Quantcast

Comments about ‘Media watchdog: Press got pope's pre-Christmas address all wrong’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Dec. 28 2012 4:18 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
JSB
Sugar City, ID

Of course the Pope is opposed to gay marriage. Anyone concerned about the welfare of our children should be opposed to it. Advocates of gay marriage are either ignoring or refusing to consider 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. Stick with one man and one woman. It's not perfect but it is far superior to any other arrangement. I commend the Pope and anyone who stands up for the traditional family.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@JSB
"Advocates of gay marriage are either ignoring or refusing to consider 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 "

You know this is the same argument made by people who opposed interracial marriage.

"what will prevent other types of relationships from becoming legal. "

Last I checked people can support one thing and oppose another.

amazondoc
USA, TN

Oddly enough, "social chaos" has completely failed to appear in Canada -- where gay marriages have already been legal for 9 years. Also no sign of "social chaos" in Argentina (2 years), Belgium (9 years), Denmark (6 months), Iceland (2 years), the Netherlands (11 years), Norway (4 years), Portugal (2 years), Spain (7 years), or Sweden (3 years). There's also no significant "social chaos" showing up in CT (4 years), IA (3 years), MA (8 years), NH (2 years), or VT (3 years).

Huh. Whaddaya know -- all these places have already made same sex marriages legal, and the world didn't end!

The definition of "traditional family" has changed many times over the years. Surely the most important "traditions" to honor in the family are actually love and commitment, rather than the biological equipment someone happens to be born with?

JSB
Sugar City, ID

Alt and Amazondoc,

To attempt to neutralize my concerns about potential long range negative effects of gay marriage on our society by saying they haven’t happened yet doesn’t mean it won’t happen. The Netherlands 11 years of gay marriage is just a blink of an eye when measuring long term social consequences. When I was living in San Francisco in the 1960s, the issue of gay marriage wasn’t ever mentioned. The fact is that there are about a half million polyamorous “families” in the U.S. today that are not legally recognized. Using the same reasoning as the homosexuals do today, they will be able to legalize their relationships. All it will take is a judge or two to say they have that right and all the privileges that go with it. Since the primary reason for marriage and family is for raising well-adjusted children in a healthy environment, wouldn’t we be wise to avoid social experiments that could undermine this primary purpose with catastrophic consequences? Stick with one man and one woman. It's not perfect but it is far superior to any other arrangement.

amazondoc
USA, TN

"To attempt to neutralize my concerns [....] by saying they haven't happened yet doesn't mean it won't happen."

And the sky may fall, too, but Henny Penny shouting about it won't make it so.

There is no evidence that there will be *any* "long range negative effects" from gay marriages. OTOH, we have good evidence from the locations I mentioned earlier, that there will NOT be any.

The first known legal gay marriage attempt in the US happened in 1970, in Minnesota. That was 40 years ago, and STILL the world hasn't come to an end.

As for polyamory -- polygamy was a central tenet of the Mormon religion for a good while there. And guess what -- the world didn't end. A majority of people decided that it wasn't acceptable, so the legal system outlawed it. No chaos required. The same thing would happen today.

As for the "primary reason for marriage" -- by your argument, we should outlaw marriages for anyone who can't have children. Sterile people -- no marriage for you, sorry! Paralyzed people -- nope, no marriage for you! People who don't feel like raising children?? Nope, no marriage for you!

Sounds silly, right?

to comment

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