Quantcast

Comments about ‘Vatican historian says church is not losing same-sex marriage battle’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, Nov. 10 2012 3:05 p.m. MST

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

On no other dispute in recent history has public opinion swung so radically and so quickly. Demographers say that on this one issue they see a rare age related spread. The older the responder, the more strongly they oppose gay marriage. The younger group see little problem with it whatsoever. There is a tipping point at some time when the matter will have to be standardized for the nation since we would have legal chaos if States did not recognize marriages performed in other States.

The Vatican historian could well be correct that history is on the side of the church, but the reality is growing daily that the majority of the population no longer supports their position. This appears to soon be yet another matter of personal sexuality in which the church is losing its ability to influence society not to mention its own members.

BCA
Murrieta, CA

Whatever the current condition of the political wind, the long-term direction is fixed and inevitable. Gay people will not be looked on as "less than" in the future, regardless of what the religious believe of them. Churches can do what they want to protect their flocks and their ideologies. Individuals will be protected from the religious beliefs of others in the end.

Pack
Layton, Utah

Even if a person has an attraction to the same gender, they have a choice as to how to live with it. Most heterosexuals have been attracted to more than one person of the opposite gender, but once again it is a choice on how they act on those attractions. I am all for equal legal rights for all people, and that can be accomplished with legislation without it being called marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. This cannot be compared to a racial issue, because race is not a choice, how to act out sexually is a choice.

John C. C.
Payson, UT

The first sign of trouble in modern society was disrespecting marriage and the value of reserving intimate relations to within marriage only. I witnesses that during the so-called sexual revolution of the 1960's. Soon thereafter came the rejection of traditional gender roles. Attempting to legitimize same gender relationships is only one more step down in an unsustainable, destructive cycle. There are legitimate reasons for traditional families. We would only be fooling ourselves by believing otherwise.

metamoracoug
metamora, IL

I agree Pack. But you've only scratched the service of this issue. 50 years ago our society embarked on another great social experiment -- no-fault divorce -- that has had devastating and long-lasting effects on our society. If we knew then what we know now about how easy divorce affected both adults and children, would we be so eager to follow this incredibly inane course of action?

Now we are being asked to blindly accept another social experiment without fully understanding all of the potential repercussions. Sorry, but it doesn't work for me.

Grover
Salt Lake City, UT

Pack: Sounds like you are as much for monogamy as you are against gay unions being called marriage. If gays live monogamously with one partner, would that change your mind? Heterosexuals have libertine members just as do homosexuals. Give them all the rights of married people and then we can talk about what to call it. For me what other people do is their business as long as they are productive members of society and good neighbors. I take no special pleasure in being called "married" rather than "paired" or "committed". They should not ask me to embrace their lifestyle and I have no need to ask them to behave as I would choose.

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

Grover,

State recognition is not a right. Michael Sandel, a Harvard professor, well illustrates how the younger generations fail to accurately address this.

Which would you vote for? (SR=State Recognition)

SR for traditional marriages only
SR extended to same-gender couples
SR extended to all self-declared unions (self-marriage, inter-species, etc)
or
The state stays out of it all together.

1) The existence of the last option absolutely 100% refutes the possibility of SR being a right.

2) "Equal protection of the law" applies the same law, as written, to everyone. The written law does not define marriage, leaving the states to decide this unless the U.S. constitution is amended.

3) "Equal" doesn't mean "redefine to accept all possible definitions". If this were true the law would be purely relative to every individual, destroying the function of law in the first place. A doctrine of 100% legal tolerance is anarchy where no freedoms are protected.

---

People may not like the U.S. constitution, but its creators didn't seem to find the same rights in it as liberals do today. Either amend or those of us who actually believe in this country will defend our rights.

bandersen
Saint George, UT

The only recourse for those with a religious conviction about the Standard of Jesus Christ is to be a better example and then to actually express that conviction through the ballot box. Marraige is between a man and a woman. Any member of the Mormon religion that expresses anything less than this has an extreme misunderstanding of its doctrine. They are in actuality in open rebellion against the very religion and person, ie. Jesus Christ,they claim allegiance. Of course in this day and age, it is not surprising. Using the cloak of Christianity to hide an obvious bias against God is only one method to try and destroy His work!

Third try screen name
Mapleton, UT

The words of John Adams echo loudly in my mind, something about how our Constitution was written for a moral and religious people and is inadequate to govern any other.
Instead, we are saddled with a Federal Register that is the size of a phone book each day as they attempt to govern us rather than let us govern ourselves.
And a Supreme Court forced to pass judgment on the most inane of topics where common sense should prevail.
Throw in the need we seem to have to join some sort of protected class in order to get our perks and we have the textbook definition of spiritual wickedness in high places.
Evil has indeed become good.

