultures and religions.
Yet the founding fathers and successive generations were tolerant of religious
bigotry (anyone remember how they hated Catholics, Mormons and Jews). Denying
women the vote and property rights wasn't a big issue for them. Child
labor was good. And of course slavery received a warm welcome. Not to
criticize, those who came before. In fact, they established a course of
progress wherein our collective morality evolved and continues to evolve. And
with every evolution, the flat worlders run around crying about how the sky is
falling. Some evolutions work out some don't. Free love of the 60s
didn't really pan out but human intimacy is a lot more enjoyable now that
it's okay to remove your clothes. Divorce is a problem but so are abusive
spouses, so the law tolerates divorce and tries to make life fair. The
"homosexual lifestyle" probably isn't any more healthy than free
love. But for the life of me, I can't make myself worry about committed
partners in a responsible relationship. And through it all, the best argument
the flat worlders are able to give for denying a "civil right" is,
Re: Jeff (10:37am):"NO society that encouraged homosexuality
over heterosexuality (including same-gender marriage) has EVER survived more
than briefly."Could this be because there has never been such a
society? Contemporary societies that have legalized same gender marriages have
promoted marriage equality, not putting homosexuality over heterosexuality.
Nobody has ever advocated such a thing to my knowledge, so it is a mystery to me
why you would would think this is an example of potential harm done by same
gender marriage. It has simply never happened and there is no reason to believe
it will happen in the future.
Sen. Reid writes in his 4th paragraph: "we now have the highest
divorce rates ever, with vast numbers of children being victimized because of
it; over 40 percent of children are born out of wedlock; millions of babies have
been aborted; generations of children are swallowed up by welfare dependency;
and the prisons are overflowing"My question to Mr. Reid is, are
you blaming homosexuals for those actions?Homosexuals would rarely
have an abortion. Pregnancies in the gay community are in general intentional,
expensive, and cause for celebration.Homosexuals proportionally
"adopt" and save more kids from welfare dependency than
heterosexuals."Highest divorce rate ever": We couldn't
know that about homosexuals, do we Senator?"Prisons are
overflowing": Please explain, I fail to see the connection between SSM and
prisons overflowing.The Founding Fathers were quite critical of
organized religion and its dictatorship. Besides, many of their life styles
would be considered immoral for our current standards, i.e. slavery, children
with their slaves, and others.
Livelongandprosper: How is $1000.00 taken from my neighbor an objective
measurement if I don't believe that there is anything wrong with it?
Objective to you is not objective to someone else. It doesn't matter your
reasoning. How about abortion, gay marriage, war? Can these things be
objectively 'right'? Are you kidding? Only in America in the 21st
century would these be considered as 'right'! How can you possibly
say that abortion is a grey area, but gay marriage is not? Is polygamy a grey
area? or a host of all sorts of societal relativisms. If you are going to defend
your position, you have to be consistent? If you don't believe it harms
society (not enough space), then nothing I can write or say is going to cat
best.hange your opinion. So, is your 'objective' measurement any
better than mine? No, it isn't! So,where do we go for that
'objective' measurement, if not with God. Without god, anything is
acceptable. Allowing the state to decide what is right and wrong is a poor and
For those who think that legalizing gay marriage does not affect them google'What legalizing gay marriage has done to Massachusetts. Agree or not -
this is reality in Massachusetts.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments