Utah attitudes on gay marriage shift significantly
"Nationally, 24 percent favor civil unions and 38 percent favor same-sex
marriage."Wrong. 54% of Americans support same-sex marriage.
Somebody is using outdated stats.
@Thomas AlexActually you're both right. The 54% you're referring
to is a poll that gave two options, marriage or none. This poll had three
options, marriage, civil unions, or none.
I think my attitude has changed. I used to be more supportive of gay marriage
and unions. But, as I've researched these issues (thanks to encouragement
from full time commenting activists), I've come to understand the potential
harm that comes from mainstreaming homosexual activity. We should love
everyone. And, if we truly love those suffering from unwanted homosexuality, and
those who have given in to the propaganda, we will encourage and support them in
their daily lives rather than help push the agenda that pushed them into sad
situations. Love will teach all that they can help others avoid tragedies by
pointing out truths about homosexuality, rather then trying to hide the truth.
Love sees no need to mainstream homosexual activity. And love does not seek to
"destroy" those who support the sanctity of traditional marriage. The agenda that some are pushing is dishonest, and harmful, and has been
shown to increase the numbers of children and adults who give in to
homosexuality, and come to believe they were born to abandon families and
spouses for homosexual desire.
@firstamendment you got one thing right their are those that are
pushing a dishonest and harmful agenda and the rest of your comment just
illustrates how far you are willing to go to deceive others in pushing your
sorry there not their. As my old english teacher used to say their, there,
I have increasingly become less tolerant of any type of gay marriage or civil
union over the past several years because I no longer see it as a political
issue or a civil rights issue, but as a moral one. Marriage is between one man
and one woman and any convention to try to make it seem otherwise has no basis
in Christian (or for that matter, Latter-Day Saints) values. It was strongly
condemned when the Greeks and Romans engaged in the practice as noted in the
Book of Romans in the New Testament. Many studies show that those who engage in
homosexual practice are depressed and often suicidal. This is not a problem with
a lack of acceptance, but a loss of the Holy Spirit in their lives. Some have
condemned me for my views on the subject, but I have seen the damage this
practice creates in the lives of those who engage in it. Yes, we can feel
compassionate toward those engaged in this practice, but those who are involved
in homosexuality need to stop the practice in order to feel whole again.
President Hinckley came out in stating that we do not appose fair legal
treatment for everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation - I took that to
include civil unions. I'm not willing to call it 'marriage'.I am convinced that there is a direct correlation between the ever
increasing problems in society and every level and every facet - and the
disintegration of the traditional family unit. And I am well beyond believing
that the government has a new idea that will solve all of our problems.
@ulvegaard ever increasing problems? such as very low crime rates,
dropping teen pregnancy rates, decreases in abortion rates. sorry but the world
really is not falling apart.
Sorry Charlie!,One simply has to look at the increase in relativism
from the youth in this country to see how things are falling apart.Relativists: "equality!"Me: "Only man and woman deserves
recognition"R: "Then you are oppressing others by imposing your
morality on them"Me: "Would you recognize incestuous marriages?
Man-animal marriages?"R: "That's different"Me:
"Actually no, then you are imposing a morality just as much as I am"The problem is NOT that we disagree. I have NO problems whatsoever with
people believing that gay marriage is worth recognizing, or even if that
recognition is a right. I disagree with them, but have no problem with them
having that opinion. The problem I have is that relativist does something far
worse. It's a facade of equality but its end function is utter tyranny.
Relativism is rejected by the vast majority of philosophers for good reason, it
can't be rationally supported. It ultimately functions to say "what I
say is right and anyone else is wrong automatically" without regard for
reason or rational argument.Again, disagreement is one thing. But
disagreeing with the EXISTENCE of other opinions is dangerous, and highly
A voice of ReasonSalt Lake City, UTYou realize it was
conservative idealism, intolerance and absolutism that drove the Mormons into
exile?You realize that Mormons were the 1st to live in peaceful,
unorthodoz marriages long before Prop 8?You realize that we Mormons
should be the first to recognize intolerance, bigotry and in-equality and should
stand against it?You realize the Holocaust sent Millions of
non-Christians, Liberals, Communists, and Homo-sexuals and other
"un-desirables" to the gas chambers?You might want to
reconsider and examine who's side you are really on....
