@zoar63 --"Another argument that was used before homosexuality
was decriminalized."Some court cases succeed, others don't.
No surprise there."I am afraid that once the definition changes
there will be no excuse tp prevent polyggamists from legally getting
married"You have the right to be afraid of whatever you like.
That doesn't mean that your fears are rational or reasonable.Incidentally -- several Scandinavian countries have had gay "registered
partnerships" (more like marriages than our "civil unions") for 20
years and more. And none of them have had crowds of polygamists, pedophiles, or
would-be incest-perpetrators mobbing their courthouses. This is the *reality* of
what happens in countries that legally recognize gay partnerships --
specifically, not much!@RedShirt""sister
wives" is a reality show."And of course "reality
shows" are well known for their reliable reflections of actual reality. Like
that bastion of educational TV, "The Bachelor". And "Housewives of
Beverly Hills". And whatever that Kardashian show is called. Got it."I have known some polygamists that are in the Salt Lake
area"I never said that polygamists are evil. I only said that
there are significant, known, concrete risks associated with the practice.
@Redshirt --Try again. That article you cited is **nine years
old**.In 2011, the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy -- an
**anti-gay marriage** think tank -- published numbers showing that the marriage
rate in the Netherlands has been declining **steadily** since 1999. That was two
years BEFORE gay marriage became legalized there. In other words, the
legalization of gay marriage there had **no** effect on the decline.And yes, in part domestic partnerships are now taking the place of some of
those marriages -- for both homosexual **and** heterosexual couples in that
country. And again, that process started **before** gay marriages became legal
there.Also, interestingly, divorce rates for homosexual marriages in
that country have been the same as for heterosexuals since legalization.Here's some additional interesting numbers for you, originally
published in the Wall Street Journal:Denmark -- gay registered
partnerships in 1989 -- by 1999, the marriage rate had **increased** by 10.7% --
divorce dropped by 13.9%Norway -- ditto in 1993 -- by 2003, the marriage
rate had **increased** by 12.7% -- divorce dropped by 6%Sweden -- ditto in
1995 -- by 2005, the marriage rate had **increased** by 28.7 % -- divorce
dropped by 13.7%
To "plainbrownwrapper" go and read "Gay Marriage has sent the
Netherlands the way of Scandinavia" in the National Review. They point out
that once gay marriage took hold that the decrease in actual marriages became
more pronounced. They point out that " the upswing in the Dutch
out-of-wedlock birthrate coincides with the enactment of registered partnerships
and gay marriage. "The states that are experiencing the drop in
divore rates have not had the experiment with Gay marriage mature. Once the
initial bump wears off, you will see their divorce rate drop again back to the
smae level as others.
@Redshirt --"the problem is that by legalizing gay marriage it
results in a devaluation of marriage for that society. Legalizing gay marriage
results in few marriages being performed overall, and that will only damage
society as a whole."Who says?? Where's your evidence??Let's take a look at the facts:In Canada and the other
G8 countries, marriage rates per 1000 citizens have been declining since the
1970s. The graph I've seen makes it look as though the Canadian decline
actually got **slower** after 2004, but I haven't seen an analysis of the
specific numbers. The rate of change certainly didn't get larger.The US has also had a large drop in the marriage rate since the 70s. However,
in Massachusetts, since gay marriages have become legal, that drop has only been
HALF of the average rate seen in the rest of the country. Marriage rates in MA
are still slightly **higher** than they were just before gay marriages were
legalized.In 2011, 4 out of the 10 states with the **lowest**
divorce rates allow gay marriage. NY, CT, IA, VT, NH, and MA all have **lower**
divorce rates after legalizing gay marriage than just before.
To "plainbrownwrapper" the problem is that by legalizing gay marriage it
results in a devaluation of marriage for that society. Legalizing gay marriage
results in few marriages being performed overall, and that will only damage
society as a whole.Do you believe that it is good to damage society
as a whole in favor of the 1% of the US that is gay?
@RedShirt --"It is a religious right that means different things
to different religons."Actually, in this context it's a
civil contract. The Supreme Court is not hearing cases about religious rites, I
assure you. And no religious marriage will ever be recognized by the federal or
state governments unless you also have that civil marriage license."A loving gay couple cannot raise children equal to a loving hetrosexual
couple."This isn't a contest, and it isn't an
either/or question. The children being raised by gay couples are either adopted
from broken or abusive homes, or are given up by unwed mothers, or are produced
by insemination or surrogacy, or are children from a previous divorce. Those
children don't have a "happy heterosexual home" to go to in ANY of
those cases. Nobody is stealing kids from stable heterosexual homes. In fact,
thousands of kids grow up in foster homes and orphanages RIGHT NOW because there
simply aren't enough loving homes to go around.Allowing gay
marriage **increases** the number of stable, loving homes available for kids in
need. That is GOOD for kids. NOBODY is taking children away from happy, loving
To "plainbrownwrapper" actually the institution of marriage is not about
stability. It is a religious right that means different things to different
religons.A loving gay couple cannot raise children equal to a loving
hetrosexual couple. For example, can 2 gay men relate 100% to an adolecent girl
coping with changes to her body during puberty? Can 2 lesbians be a full time
example of what it means to be a man?They can immitate it, but will
never be the same as a hetersexual couple.