BrentBot
Salt Lake City, UT

Marriage reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over. As the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called "expansive energy," which might best be summarized as society's will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived.

Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Chairman of Harvard University’s sociology department, Pitirim Sorokin. found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of homosexuality.

When marriage loses its unique status, women and children most frequently are the direct victims. Giving same-sex relationships or out-of-wedlock heterosexual couples the same special status and benefits as the marital bond would not be the expansion of a right but the destruction of a principle. .

Michael Roche
Provo, UT

Where is the history in this article?

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

If civil unions (with Spouse 1 and Spouse 2) are inferior to marriage (groom and bride), when gay marriage is legalized, what does the marriage certificate say the day after? If it says Spouse 1 and Spouse 2 then it is civil union and the effect of legalizing gay marriage has been to actually ban marriage. Same gender unions have not been elevated, traditional marriage which fights childhood poverty has been brought demoted, in fact, banned. How is that a progressive step?

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@Pack;

You're not just asking that we restrain our urges for ONE PERSON only. You're asking that we remain alone forever. Those of us in relationships do happen to restrain our urges to one person so, in effect, we're just like you.

@John C.C;

Your "sky is falling" scenario is all in your head.

@VoR;

The Constitution does guarantee equal protection under the laws - even laws that grant protections to couples (i.e., marriage). If you don't want same-sex marriage, again, don't have one.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

The church has been around for a long time, and is willing to risk its' relevance in order to try to retain the authority it's had for thousands of years based on 'god says so'. But that's not enough anymore.

SoCalChris
Riverside, CA

You're naive if you don't see that if same sex marriage becomes the law of the land there will be far-reaching consequences. Legally it would mean that homosexuality and heterosexuality are completely on par. There is no way that kids could be taught anything other than that in school without facing lawsuits. I don't want my kids to be part of that kind of social experiment.

There are many of us who have sincere compassion for gay people and believe their wires got crossed through no fault of their own and that there should be legal accommodations for gay couples who want to formalize their union. Civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. But I will never go along with the notion that homosexuality and heterosexuality are purely a matter of taste and that both are equally normal and healthy.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

The bigotry of the majority of these comments is astounding. Truly astounding.

You all probably came home from your various churches today and said "God bless our bigotry".

Good luck on judgment day.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@socalchris

what ramifications? where is your proof of any harm other then teaching children that we are equal? If the worst that happens is bigotry has to be taught at home and church rather then the schools I can live with that.

metamoracoug
metamora, IL

Ranchhand & spring street: ah! the bigotry card! You know, by orientation, I am not a monogamist. Everything about my physical being tells me that having multiple partners is acceptable and good. But there is something else that whispers the foolishness of such a lifestyle -- that my happiness and that of my family is dependent on being in complete control of my desires.

Ultimately, though, my objections to a gay lifestyle are not "religious." We live in a society that is dependent on individuals making wise choices. If a businessman chooses to cheat his customer, or a politician accepts a bribe, or a father has an extramarital affair, or a drunk drives home from the bar, or the gambler bets that monthly mortgage, all those choices affect the rest of us. We deceive ourselves if we think otherwise. Each choice we make for good or bad affects someone else. The success of our society depends on individuals making more good choices than bad. At this point, many are selling the gay lifestyle as good, but my inclination is that it falls in the same boat as "no-fault" divorce.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

I remember when those opposed to accept homosexuality as part of any society through out history, would dispute the claim that 10% of society is or has some homosexual feelings. They would dispute the number and claim that homosexuals represent such a small number that it wouldn't be worthy to enact laws to favor or protect such a small segment.

Now, they go to the opposit extreme. If Same Sex marriage is allowed somehow, traditional marriages will stop. Heterosexual I assume will stop getting married and for course, what we all know....the Human Race will vanish.

The day of judgment is upon us, because this nasty LGBT who used to be forced to love in hiding, not able to have permanent relationships.Therefore, promiscuity and annonimity was the result.

This LGBT people now want to live normal lives, they want to be accepted as normal people, they want to live monogamous lives, raise children, make sure their beloved ones get all the 'same', no more no less, benefits than any other human being. How dare they....The end is coming, the end is coming!

The God I follow teaches me to love everybody and not to judge anyone.

Pack
Layton, Utah

@Ranchhand, even if a person has an attraction for the same gender, it does not mean they can't develop a loving relationship with someone of the opposite sex, rather than as you say, remain alone forever. It is still very much a choice.

to comment

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