Quantcast

Comments about ‘Supreme Court has range of options on gay marriage’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, June 23 2013 12:59 p.m. MDT

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

Though not Mormon I am pleased to support Mormon prophet monson in marriage only being legal between man and wife

Anything else is just wrong

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

If gays can marry them there is no reason to ban polygamy or even sibling from being married

Not even incest can be used as a reason to not allow siblings unless liberals are claiming that marriage is the governments approval for a couple to be intimate.

Intimacy clearly happens outside of marriage in most relationships and there are marriages without intimacy

So as I have clearly explained, if marriage is open to gays them clearly there are no reasons to prohibit any sort of marriage between any adults, regardless of number of participants or family relationships.

worf
Mcallen, TX

Gay marriage has never worked in a free prosperous society, and never will.

Distorting of the family, tears the foundation of great civilizations.

If the Supreme Court can't comprehend this, we're in deep trouble.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Nothing has distorted the family worse than the status quo. And nobody is advocating for incest or polygamy (except the beer of the same name). Surely we can make this work.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

Chris B and worf, you sound like those in the 60s who opposed interracial marriage which incidentally, is roughly how you'll be viewed by future generations.

Ranch
Here, UT

@Chris B;

As an American, I'm pleased to support marriage equality and oppose the Mormon President on this issue.

As an American, I support equal treatment by the law of all citizens of this country.

Bigotry is not moral. Those who preach bigotry and support bigotry are not moral (and you have the nerve to claim that we're the sinners).

paintandestroy
Richmond/Cache, UT

Sadly an overall decline in values has made a mockery out of marriage. To many it's more of a party you throw after you've lived together long enough to rule out most other dating options. Gay marriage doesn't fix this, but it recognizes marriage is no longer a holy union to many.

worf
Mcallen, TX

Neither gay marriage, or Bigotry are moral.

Speaking out against gay marriage is a moral act, because it's wrong. GM distorts the foundation, and values of a society.

Ranch
Here, UT

@worf;

Same sex couples marrying does nothing of the sort. The ONLY thing "distorting" the foundation of society is those of you who think you know what "god" wants. You're fooling yourselves, and you're harming others in the process. If you want to protect the sanctity of "traditional" marriage, perhaps you should work to prevent those that fail from failing.
Stop divorce.

Kings Court
Alpine, UT

Worf, can you give an example (beyond the Star Trek Universe) where gay marriage has been tried by a free and prosperous society? You said it doesn't work in a free and prosperous society, so I was just wondering what those historical examples were. I can't seem to believe that even if it had been tried (gay marriage), that a super small minority (4% of the population) could bring about the downfall of a civilization. I more concerned about a 50% divorce rate among heterosexual couples being a much greater problem to a stable society.

not here
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO

Hey Worf prove it. And make real it proof,not something that you believe in.

lds4gaymarriage
Salt Lake City, UT

Chris B
"if marriage is open to gays them clearly there are no reasons to prohibit any sort
of marriage between any adults, regardless of number of participants or family relationships."

LDS4
Bingo. The purpose of government should be to prevent OBJECTIVE harm to others.
"(A)ny sort of marriage between any adults, regardless of number of participants or
family relationships"..in no objective way harms others. It may OFFEND you, but no
one has the right to NOT be offended. Government's purpose is not to enforce
anyone's morality in order for them to avoid offense.

The number of sick kids born of incest are dwarfed by the number and severity of
kids born to people who have other genetic diseases, like Cystic Fibrosis, and yet
are still permitted to marry.

Sure, the laws would have to be changed to allow multiple spouses to share the legal
benefits that currently are given to only one, but that can easily and fairly be
done.

Let people be treated equally.

Mainly Me
Werribee, 00

And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.

Miss Piggie
Pheonix, AZ

@Chris B: "... if marriage is open to gays them clearly there are no reasons to prohibit any sort of marriage between any adults, regardless of number of participants or family relationships."

You got that right. The Supreme Court is on the horns of a dilemma. If they allow marriage other than between a man and a woman the institution of marriage will eventually disappear. The court will go down in the history books as the American institution that destroyed marriage. Everyone will be wanting to marry everyone else including the combinations you allude to, and beyond.

Even jailed polygamist Warren Jeffs would likely go free (gasp) since his marriages would be covered by the personal right to marry who you will... even the under-aged.
@Hutterite: "And nobody is advocating for incest or polygamy..."

You'd be surprised what people would advocate for. If gays and lesbians can marry each other there'd be no reason for not allowing any combination of marriage that can be conjured. It would all be a matter of Constitutionally protected rights.

