Comments about ‘Challenge to Utah's same-sex marriage ban’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Dec. 4 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Tators
Hyrum, UT

@ Lagomorph:

Since you've already agreed that gay marriage is a "suboptimal" arrangement for raising children, and we all agree that other suboptimal arrangements exist (single parents, etc.), what sense is there in allowing additional substandard situations for children to exist?

The state is already trying to reduce other suboptimal environments for children by such practices as requiring parents considering divorce to undergo counseling prior to a divorce being granted. So with the goal of trying to minimize suboptimal children environments, it would make no sense whatsoever to purposely allow additional such situations via legalizing gay marriages.

@ skeptic:

It's not "tens of thousands" of us who believe in God as our Creator. It's multiple billions. It's very seldom, if ever, that billions have or would fall for a falsity... especially in our modern day, somewhat enlightened environment. And we definitely haven't in this case either. Thankfully, unenlightened atheists are a relatively small minority in society.

@ Kalindra:

And it doesn't mean that it is an existing right, either. That's an ongoing judicial argument yet to fully be determined.

ConservativeSmasher
Anaheim, CA

If Utah's ban on gay marriage is struck down, the ban on plural marriage will have to be struck down as well.

Polygamists deserve equality too.

On the other hand, since plural marriage harms no one, that's probably a good thing.

Contrariusester
mid-state, TN

@ConservativeSmasher --

"Polygamists deserve equality too."

Here we go again. This issue has been explained many many many times already.

Yet again --

Polygamy, incest, bestiality, pedophilia, etc. all convey a significantly increased risk of harm compared to other forms of marriage.

Gay marriage does not.

It's a very simple distinction.

Look up the harm principle. It's a foundational principle of our legal system.

Here's a quick illustration: Drunk driving conveys a significantly increased risk of harm compared to sober driving. All driving causes some risk, but that risk is greatly increased when the driver is drunk. Therefore, drunk driving is illegal but sober driving is not. And we don't have to prove that each and every drunk driver is a danger on the road, either -- we know that the vast majority of drivers will be at greater risk when drunk, so we keep drunk driving illegal even if a small majority of drivers may be able to drive safely while they're drunk.

Gay marriage does not greatly increase risk.

Polygamy (and the other forms mentioned above) does greatly increase risk.

Therefore polygamy is illegal.

to comment

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