Comments about ‘Mormon Parenting: Can someone be both conservative and moderate?’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, May 18 2012 5:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

"Personally, we worry a great deal about a president who changes his mind on the principle of marriage, which we believe is the commitment and glue that hold the basic unit of society together and bring children into the world and maximize their chances to grow up as good citizens equipped to reach their full potential."

---

Gays and Lesbians have families too. Are their children not important enough to participate in the "glue that holds the basic unit of society together...and maximize their chances to grow up as good citizens equipped to reach their full potential?"

I guess not.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

Well one thing that kids need to learn is that the other side (assuming they or the parents are in one party or the other and fairly strongly in that position) aren't evil or trying to destroy America. Everyone likes America, everyone wants to see America do well, they just disagree on what should be done.

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

Eyres: "...the principle of marriage, which we believe is the commitment and glue that hold the basic unit of society together and bring children into the world..."

At the risk of highjacking this thread onto gay marriage and away from the column's valid main point about compromise, I have to second RanchHand's comment. Gays have families, too. The recurring statistic I have seen is that about 30% of gay households have children. I'm a boring middle-aged straight guy with no particular ties to the GLBT community, but I am personally acquainted with at least three lesbians with children conceived after they came out (i.e. not kids carried over from previous straight marriages). OK, they used artificial means, but that is a technique infertile straight couples routinely use. I know even more gay couples with adopted children. To ignore or discount the children of LGBT families is to shortchange them and condemn them to the various social dysfunctions that the institution of marriage was created to prevent (i.e. help them "maximize their chances to grow up as good citizens equipped to reach their full potential").

David King
Layton, UT

"Changing your mind on what marriage is seems to us to be changing your mind on everything"

Ironically, Mitt Romney has done both; changed his mind on marriage and nearly everything else, and you still endorsed him in an earlier column. He said he was "to the left of Ted Kennedy" on the marriage issue. He described himself as effectively "pro-choice" as governor. He was for TARP. Now he says he opposes it. Back in 2009 he said we needed an economic stimulus package. Now says it was a bad idea. He talks a lot about the Constitution, and then supports the Patriot Act, the NDAA, and undeclared wars, when the Constitution requires a declaration of war by Congress. He supported an individual mandate as late as 2009, now says it's not Constitutional. Mitt Romney says he wants to balance the budget but also that he wants to cut taxes and increase defense spending. The math simply won't add up. Please, Eyres. Realize the faith that you and I share with Mitt Romney is clouding your judgment of his policies, as you try to transform him into something he simply isn't.

shardy
IRVING, TX

"Changing your mind on what marriage is seems to us to be changing your mind on everything."

Mitt Romney's family, and perhaps the two authors here, (and the letter writer) are descendants of polygamous marriages, as recently as two generations ago. The church tried very hard to re-define marriage, or at least allow those of the LDS faith to have their own definition, based on certain principles. We Mormons are on very shaky ground when we insist that marriage has "always" been defined a certain way. So by the Eyre's definition, our church seems to have "changed ourmind on everything."

romorg
PROVO, UT

You contrast values and principles with methods and approaches and assert that the latter is subject for compromise while the former is not. That is certainly an attitude that has been espoused in this country.

The problem arises when you attempt to define what are values/principles and what are methods/approaches. Is plural marriage a principle or a method? How about baptism for the dead?

In the Mormon paradigm, if plural marriage is a value, then your argument fails and it appears that values are subject for compromise. If plural marriage is a method then it is subject for compromise. So, why not gay marriage?

When you expand the paradigm to all Americans then you have to accept that values vary and compromise may be necessary on any subject whether it is a value or a method. Perhaps this is what was done in the case of plural marriage...then why not gay marriage?

Lasvegaspam
Henderson, NV

The Eyres have asked, ‘Can someone be both conservative and moderate?’ I ask, how is it possible to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman AND that people should be able to marry whomever they want? (see Senator Harry Reid’s remarks from 5/10/12 below):

“My personal belief is that marriage is between a man and a woman. But in a civil society, I believe that people should be able to marry whomever they want, and it’s no business of mine if two men or two women want to get married. The idea that allowing two loving, committed people to marry would have any impact on my life, or on my family’s life, always struck me as absurd.”

“In talking with my children and grandchildren, it has become clear to me they take marriage equality as a given. I have no doubt that their view will carry the future.”

Lasvegaspam
Henderson, NV

I ask the question above in light of these remarks from Elder Dallin Oaks given at a BYU devotional address February 9, 1999:

"If we say we are anti-abortion in our personal life but pro-choice in public policy, we are saying that we will not use our influence to establish public policies that encourage righteous choices on matters God’s servants have defined as serious sins. I urge Latter-day Saints who have taken that position to ask themselves which other grievous sins should be decriminalized or smiled on by the law due to this theory that persons should not be hampered in their choices."

to comment

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