Comments about ‘Minnesota appears poised to legalize gay marriage’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, May 7 2013 3:48 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

If gay marriage is legal then so should marriage between 2 siblings.

And remember, marriage has NOTHING to do with sex, which is what our liberal friends always tell me on these boards.

So please don't be hypocritical in defending gay marriage and yet not supporting marriage between 2 adult family members.

There are marriages without sex and sex can/does happen outside of marriage. So any sexual issues really have no place for reason not to allow 2 family members to wed.

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@Chris B --

"And remember, marriage has NOTHING to do with sex, which is what our liberal friends always tell me on these boards."

That isn't actually true at all. Please, at least *try* to be truthful when you post a comment.

What we do tell you is that marriage is about much more than JUST sex. It's about love, and commitment, and stability, and home-building, and family, and raising children together, and all *sorts* of things. You can't narrow it down to just one single thing or another.

Congratulations to Minnesota. Illinois next. Then the Supreme Court decisions will come out in June. I can't wait!

George
New York, NY

@contrarius
You really do not expect Chris to be truthful right?

worf
Mcallen, TX

Contrarius--Your truth is reason to not support it.

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@worf --

"Contrarius--Your truth is reason to not support it."

I am saddened to hear that you do not support love, commitment, stability, home-building, family, and raising children together in loving homes.

These are essential factors in any society, and their spread should be encouraged by everyone.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Contrarius,
I guess you then strongly support polygamous and polyandrous relationships, too.

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@lost in DC --

"I guess you then strongly support polygamous and polyandrous relationships."

Guessing is a bad habit. ;-)

Unlike gay marriage, oolygamy has very concrete, recognized dangers in our society.

To illustrate -- a group of Canadian polygamists recently sued for marriage rights in Canada. British Columbia's Supreme Court ruled against them, and reaffirmed the constitutionality of Canada's ban on polygamy.

In the court's decision, the Chief Justice 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."

Risks to public safety have always been a valid legal reason for restricting individual rights. For instance, that's the reason why drunk driving is illegal:

Car + drunk driver = high risk of injury

Similarly, the combination of polygamy with societies which are not perfectly egalitarian (any current human society) creates a high risk of abuse and/or mistreatment for women and children. Therefore, public safety concerns dictate that polygamy should remain illegal.

worf
Mcallen, TX

Contrarius:

True love would not promote this.

No justification.

George
New York, NY

@lost in dc
I suppose you are incapable of arguing your opposition to gay marriage on its own merits rather than bringing in other forms of marriage to try to dilute the conversation. Rather then try to place contrarua on the defense by bring in other forms of marriage why don’t you explain your opposition to gay marriage?

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

George
you and your ilk reject the arguments against gay marriage. So why bother?

Contrarius,
you are rejecting an entire class based on the actions of one or two. BTW, we are not subject to Canadian law.

No, when you start chaing the definition of marriage, you have to accept ANY definition that ANYONE wants, polygamists, siblings, step-parents, anyone.

George
New York, NY

@lost
So then you admit that you are trying to distract and place on the defence rather than present your case based on the merits, thanks for at being honest for once. Being able to effectively refute your comments and therefore reject them as false only shows the lack of their merit.

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@lost in DC --

"you are rejecting an entire class based on the actions of one or two."

Nope.

I -- and both US and Canadian courts as well -- am supporting the long-established legal principle that public safety is a valid reason for limiting personal rights.

This isn't a case of "one or two" bad incidents. Heck, just a few weeks ago there was an article right here in the DN about yet another case of child labor abuses by polygamists right in Utah.

Polygamy creates a big risk to women and children. That's a simple -- and proven -- fact of life.

"BTW, we are not subject to Canadian law."

American courts say basically the same thing. Try it for yourself, if you don't believe it. ;-)

"you have to accept ANY definition that ANYONE wants, polygamists, siblings, step-parents, anyone."

Only in your dreams.

Fortunately, the American people, the legislature, and the courts all know better than that.

@worf--

"True love would not promote this."

Tsk, Worf.

Only a bigot would claim that homosexuals are somehow incapable of feeling true love.

And I know that you wouldn't want to think of yourself as a bigot.

Right?

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

George,
I have no need to argue against something that has worked well for millenia - the shoe is on the other foot. As traditional marriage has sustained the human race for millenia, there needs to be good reason to change it - and none has been presented.

contrarious,
Nope, once you start changing the definition, you need to be open to ANYTHING ANY consenting adults want. yeah, ban the child brides, but you cannot ban polygamy or polyandry if you are changing the definition of marriage.

and child labor violations is another topic.

but then, what constitutes age of consent and who decides that?

if I recall correctly it's 16 in the UK, and 14 in Columbia - so most of those cases deemed abuse would not be deemed abuse under other consent laws - remember, YOU brought other nations' laws into the discussion.

so again, if you are changing the definition to be more "inclusive" you need to include MUUUUCH more.

George
New York, NY

@lost
since the false notion of "the traditional family" actually only dates back at most in our culture to the 1880's and that the view held by Christian’s of the traditional family is not even universally held to this day, and the fact that our system does not work on the notion that people must prove they have a right to access to our social institutions in our country but rather those that seek to restrict such access must prove why they should be denied that access, I can see why you went with the bait and switch tactic instead.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@lost in DC --

"traditional marriage has sustained the human race for millenia"

Which "traditional" marriage would that be?

-- the polygamy of Biblical times?
-- the same-sex marriages celebrated by at least two Roman EMPERORS?
-- the polyandrous marriages of Tibet, Sparta, and the Inuit?
-- the arranged marriages of the Orient, in which multiple concubines were often expected?
-- the incestuous relationships between Abraham and Sarah, Nachor and Melcha, Lot and his Daughters, or Amram and Jochabed from the Bible?
-- the still-widespread child marriages, in which children and even infants are married to each other?
-- the conjugal slavery still practiced in parts of Asia and Africa?

Exactly which tradition did you have in mind?

"once you start changing the definition, you need to be open to ANYTHING ANY consenting adults want."

You can repeat this claim as many times as you want -- but that won't ever make your claim true. It simply isn't.

The courts have already proven that it isn't true, and they understand the differences.

"if I recall correctly it's 16 in the UK, and 14 in Columbia"

The age of consent is already 16 in 30 US states -- more than half of them.

worf
Mcallen, TX

Contrarius:

Bigot? I just don't excuse certain behaviors.

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

@worf

apparently neither does Contrarius, so what would be your point?

amazondoc
USA, TN

@Worf --

"Bigot? I just don't excuse certain behaviors."

I tend to not excuse behaviors which deliberately cause harm to others. Otherwise, it's generally none of my business.

How does homosexuality harm anyone?

Also, earlier you said: "True love would not promote this."

How is true love incompatible with gay marriage?

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

@Chris: Besides just being a silly question with more yelling (capital letters) then actually insight, you think you've got a new approach from your radio entertainers?

How many siblings have asked for the right to be married to another sibling for any reason? I'll wait.

As a sibling you aren't being kept out of hospital rooms of the one you love because your not related. If you're the only other relative you can also inherit, and make decisions for a sibling.

We should at least give people who are in love the same treatment as a sibling.

Bigotry is the only defense.

worf
Mcallen, TX

amazondoc:

I'll leave the easy answers for you to find. That's how beliefs are formed.

There is harm, and incompatibility.

to comment

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