LDS Liberal,What matters more to you, following God's prophet
or legislating equality? "Equality" is not a commandment, not even a
doctrine. We are all equal before God. But treating each other with kindness, as
equals, etc. and treating each other's ACTIONS as equally acceptable and
moral are not the same thing. To treat everyone's actions as morally equal
was the devil's plan, NOT God's. While you continually fight the
church on here, I would ask you (as I have before) to reconsider. You are not
God. You are not a prophet of God. Neither am I. However, the men who have been
authorized to speak for God have consistently reminded in kindness, rebuked, and
commanded the truth. All I ever hear from you is to follow another doctrine, a
different one.I'm not perfect. I'm a sinner and make lots
of mistakes. Our prophet has authority to speak for God, you don't. You
telling me who's "side" I am on is not within your own authority
and is completely inappropriate, ESPECIALLY while you so frequently argue
contrary to what our priesthood AUTHORITIES have instructed. They have
authority, you do not.
The writing is on the wall, even in Utah. Firstamendment, I, and
countless others, might be tremendously offended by your comment - which does
the very thing it claims to be trying to defend against - except you're so
far off the mark of truth that it's not worth allowing it to get to me.
Mean-spirited and hurtful, perhaps, but threatening? Hardly. Everyone, including
you, can say and insist whatever they want, but it's not going to change
reality, nor is it going to diminish the love and devotion that so many gay
couples have. And I suspect that they don't care what you think of their
relationship anymore than you'd care what they think of yours (if
you've got one). You're only convincing yourself and your choir. A voice of "Reason": you compare homosexuality to beastiality
and incest under the guise of relativism. Are you so ignorant of homosexuality
or are just hoping everyone else is? We're comparing consensual
relationships to non-consensual relationships, unless we're willing to be
so arrogant that we are comfortable telling two other adults that consent to an
activity that they do not, in fact, consent.
@vorhow is your selective interpretation of the a written work by people
thousand of years ago any less relative then my position?
The debate over same-sex marriage has been ongoing for ages, but one thing I
never see people discuss is family law and children. Currently, family laws
define parties in the family as mother, father, dependents or children. How on
earth do you redefine family laws, not just in each state, but nationally, birth
and death records, other records of who someone is and where they came from,
etc. I have a friend who is a lesbian and she is now too old to conceive and
carry a child but wants her partner who is much younger than her to carry HER
egg and give birth to what biologically would be her child but by birth would be
her partner's. They have split several times over the years so even if
they love each other, the relationship really isn't that stable. If they
split for good, whose child would he or she be? How does a court even begin to
make a ruling on that? I feel for her desire to be married and have a family
but the issue is far more complex than just defining it as a moral issue or
legal issue. Others are affected.
@VOR"Relativism is rejected by the vast majority of philosophers
for good reason."So lets see sorry charles comment is based in
known and easily verifiable statistical fact and your opinions are based on your
interpretation of ancient writings of other men. WHich one do you really think
philosophers would rally find relativistic in nature? "Again,
disagreement is one thing. But disagreeing with the EXISTENCE of other opinions
is dangerous, and highly un-American."How is portending that
anything sorry charlie said even remotely translates to them disagreeing with
the existence of other opinions a valid argument? what do you think philosophers
would think of the tactic of protending that you are being repressed because
others offer a more compelling factually based argument then your own?
@in this casefunny this really has not been an issue in any of the places
that gay marriage is allowed. I am going to take a stab at maybe they could use
the term parents in place of mother and father. as to custody gee I guess they
would just have to do it the same way they do know for heterosexual couples.
really not a compelling argument sorry.
pretending not portending sorry.
