"Those who believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman
have every right to follow their convictions and to speak out against and oppose
gay marriage."WRONG.Those who believe that marriage
should be between one man and one woman have every right to follow their
convictions and NOT enter into a same gender marriage. They have absolutely no
right, no right whatsoever, to tell other American Citizens who they may or may
not marry. Period.
We want to defend marriage? Simple answer! FIX THE ECONOMY! We should be
running from anti-family individuals like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and be
following the suggestions of true defenders of the family like Robert Reich and
Paul Krugman to build the middle class and middle class FAMILIES up again!
RanchHand,So those who disagree with you have no right to free
Thank you Linda and Richard for a great article well-written. Keep it up.
This is a helpful distinction between the 4 "strikes" against God's
revealed design (and seemingly former societal understanding) of marriage.
Scientifically, the research data overwhelmingly favor 2-gender marriage, both
in terms of the spouses' well-being and health, as well as, each child they
procreate. The science is also clear about the positive benefits for adopted and
foster children that 2-gender marriages provide. On a side note, I find
it morbidly fascinating how common sense about the virtues of marriage between
the two biologically complimentary genders gets trampled and twisted in the
stampede of adults who seem bent on validation for their brand of expressing
passions. As per this article, whether it be hetero or homo expressions of
sexual passions, the 4 strikes are manifestations of a fundamentally selfish and
self-centered view, rather than being responsible to the biological creations
(children) those passions are designed to produce. I am working to more
lovingly celebrate and improve my own marriage, and appreciate the Eyre's
focus on all 4 strikes against obtaining the virtues that only marriage between
one man and one woman can provide.
I would just say to "Ranch Hand" that what it means to be an American is
that we can speak out relative to our convictions.and to oppose things we
believe are destructive to society.The problem with so many
"movements" including the same sex marriage movement is that it
demonizes anyone who speaks out on the other side.
@Ranch HandYou have absolutely no right, no right whatsoever to tell
me what to do.Period.
To Ranch Hand,Just as those who support gay marriage have a right to
promote their ideas, those who are against it have a right to promote their
ideas.It is unfortunate and telling that those who are against
traditional marriage are so insistant on being able to speak out for
non-traditional marriage and are so unwilling to let those who are for
traditional marriage speak out for traditional marriage.We are not
telling you what to do. You are free to choose. Just as we are free to choose.
Each of us receives the fruits of our choices.
@Getting It Right --"You have absolutely no right, no right
whatsoever to tell me what to do."Yet somehow you believe you
have the right to tell gay couples what to do?@ID --"Scientifically, the research data overwhelmingly favor 2-gender
marriage... "This is simply not true. In fact, the groups of
medical and scientific professionals who know the MOST about the development of
children -- like the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry -- have come out in FAVOR of gay marriage, because they
know that children grow up just fine in loving, stable homes with parents of ANY
gender. I challenge you to find **any** group of child development experts who
have come out against gay marriage.As for this article -- I actually
agree with the major points of the article. Marriage is important. And if you
believe that marriage is important, then you should promote the **positive**
aspects. Don't waste your time tearing down someone else's marriage,
or trying to prevent someone else from enjoying the same rights that you do.
Work to improve your own lives, and respect the rights of other people to lead
@ContrariusI'm not telling gay couples or anybody for that
matter what to do. I'm just exercising my freedom of expression and speech
just like everyone in this country. I'll leave it to the courts to decide
if gay couples can marry.
Here's what bugs me about so many of the comments coming in on this
article:THEY MISS THE POINT THAT THE EYRES ARE MAKING....which is
that the "four strikes" or the four ways in which traditional marriage
is being weakened are starting to spell out the most fundamental shift of values
and mores in the history of the world, and if marriage, the glue that has held
society together since history began, is laid aside, it won't be very long
before there is nothing much left!
Why Not and RanchHand, what limits would you put then on who could marry who?
@Why NotI just threw back at Ranch Hand what he just posted . I
never said you can or you cannot marry whoever you want. It is not for me to
judge on that. You are 100% wrong though because neither ranch hand nor
you can marry whoever you want in California and most of the other states
because same sex union is illegal. Again, I'll let the courts decide
I believe in organic marriage and just as many believe that GMO foods are
unhealthy, I believe that GMO marriage has unintended side-affects. I agree
totally with the Eyres that as people abandon marriage, children are affected,
which means things like drug use, crime rate, academic achievements all head in
the wrong direction. More of the bad stuff, less of the good stuff. I think the
time is coming when people will want to put on their resume; "I grew up in
a stable, loving family with a mother and a father who didn't use drugs or
alcohol setting the example for a life-long pattern which I have followed."
Knowing the cost to companies for drug rehab and the downside of unstable
workers, these facts may prove impressive.
@Contrarius:Not sure you are aware of the flawed "science"
underneath the "studies" which dot the headlines from such bodies that
you mention. Several recent peer-reviewed publications have closely looked at
these "studies" and revealed very un-scientific methodology at their
root. Dr. Loren Marks, of Louisiana State University has carefully reviewed the
research to date and details finding the serious problems that are decidedly
un-scientific (see his peer-reviewed article in Social Science Research 41
(2012) 735–751). Either way, it is true that passionate
adults can pursue their own fulfillment at the risk of children, but let us not
do so without counting the cost honestly. History is replete with familial and
societal decay and destruction when adults have insisted on putting passion
above appropriate priorities. Whichever of the Eyre's
"strikes" we might focus on, clearly the root of the problem is an
irresponsible and selfish adult or adults who should have done, or do more and
better - including me.