@worf --"amazondoc- your statement is not true. Animals are
attracted to a scent, and don't know the difference between male, and
female."Of course they do.First off, the very fact
that animals DON'T generally mate everything in sight proves that they DO
know the difference between male and female -- by whatever means they do it.As for smell supposedly being the determining factor...where to
begin...Let's try this -- most bird species have very little
sense of smell. So how do you expect them to know who to mate with? Aso -- toothed whales supposedly don't have any sense of smell at all.
How to they pick out a future mate?And btw -- WHAT statement of mine
was untrue? And what has any of this got to do with gay marriage?
amazondoc- your statement is not true. Animals are attracted to a scent, and
don't know the difference between male, and female.
Blacks were mistreated. Indians were mistreated. Heterosexuals have been
mistreated. Gays?Are there any group of people who haven't been
mistreated?How's the feds going to benefit all these mistreated
Voice, because of our religious norms and expectations, Utah has thousands of
gays who have married a heterosexual partner and reproduced. (For several
generations, including mine, hetero marriage was actually the recommendation of
bishops to people who were "struggling" with their attractions.) Sooner
or later these people realized they shouldn't be denying their true
identities, or they acknowledged how unfair the situation was for their hetero
partner, and they divorced. Some of them retained custody of the children.Gay parents of "natural" children are quite common (not that
"natural" children are better than those who are adopted, but to address
your point). All children of gays are prohibited by Utah law to be united to
married parents, depriving the children of the financial benefits, security, and
support systems that all other children have. Even if you hate the idea of gay
marriage, you should at least consider the plight of their children.
@Voice of Reason --"But we have 'separate but equal'
laws that recognize separate, but legally equal, treatment of inherently
different people "**In cases where the differences are
relevant**, sure.HOWEVER -- the institution of marriage is actually
about creating stability, not just about reproduction. Infertile people are
allowed to marry all the time -- even when it is quite obvious that the people
will never be able to produce children, as with the aged. And in terms of
creating stability, there is no relevant difference between heterosexual and
homosexual couples. Homosexuals are just as able to form committed relationships
as heterosexuals are.Now, that is certainly NOT to say that children
are irrelevant to marriages. Stable relationships, as encouraged by marriages,
are very beneficial to children. And, of course, gay people are just as able to
raise adopted children as straight people are. In which case, benefits of the
stable relationships encouraged by marriage will benefit the children as
well."A marriage certificate is a government protection for the
biological reality of heterosexual reproduction"No. A marriage
certificate is a governmental acknowledgment and encouragement of a stable,
committed relationship. And committed relationships are blind to sexual
"American history has proven that 'separate but equal' is never
equal. It was called segregation."That is where you are dead
wrong, at least partly. Yes, 'separate but equal' when it comes to
race is wrong. But we have 'separate but equal' laws that recognize
separate, but legally equal, treatment of inherently different people
all...the...time. Gender - I can't go in a woman's
restroom. Separate. But equal. A woman can't go into a
men's locker room. Separate. But equal. Blind people cannot
drive, but can be driven. Separate. But equal. Men & Women
have different physical standards for military service. Separate. But equal.
Non-Mormons can't go into a temple, but can go into their own.
Separated. But still equal. A Chinese national can't enter
our country without a visa. Separated, but still equal. Shall I go
on? A marriage certificate is a government protection for the biological
reality of heterosexual reproduction, which in case you missed HS Sex Ed can
only happen between a man and a woman. Athiests can recognize that. Gays can
recognize that. It does not automatically imply an insult against gays - it
simply recognizes and protects biological reality.
The LDS Church view point is the same as that in the Holy Bible and that of the
Holy Bible is that of our Lord Jesus Christ.As we read the scriptures it
becomes evident regarding what befalls those who fail to obey Heavenly laws.America is a favoured country - at present - BUT - ????
@Redshirt --"Businesses should have the ability to determine who
they will do business with. If they want to discriminate, then they have the
right to do so."No, they don't. Businesses haven't had
the legal right to discriminate since the days of the lunch counter sit-ins,
more than 50 years ago.@Voice of Reason --"It has
always been, and is now, about ensuring that children have a claim on support
from their biological parents, and have a right to both a mother and a
father"No, it hasn't. If children had a "right" to
both a mother and a father, then it would be illegal to have a child out of
wedlock and divorce would be banned.Also, many unwed mothers are
able to obtain court-ordered child support, even when they are not married to
the biological fathers.Marriage is actually about creating social
stability. And stability benefits society in many ways, both familial and
financial. Anybody who truly cares about children should encourage that
stability by SUPPORTING gay marriages.