@ In This Case: My parents broke up a couple of times before they married and,
after they were married, they separated at least 4 times before they finally
divorced. In spite of this, my siblings and I are our parents children, custody
was awarded to one parent and the other parent paid child support and had
visitation. Family law has changed many times throughout history.
There was a time when the father had all the rights - to the extent that women
were property and were not allowed to own anything, everything belonged to the
husband. There was even a time when a man could legally rape and beat his wife.
It was illegal for a man to abuse his animals before it was illegal for him to
abuse his children. Very recently, and still ongoing to a certain
extent, family law held that women were always the better choice for custody of
the children - even if there was strong evidence that the mother was abusive or
unstable or on drugs. Women were considered so much better at being parents,
that some widowers were forced to allow an aunt to raise the child(ren). Laws change all the time.
@Kalindra - But the parent who gave birth to the child is the birth mother, even
if the egg belongs to the other mother. Birth mother rights are much stronger
in states like Utah, so my friend, even though she is the egg donor, could lose
her own biological child to her partner should they split. My point is that
same sex families can get very confusing. How do you write laws to encompass
all the situations that may arise when things get complicated like this? I am
not attacking anyone's desire for marriage and family, nor am I making a
judgement call about what kinds of relationships are stable (hetero or
homosexual) only that IF the relationships end in divorce, it can get very
complicated. Without recognizing same-sex marriage, the definitions of who
children will live with doesn't necessarily fall on the courts to decide.
Is that right? Not for me to say, but it definitely is a valid point to
discuss, even though George is not willing to think beyond and see how
complicated it can get.
@Ace4309 - Just clarifying you comment back to A Voice Of Reason, incest can
also be between consenting adults. I am in no way condoning it, because I DO
think that is something that should never be allowed, but again, I am passing
judgement on two consenting adults who may want to marry each other even though
its not socially (and in the case of homosexuality as well, not physically)
natural. Before you attack me, speaking scientifically, there is no natural way
to conceive a child through homosexual relations, and relations of incest can
result in genetic defects to the child. If we follow the laws of science and
nature, both situations go against those laws. It seems very prudent that
societies have followed that in creating laws for their own government.
@inthiscase the ability to have children "biologically has never been
a requirement of marriage, for someone so keen on the law I would think you
already know that. As for nature homosexuality exist throughout all nature not
just humans. As to who children go with in case of divorce you are
trying to make it far more complicated then it has to be. the child goes to the
parent that is best suited to care for the child. really not that hard to figure
@n In This Case: And my non-custodial parent lost their biological child to the
custodial parent.Surrogacy, in-vitro fertilization, adoption - the
situation you are talking about is not that different and is really nothing new.
Why is it more confusing to determine the best parent when they are
both the same gender than it is when they are different genders?Even
without marriage, custody of children often falls to the Court to decide. Are
you arguing that in the situation you posit it will be easier to determine which
woman gets to raise the child if the two women are not married to each other
than it will be if they are married? When couples with children - married or
unmarried - break up, they usually get a court order determining custody and
child support. Two men, two women, or a man and a woman, custody and support
are pretty standard. I am not sure why you think same-sex marriage makes it
It makes it more difficult because in the case of same sex relationships, only
one parent is the actual biological parent. That will take priority in the
decisions of who will have custody of the children involved. In the case of a
hetero couple, both parents typically are the biological parents. In the cases
of adoption, that is an entirely different part of family law. And if one
parent later marries, lets say, a different dad of the child and adopts the
child, and then those parents split, the biological parent most likely will
always get full custody and maybe even sole custody.These situations
are nothing new, you are right, but they are not nearly as simple as you
describe it. Yes, I know this first hand. It doesn't really matter to me
what anonymous people commenting on a news article think. Same-sex marriages
would complicate family law. NATURE intended for men and women to procreate. I
guess if same-sex couples don't want to involve children then it
wouldn't be that complicated, but that is not reality. The smart thing
would be to look at all angles before making things even more complicated.