There is a shift in why we marry or don't marry. As the Eyres pointed out,
60 percent of all households here in Stockholm, Sweden are occupied by a single
individual. Historically, marriage has been a joint venture, where children
could be born into a situation where they had legal rights and were cared for,
and where elderly parents were taken care of. It was not about romantic love or
sexual attraction, but about family love, security and continuity. Today, people
marry for romantic love. Traditional marriage has always involved a man and at
least one woman - there would be no children otherwise. In Greece, where
homosexual love was celebrated, marriage was still between a man and a woman
because marriage wasn't about sexual attraction. I think the reason people
are staying single and choosing not to have children is that they often have
attraction/romantic love as a goal - and attraction/romantic love can be very
fleeting. Children need to be in a situation where their parents put family love
and the children's needs before their own.
@ID --in re: Loren Marks -- Oh, cmon. Marks
was specifically banned from giving expert testimony in a legal case related to
Prop-8, because he was forced to admit in a court deposition that he had
cherry-picked information to make his claims and that he hadn't even
**read** the studies he cited. He made these admissions **in a sworn court
deposition**.Marks also states in his study that "opponents of
same-sex have made “egregious overstatements” disparaging gay and
lesbian parents."You said: "let us not do so without
counting the cost honestly"Absolutely. HONESTLY being the
operative term here. Loren Marks is a lousy example of that principle.The fact remains: EVERY group of child development experts that I'm aware
of has come out in favor of gay marriage. These **experts** recognize that
children grow up just fine with parents of either gender, as long as those homes
are stable and loving. I'm still challenging you to find
**any** group of child development experts that disagrees with this assessment.
i do not understand why those whom have testimonies of the gospel can support
marriage between 2 people whom are in love no matter their gender. marriage is
between MAN and WOMAN ... not man and man or woman and woman...our Heavenly
Father is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. conference talks today made
that clear yet again. How do members support gay rights in marriage and adoption
? i do not feel being biased but I believe in living God's
commandments...marriage is sacred between husband and wife ! how much more clear
does this need to be ? the popular votes scream in our faces about what we are
suppose to think but what is forgotten is God's commandments. the 10
commandments ? read the Holy Bible and learn about marriage. same sex
attraction is a weakness. I know some will be upset over this comment but i have
seen married men become weak in their relationships with their wives and have
been dooped by satan. there is help so get the help.so what if other
countries support gay marriage that doesn't mean the United States needs to
do this. the liberals are wrong wrong wrong.
@djk --"our Heavenly Father is the same yesterday, today and
tomorrow."The Bible tells us that slavery is a fine practice.
The Bible tells us that polygamy is perfectly okay. Are these ideas still
acceptable today?"I believe in living God's
commandments..."Which commandment talks about homosexuality
being a sin? I missed that one.
As a child of divorce I know that it is a horrible situation for children. I
also see that children born out of wedlock can experience difficulties as
mothers and fathers move frequently for work, try to support a household on one
income and move in and out of monogamous relationships. These are real issues,
but not universal in non-traditional families. Historically, traditional
marriage, according to many proponents of it, required women to be subservient
to their "patriarch" husband, without any guarantee of
self-determination, education and freedom of speech. By law or cultural
precedence, every caucasian male in the US had these rights and privileges, but
not a lot of women in traditional marriages, even after the Civil Rights
movement. I see extremely antiquated ideas about traditional marriage from many
church members such as that a husband's education and career are more
important than the wife's, and that men preside in the family by making all
of the decisions. I've gotten this counsel by Bishops who dislike that
I'm a physician! If I believed such foolish, ungodly notions about my
female role in a traditional marriage, I would run screaming from it!
Djk, I am a devout Latter-day Saint. I don't support a gay or lesbian
couple's right to marry, but I do support such a couple's right to
adopt, for a very simple reason. In the State of Texas the policy is that when
a child needs a pair of foster parents, or needs a pair of adoptive parents,
then they place that child with a straight couple if one is available, and with
a gay couple if there isn't a straight couple available. Sometimes the
State of Texas places children with gay couples. What that means is that there
simply aren't enough straight couples willing to be foster or adoptive
parents to take care of all the children who need some. I think that it would
be better for those children to be raised by a gay couple than it would be for
them to not have anybody to raise them at all. It would be better to be raised
in an adoptive home than it would be to grow up in an orphanage, without the
special relationship that comes from parents.
What you wrote is so true...The problem with redefining marriage to other than
one man, one woman, is that the word "marriage" looses it's
meaning...and over time, marriage itself looses it's meaning. This is
exactly what has been happening in many Scandinavian countries. As the meaning
of Marriage changed, it became much less popular. Marriage was no longer
'unique' and special. Suddenly, it was anything you wanted it to
mean.When any word is redefined as something it is NOT, the word
looses it's integrity. I may want to call a Tulip, a Rose, but that does
not make a Tulip, a Rose. It just makes the word Tulip mean something it is
not...Another similar illustration we are seeing is that the
word/term 'Disability' (as in ADA) is being redefined into any
condition that is not 'Optimal Health'. Soon the word (disability)
will have little meaning, everyone will have one (a disability), and the country
will be bankrupt paying out entitlements...all because words like: Disability,
Marriage, Personal Responsibility, Racism, and Intolerance are being redefined
into meaningless words/terms. Thank you for a great article!