Re: PaganIt would be fine with me if civil unions were recognized by
all states. And don't worry, it is clear that the way the trend is going,
all of you activists are going to get everything you want in the coming years.
If not from legislatures, then from the courts. Just remember though, you reap
what you sow.
To "QuercusQate" so what is your point? Businesses should have the
ability to determine who they will do business with. If they want to
discriminate, then they have the right to do so.Think of the
businesses that are closed on Sunday for religious reasons. Should I be able to
sue them because they refuse to be open on Sunday?
Redshirt, in some states (not Utah, btw) gays have the right to sue certain
businesses for discriminatory practices, just like you could sue them for
refusing to serve you [a man/Mormon/white/straight].
The gays here are omitting the simple fact that once gay marriage is ok in a
state that just begins their militant march to force others to embrace and
endorse their beliefs.Just look around for instances where gays have
sued Fertility Doctors, Cake Decorators, Photographers, event planners, and
reception halls to force those people to accomodate their gay beliefs.
@HistoryFreak, the few legal cases you cite are examples of religions operating
public businesses (which don't have a religious justification for
discriminatory practices). Catholic Charities accepts federal funding, and they
chose to shut down rather than to continue to discriminate AND lose federal
funding.These instances have NOTHING to do with religions losing
their constitutional right to discriminate against blacks, women, gays,
non-members, etc. That right is firmly established in law, and it is why I and
others haven't sued the LDS Church for the right to marry in their temples
or to hold their male priesthood.
The biggest fallacy being repeated on here is the constant attempt to hijack the
civil rights movement in the service of gay marriage. Just because you want
something really, really bad does not magically make it comparable to race.
Race has nothing to do with marriage. At all. Gender has EVERYTHING to do with
marriage. It's why it exists in the first place. Governmental endorsement
of traditional marriage is not now, and never was, about blessing love between
two adults...thank God. It has always been, and is now, about ensuring that
children have a claim on support from their biological parents, and have a right
to both a mother and a father, which we know empirically is the ideal - but
obviously not the only - family structure. Saying two parents is
better than a single parent is NOT hateful towards single parents, else a lot of
gay activists would be "hateful". Likewise, recognizing that having a
mother and a father is better than a single parent, or two of the same gender,
is also NOT hateful but merely a recognition of reality. You may disagree, but
that doesn't somehow make me "hateful" because you disagree.
Just don't call it marriage? American history has proven that
'separate but equal' is never equal. It was called segregation. It failed. Civil unions, etc, factually do not give all the
benefits of marriage. Recognition across state lines being the most evident. With the 'Defense of Marriage Act' or DOMA, being
responsible. If you get married in Utah, is your marriage recognized
in Texas? I hope so. Here is the example of why LGBT
need legal marriage recognition in America:'Kept From a Dying
Partners Bedside' - By TARA PARKER-POPE - NY Times - 05/18/09'...the couples had prepared for a medical emergency, creating living
wills, advanced directives and power-of-attorney documents.'
And yet, even with Living Will, Medical Directive, Power of attorney and
emergency contact information... Janice Langbehn was kept from the
bedside of her dying partner, Lisa Pond. They were together for 18
I actually think the well known gay, Elton John, had it right. Just give equal
rights to same sex couples, benefits from government and all. But not call it
"marriage". I see no problem in that. Marriage as a word should remain
unique for what it has always been, opposite sex couples. This whole argument
might just really be a debate about definitions.
Worf -- "Truth be known, 99.9% of gays weren't born that way. It's
a learned addiction."Why would you think that homosexual
behavior is any more "addictive" than heterosexual behavior? Do you
truly believe that homosexual behavior feels a whole lot better than
heterosexual behavior? Where's the appeal?
Can believe this is even an issue. Amazing how low people would go for
government benefits.Truth be known, 99.9% of gays weren't born
that way. It's a learned addiction.
@BYUAlum --"You don't see anything in the animal kingdom
violate it except the human race. "Actually, homosexual behavior
is well known in many non-human species. We are far from unique there.
Hummm, when your paper is covering an event you might give us an accurate idea
of what was going on. I was there last night and the pro gay marriage people
outnumbered the traditional family supporters. Not that you say one is better
then the other because of that, just report the facts. That might also say
something of the grass roots support of gay marriage in Utah and Utah might not
be as anti gay marriage as everyone thinks. All I ask is you give an accurate
report of the event. I think a major part of the story was what a large number
of gay marriage supporters there were and how peaceful and respectful both
groups were. As a reporter sometimes you need to adjust your coverage as the
facts and events warrant. I hope you take constructive criticism of your paper.