@atl134Wrong, all major polls show a majority of Americans support
same-sex marriage. The 38% came from FOX News. And everyone knows how bias
they're. CNN Poll May 29, 2012"Do you think
marriages between gay and lesbian couples should or should not be recognized by
the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"54% said yes. ABC Poll May 17, 2012"Do you think
it should be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to get
married?"53% said yes.
@InThisCase -first, I'm not attacking you; we disagree, and I'd even
say quite civilly. In light of your reply to me and your earlier
comments, I'd recommend you spend more time studying the law. Incest is a
criminal offense and the law forbids "consent" in incestuous
relationships between adults. That's the end of it; no further inquiry
necessary. No legal similarity to homosexuality, period.As
mentioned, the family law evolves and in this case, the words "mother"
and "father" are replaced with "parents" in jurisdictions that
provide equal marriage. Interestingly, your original comment might be correct
regarding polygamy, which notably is the very reason that the argument
"polygamy will somehow follow 'gay marriage'" fails. The law
across the board is designed on a bipartite monogamous relationship. Introducing
additional parties to the framework would be nearly impossible. But gender? Not
an issue.Finally, if you're playing the procreation card, will
you please explain why we allow heterosexuals couple to marry who either
can't have or don't want children? Homosexuals have always existed and
our species continues. Will heterosexuals really stop procreating because gays
can now sign a legal contract together? I doubt it.
@InThisCase- "So my friend, even though she is the egg donor, could lose her
own biological child to her partner should they split."
@InThisCase - "It makes it more difficult because in the case of same sex
relationships, only one parent is the actual biological parent. That will take
priority in the decisions of who will have custody of the children
involved."But realize that this simply isn't true in
jurisdictions that actually provide legal frameworks that actually treat people
equally. It doesn't have to be this way. If it is this way in Utah, for
example, it is this way because Utah has deliberately refused to provide
treatment in law to give homosexual people the same respect that heterosexuals
receive. We can't deny a group of people equal protection and then use the
effects of that deliberate denial to evidence why they shouldn't receive
protection. We throw all of these hurdles that straight people don't face
in the way and then we sit back and say, "See? Look how much more
dysfunctional and confusing it all is; surely we shouldn't recognize or
respect that." We helped make it so and yet we pretend our hands are tied as
if they created their own obstacles.
@ In This Case: Actual case that has been to Court and has been decided: A man
gets his girlfriend pregnant. She does not want the child, he does, she gives
it to him and gives up all rights to the child. The man later gets married.
His wife legally adopts his child. They divorce. The mother, although not
biologically related to the child, is one of the child's two legal parents.
The Court determines that the mother is better able to care for the child and
awards her custody. The man pays child support and has visitation. Once a
child is adopted, biological versus non-biological ceases to matter - both
parents are legal parents and that is all the Court cares about.The
only difference between that case and the case you posit is the gender of the
involved parents.When sperm or an egg is donated by a third party
and the other part of the equation comes from someone within the relationship,
it doesn't matter - even though only one parent is biologically related,
both parents are legal.Same-sex couples are having children with or
without marriage. Marriage does not complicate the situation.
I grew up in the Bay Area of California in the late 1970s. When I was a high
school senior, one of the guys in our senior class went to court so he could
legally bring his boyfriend as his date to the senior ball. I have also had
friends that "came out" and a bisexual boss. I think that people should
be treated fairly and not based on their sexual orientation, but what I have
found is that people who decide that they are homosexual tend to want everyone
to not just accept them but to also accept and embrace their lifestyle choice.
Why do they care what others think? Sex has always been a private matter, but
it is now a very public matter with implications for public policy. While I can
see some benefit to having civil unions for homosexual couples, I personally
object to the rewriting of my designation as a mother having to be deleted so
that a gay couple can be termed parent 1 and parent 2. I cannot see that adding
same sex marriage to our culture does anything for anyone except those who are
seeking for a more acceptable label for themselves.