Comments about ‘'The President's Marriage Agenda': How to reduce suffering for children and strengthen families’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, Dec. 16 2012 12:05 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Wayne Rout
El Paso, TX

The wrirer does not know Obama. The president is for the destruction of the family and religion.

micki
Sebastopol, CA

It is not enough to just encourage marriage, or even to implement those policies which would possibly force women in poverty to remain with abusive partners, endangering them and their children. Forcing women to stay with abusive partners because of dire economic consequences will not "strengthen marriage" it could even raise the statistics on domestic violence and spousal homicide. We must focus on the well being of children and their mothers first, and also educating young men in how to treat women with respect. When 2/3 of young minority men have slim prospects for gainful employment, as well as a very good chance they will end up incarcerated, this does not "strengthen marriage". Marriage for marriage's sake is not the answer. Fostering Loving Non Violent Non Dysfunctional relationships would be a better use of resources, time, and funds.

BoMerit
Alpine, UT

While not disagreeing with all points made, the flavor of the article does seem to be economics. I don't want to paint the recommendations as worship of the almighty dollar, but there is something missing here that I can comment on from experience.
My family went through a devestating past 3+ years where we lost everything and I could not find work no matter how hard I tried. Rather than worrying about just economics, my wife stayed at home with the kids while I scratched to bring in just enough to support a very meager existance. Our focus became gratitude to God for what we DID have, not what we were lacking, and we've never been so happy even though we're not out of the woods still economically. Obedience to God's commandments, service to others, and seeking to adopt higher principals than simply affording to buy more and eat better led to the happiest time in our family's history of 16 years.

Hutterite, please back up with facts. I've lived around this country & families seem weakest in states that allow gays to marry and which offer residents the widest safety nets. So why take it national?

Mr.Glass
Salt Lake City, UT

Who is the authority on what constitutes the family? Religious Conservatives are unable comprehend that a lesbian, married couple who are raising two children are enjoying the same lifestyle as straight, married couple. They read books to them each night, tell them how much they love them, providing them with music lessons and enjoying their careers as loving and concerned parents. The lesbian couple I know are fine examples for all parents, not just for other lesbian parents. Why? Because they are human beings are us. They too raise children in ways that are obvious healthy and would be healthy for all if we all followed their example. Love is universal. Their children love their two parents. They formed familial bonds immediately after birth. If any of you opened your hearts and regarded them as fine human beings, you would all stop seeing them as a threat to families. Indeed, they are the finest examples of what it takes to enjoy wholesome family life. It wouldn't hurt your family if you mingled with families of same sex parents. You would strengthen civilization by extending your support to those who are different than you and really learn something.

marlli
Herriman, UT

Great article, one that every American should ponder. I'd love for you to visit my high school classroom when my students are given this article as a reading assignment and discussion topic. The room becomes very tense as I point out statistics and ask for suggestions from the students as to Why trends move one way or another. Young people from broken families refuse to acknowledge that ANY of these statistics could possibly apply to their own family. How much hope do we have of changing behavior patterns in society unless we persist in making plain the message of the trends you write about in your article. Just food for thought. This is what makes teaching high school such a challenge and a calling!

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@wayne
so the writer does not know the president but you believe you know what is in his heart and mind? interesting.

The Balloonatic
Taylorsville, UT

Is the "President's Agenda," belonging to President Obama, or the president of Center for Marriage and Family? These are all good ideas, but if it's President Obama's agenda, I don't think the government should be involved. I'm confused if it is President Obama's agenda on improving families, because it contradicts what he's been supporting.

JSB
Sugar City, ID

No one seems to be considering the long-term consequences of legalizing gay marriage. Once gay marriage is legalized what will prevent other types of relationships from becoming legal. Polyamorous families (where there are two or more adults of each sex) are waiting anxiously for gay marriage legalization because they will then demand the same rights. What's to prevent siblings from "marrying" or a son and mother, or a father and daughter? Or a father and son, etc. etc. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is the only way to prevent these other relationships from receiving legal recognition. And, if they get legal recognition the social chaos in our society will be beyond anything we have ever imagined. And the ones to suffer most will be children who will grow up to be unstable adults. Stick with one man and one woman. It's not perfect but it is far superior to any other arrangement.

to comment

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