To say that no one is asking to perform these marriages in Temples and Churches
is NOT TRUE and, in fact, this has already happened in some places. Churches
have actually lost their tax-free status for refusing to allow their facilities
to be used for gay weddings and committment ceremonies. Catholic Charities has
been forced to stop adoption services because they refuse to adopt out children
to gay couples. Common sense is gone with the wind.If Prop 8 is
overturned, it will mean that the people of California do not have the right to
determine what is in their own constitution. A handful of judges will be able
to make that determination over the heads of the people. When I
was growing up, I used to always hear that the world would become so wicked that
the faithful would be praying for the world to end and the Saviour to come
again. I think we've about reached that point. I wonder how much time we
The fact that this is even an issue shows just how far we can sunk as a culture.
I wonder how much longer we have before we just go completely over the cliff
like societies of the past--Sodom and Gomorah, for example.
Silly people, you forget something: WE also support 'traditional
marriage'. We, however, support the marriages of ALL Americans, not just
those who believe like you do. This is about equality, not about anti-marriage.
Traditional marriage began long ago with Adam and Eve. The human race began with
the union of a man and a woman. This is God's law...nature's law. You
don't see anything in the animal kingdom violate it except the human race.
Even then, it is a small percentage. We attended RootsTech in SLC
over the weekend. Everything in family history going back in every single family
line is a father and a mother. Some lines go back to Adam, ours to the
1400's. It's always documented with a father and a mother and their
children from generation to generation. A beautiful plan of God. May it be ever
so with our country protected under the Constitution, also God given.
I loved the comment by one of the rally participants: "The one thing we all
have in common here is that we all had a mother and a father".
No one is asking for the use of Temples, Churches, Mosques, Synagogues or any
religious building or being sanctioned by such a group. LGBT people are only
being asked to be treated equally - seems strikingly familiar to what most
Christian faiths teach. What I don’t understand is why religious
organizations want to impose their definition of marriage on a group whose
inclusion in marriage will – in no way affect any religious organization.
"Good guys don't violate the Constitution in order to oppress
others."Most of us are waiting until June to see what the SCOTUS
says about the constitutionality of the traditional marriage laws rather than
glibly throwing out pronouncements now. Based on the discussions the Justices
had yesterday it appears that these laws will be upheld. The Justices
understand that a social experiment of this magnitude deserves way more time
than it has currently been given and that the current laws were not made to
persecute homosexuals but to promote traditional marriage.
"Good guys don't violate the Constitution in order to oppress
others."Good guys don't oppress others by compelling them
to violate their consciences.
From our own Deseret news: 'Gallup Poll: Majority of Americans
support gay marriage' - By Elizabeth Stuart - DSNews - 05/20/2011 Now for the balance: 'Poll: Support for gay marriage up
among Catholics' – By Jillian Rayfield – Salon –
03/08/13 'A Majority of Young Republicans Support Gay
Marriage' - —By Tim Murphy – Mother Jones – 03/08/2013 'Poll: New High Of 58 Percent Support Same-Sex Marriage'
– By TOM KLUDT – By Talking Points Memo – 03/18/13
'At a time when the Supreme Court prepares to take up same-sex marriage and
the Republican Party determines the best approach to the issue going forward, an
ABC News/Washington Post poll released Monday showed a new high-water mark in
support for the right of gay and lesbian couples to tie the knot. The
poll found 58 percent of Americans now believe marriage should be legal for
same-sex couples, while just 36 percent said it should be illegal.'
I was there today but couldn't stay for the whole event unfortunately. It
was great to hear the inspiring words in support of the traditional family
structure, which the very survival of our civilization depends on. It was a
little disappointing to see that we couldn't peacefully celebrate that
together without opposing activists trying to intimidate the rest of us, but in
the end it was a minor irritant that was easily ignored for the far more
important messages, since the signs were full of the same tired, long-ago
discounted bumper sticker wisdom that we all know too well.I'm
sure the same gay activists will smile with equally loving acceptance when the
next Gay Pride Parade is surrounded by a thousand hymn-singing Mormons holding
large signs supporting traditional marriage!
Not the bad guys, just the wrong idea guys. I'm proud of our leaders who
are standing up for traditional marriage. Utah is awesome.
"a story about the good guys."Good guys don't violate
the Constitution in order to oppress others.
"Finally, a story about the good guys."I'm a little bit
concerned about what you mean by that. Are you saying that those who are for gay
marriage are "the bad guys?" I certainly hope that is not what you mean.
I'm tired of hearing people demonize those who have opposing views on such
touchy issues, and I hope we can all remember that this issue really comes down
to people and how we treat those who are different than the rest of us.
Thank you so much for the story Lisa. Finally, a story about the good guys.