Comments about ‘Pew study: News media inserted bias into gay marriage debate’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, June 17 2013 8:40 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
USS Enterprise, UT

To "plainbrownwrapper" there are arguments against gay marriage. Here are some of them.

Children need both a mother and a father. Studies indicate that the ideal situation for children to be raised in includes both a mother and a father. (yes some couples are infertile, but adoption is always an option)

In places where gay marriage has been adopted, there is a rise in unwed mothers. Unwed mothers are more likely to live in poverty than women who are married before giving birth.

If you redefine marriage to accomodate the gays, you must also redefine marriage to accept plural marriages, and any other definition that people can come up with.

Nashville, TN

@Redshirt --

"the ideal situation for children to be raised in includes both a mother and a father."

Nope. Studies actually indicate that the ideal situation for children is to be raised in a stable household with two parents. Studies have never shown that children grow up better in stable straight homes than in stable gay homes.

"In places where gay marriage has been adopted, there is a rise in unwed mothers."

Balderdash. Show me any evidence that gay marriage is actually linked to unwed mothers.

"you must also redefine marriage to accept plural marriages, and any other definition..."


1. Polygamy conveys known, concrete risks to women and children. The courts already recognize this fact, even if you don't. And public safety has always been a valid legal reason to limit personal freedoms.
-- This principle has already been tested, in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. That court easily reaffirmed the constitutionality of their polygamy ban, based on this argument.

2. Incest and pedophilia harm children. Refer back to the public safety argument above. Also, children are incapable of giving informed consent -- which is essential for legal contracts.

Your arguments all fail, Red. Keep trying.

USS Enterprise, UT

To "plainbrownwrapper" you asked for it.

Read "Man and wife? That's best for baby" from the The Age (Austrialian Newspaper) There they report on a study performed in Austrialia looking at what is best for children.

Read "Gay Marriage has sent the Netherlands the way of Scandinavia" in National Review. In this one they show how since Gay marriage was legalized in the Netherlands the number of marriages has significantly dropped and the number of children being born to unwed mothers is increasing.

Now, as for the redefinition of marriage. If the gays say that they just want the right to marry the person that they love (actual argument), who is to say what defines a marriage anymore. If the only requirement is that consenting adults (this counters your polygamy argument since it is based on teen girls being assigned a husband) desire of their own will to be married, who are you to say that it is wrong. The only requirement is to love eachother. So, why can't 1 man and 4 women be married if they love eachother and desire it? Why not 2 bixexuals, 1 hetersexual man, and 1 hetersexual woman?


@ plainbrownwrapper

You and amazondocs seem to read into my post more than is there. I never stated a moral argument. I simply stated a biological fact that is not and never will be changed.

Homosexuals use the body in ways it was not meant to be used. That heterosexuals do so as well does not change the biological fact that the body is being used incorrectly from a biological standpoint

I did not state a position for or against gay marriage, etc. I am simply pointing out the fact that homosexuality is not in line with biology and physiology.

I am simply trying to point out that no matter how much we as a society try to shift the meaning and nature of things, there are some things that cannot be changed. That reality should be acknowledged and included in the debate.

Lebanon, TN

@Redshirt --

I seem to be having trouble posting this afternoon. I'll answer the second part of your post now -- I'll have to re-create my previous answer to the first part of it.

"who is to say what defines a marriage anymore."

The same people who "say" it now -- the laws passed by the voting populace, the Constitution, and the courts.

"If the only requirement is that consenting adults...desire of their own will to be married, who are you to say that it is wrong."

Ahhh, nobody ever said anything about "the only requirement". Marriage laws, just like any other laws, are subject to our country's entire BODY of laws and its Constitution.

For comparison: human sacrifice is not legal. Even if the prospective sacrifice consents to being thrown into the bonfire to worship whomever, it's still not legal. Why? Because our other laws forbid harming human beings in such a manner.

The courts already recognize this distinction, Red. It doesn't matter whether *you* do, or not. They do. And I trust them to know a heckuva lot more about the laws and Constitution than you do.

Stay Tuned for the other part.

Lebanon, TN

@Redshirt --

"Read "Man and wife?...""

That study (actually a US study) looks at STRAIGHT stable homes vs. STRAIGHT unstable homes. It doesn't mention gays/lesbians/homosexuals/same-sex couples even once. Yup, I've got the full study.

Keep trying, Red.