John20000
Cedar Hills, UT

#1 Far too broad and simplistic a category. "Gay" as a category of humans is problematic. Man to man is very different than woman to woman. Not to mention some men aren't attracted to women, but aren't attracted to men either. Some women aren't attracted to men, but aren't attracted to women either. Although, it those cases we lump them into the "gay" category. Anything other than heterosexual has some how become "gay".

#2 For one side of this argument, it is about money/benefits. For the other side, it is about preserving a tradition.

#3 The "gay" equality argument could be a template for illegal aliens. Why are we discriminating against them just because they weren't born here?

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@Chris B --

" there is no reason to ban polygamy or even sibling from being married "

Baloney.

As courts in Canada have already proven, it is both easy and logical to permit while banning the others -- as I've shown you several times before.

Here are excerpts from the presiding judge's decision when reaffirming the constitutionality of Canada's polygamy ban:

-- "The prevention of [the] collective harms associated with polygamy to women and children, especially, is clearly an objective that is pressing and substantial,"

-- "Polygamy's harm to society includes the critical fact that a great many of its individual harms are not specific to any particular religious, cultural or regional context. They can be generalized and expected to occur wherever polygamy exists."

-- "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."

As for incest -- as you well know, incest and pedophilia harm children. Also, children can not give informed consent, so they can't sign contracts.

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

contragion,

Two consenting siblings(Adults) yes can give informed consent.

Yes they can sign contracts.

Again, if you are claiming that two people cannot be intimate before obtaining the governments permission through marriage, then you may have an argument.

However I doubt that is your understanding of the law.

If that is your understanding of the law, I politely correct you.

Adults don't need the governemnts permission to be intimate.

Additionally I will inform you that marriage does not equal intimacy.

There are plenty of marriages that are full and complete and healthy marraiges and yet are absent of intimacy, for a variety of reasons.

Therefore, as I have plainly and simply explained, there is no justification in banning two adult siblings from being married, if we are changing the only appropriate definition of marriage.

Thank you

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@Chris --

"Two consenting siblings(Adults) yes can give informed consent."

First, they will still have a high risk of expressing genetic defects in their offspring.

Second, you'll have to find a pair of adult siblings who actually want to get married. Good luck with that.

In the meantime, it's a waste of time to argue about a hypothetical pairing that is extremely unlikely to occur in reality.

"Adults don't need the governemnts permission to be intimate."

So what?

"there is no justification in banning two adult siblings from being married"

If this is your only remaining argument against gay marriage, then I am well satisfied.

Now just find us a pair of adult siblings who actually **want** to get married, and maybe we can work on establishing their rights. ;-)

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

contagion,

"First, they will still have a high risk of expressing genetic defects in their offspring."

That risk has nothing to do with marriage, that's my point.

That risk is the exact same before marriage, after marriage. Marriage does not impact that at all, unless again you are suggesting that marriage is the governemnts permission for a couple to be intimate.

And considering liberals keep bringing up offspring with genetic problems, yes, that must be your understanding.

I've explained this in first grade terms in hopes that all understand.

Also I am trying to avoid the "sex" word because it probably has a higher likelihood of being disallowed by the Deseret News.

I will again correct liberals who must not understand this.

Consenting adults do not need the governments permission to be intimate.

It happens before marriage all the time.

It happens irrespective of marriage.

It is absent in marriage.

It is absent irrespective of marriage.

There is no relationship between allowing/disallowing siblings to marry and the "risk of offspring with genetic problems"

I'll continue to try and make this clear and simple in hopes that all comprehend this simple fact.

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@Chris B --

"That risk is the exact same before marriage, after marriage. "

Actually, no, it isn't.

Remember, marriage increases the stability of relationships. Increased stability means that the couple is more likely to stay together if they're married. And more time together means more likelihood of more children -- children with defects, in the case of incestuous siblings.

Remember, it is still true even in this country that more than half of all children are born to married women. So, no, the risk is NOT "the exact same" before marriage as after it, no matter how loudly you may claim that it is. In reality, women who are married are still more likely to have children than women who remain unmarried.

And remember also -- limitations on personal freedoms that are based on the "public safety" or "public well-being" concepts don't depend on the CERTAINTY of harm, but rather on the RISK of harm. And it is certainly true that incestuous couples have a very high risk of producing children with genetic defects.

So why would the government want to encourage those incestuous couples to stay together?

Keep trying, Chris. ;-)

to comment

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