"Read "Gay Marriage has sent the Netherlands the way of Scandinavia" "

Kurtz (the author) made several untrue or misleading claims. Here's a few facts:

1. unwed mothers in the Netherlands have actually been increasing on a smooth parabolic curve since the 1970s -- looooong before registered partnerships. There's a graph of this at procon.org, if you want to look it up.

2. the change in unwed mothers before and after partnerships was the SAME, in the same years, as other European countries that did NOT have partnerships.

3. Scandinavian countries that have partnerships ALREADY had higher rates of unmarried cohabitation than other European countries BEFORE the partnership laws.

4. heterosexual marriage rates actually INCREASED after partnerships in those Scandinavian countries. As of 2004 (the date of Kurtz's article), Denmark had its HIGHEST marriage rate since the 1970s. Other Scandinavian countries with partnerships also had higher marriage rates than before the partnership laws.

Keep trying, Red.

USS Enterprise, UT

To "Contrarius" but in the scenario that I proposed for the redefinition of "marriage", nobody is harmed, so your comparison to human sacrifice is wrong. Why is it ok for 2 people to be married, but not 3, 4, 5, or more?

The arguments for gay marriage come down to just a few basic themes:

1. They want to marry the person they love.
2. They want the same benefits as a heterosexual couple that has married
3. The government has no business telling them what they can and can do in their bedroom.
4. Equal rights.
5. They were born loving multiple people.

Using those requirements for marriage, how can you deny that if you allow homosexual marriage that plural marriage is wrong? It meets the same criteria.

You say that plural marriage is illegal because the voting people wanted it that way. In California the voters said NO to gay marriage, but the unelected courts are changing that.

So again, if you allow gay marriage, you must allow any other union to be called marriage.

If you disagree, explain why 2 people that love eachother can be married but 3 wrong.

Lebanon, TN

@Redwings --

"I never stated a moral argument. I simply stated a biological fact that is not and never will be changed. "

If your purported "biological fact" is irrelevant to morality, then it is irrelevant to this discussion.

"Homosexuals use the body in ways it was not meant to be used."

Once again, you can't distinguish homosexuals from heterosexuals on this basis. Heterosexuals engage in the very same acts that homosexuals do.

Also, you're once again inserting morality. The terms "meant" and "incorrectly" are loaded with moral subtext.

There is no "incorrect" or "correct" way to use a body, in biological and/or scientific terms. There are harmful ways and unharmful ways; there are productive ways and unproductive ways; there are efficient and inefficient ways; and so on. But terms like "incorrect" and "meant" only enter the picture when you insert religion and/or morality into the argument.

You might as well claim that portacaval shunts or tracheostomies are "incorrect", since the body was not "meant" to be used in those ways. You might as well claim that rib grafting, used to create replacement ears, is "incorrect".

Sorry, but those terms just do not apply.

Lebanon, TN

@RedShirt --

"nobody is harmed"

Your claim doesn't make it true, Red.

Also, public safety is about the RISK of harm, not the CERTAINTY of it. For example, I may drive home drunk and get there safely -- but that doesn't mean that drunk driving should be legal.

Here are excerpts from what Chief Justice Baumann said when he reaffirmed the constitutionality of Canada's polygamy ban in 2011:

-- "..women in polygamous relationships faced higher rates of domestic, physical and sexual abuse, died younger and were more prone to mental illnesses. Children from those marriages, he said, were more likely to be abused and neglected, less likely to perform well at school and often suffered from emotional and behavioral problems."

-- "The prevention of collective harms associated with polygamy to women and children, especially, is clearly an objective that is pressing and substantial..."

-- "Polygamy's harm to society includes the critical fact that a great many of its individual harms are not specific to any particular religious, cultural or regional context. They can be generalized and expected to occur wherever polygamy exists."

Once again: the courts understand these distinctions, even if you do not.

Mister J
Salt Lake City, UT

to lost in DC 12:52 p.m. June 18

But, nobody expects The Spanish inquisition? the Dark Ages? The Taliban? The Albigensian crusades? The other crusades? Burning the library at Alexandria?

p.s. we would not expect anything religious to evolve; would we? Well, not in the last 6 millennia anyway.

Mister J
Salt Lake City, UT

re: Stalwart Sentinel pg 3

Lets not forget other areas of technological innovation (Boston, Austin, Seattle) are *somewhat liberal*

to comment

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