Comments about ‘Matthew Sanders: Should we tolerate cheating in marriage because we're 'animals'?’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, June 28 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Thoughout history, many people have looked to God, regardless of their religion, for guidance so that they would be of most worth to their families. They looked for ways to succeed and when they failed, they regretted their mistakes and tried harder to not repeat those mistakes.

But there have also always been those who tell us that religion is too restraining; that they can't be what they want to be if they follow God, regardless of their religion. So, they mimic animals, even while they use laws to try to protect themselves from the consequences of acting like animals. Some have excluded God from their lives and then mock those of us who look to God for instruction.

There has always been opposition in all things. There have almost always been prophets who proclaim the way to happiness and there have almost always been those who proclaim their own "gospel" of licentiousness.

The beauty of life is that we get to choose for ourselves whether we will strive to follow God or whether we will choose to act like animals. We'll become what we try to become, exaulted beings or animals.

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

"Laslocky contends marrying for love became vogue in the past 300 years, with earlier generations coupling only for property and labor sharing."

Where is she talking about? In Medieval Europe? No. Read Shakespeare. Romeo and Juliette. Greek Mythology, I dunno, maybe. In Mongolia, does she know? I have Polynesian poems and stories about love so love is not some fad that they picked up from Europe.

Back in the 70's someone told me that if one did not give into their sexual urges that being repressed would make them go crazy. Being "repressed" apparently did strange mental things to people. I never saw that happen. Not being "repressed" did cause a lot of childhook poverty though.

Salt Lake City, UT

Great article! It so commons sense though. It's strange that society has drifted so far away in so many ways that simple common sense ideals have to be defended at such a basic level. Sigh...

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

The word "cheating" impacts how we feel about it.

Many people are so against it only because they've been told to be against it.

Mcallen, TX

Is cheating in marriage, a civil right, or is calling it wrong, be considered discrimination.

The words civil rights, and discrimination are used for justification, and clouding judgement.

Our society is losing it's ability to judge moral values, and has put our country into decline.

Eric Samuelsen
Provo, UT

A silly person says silly things on CNN. Not really worth these column inches. I don't generally look to squirrels or sparrows for moral guidance.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

Not sure what the writer's point is. That adultery is bad? Yes, indeed -- it hurts people deeply, especially children. But we shouldn't tolerate it? What does the author mean by that? We shouldn't throw stones at adulterers. OK. What then? Throw them in jail? Require them to wear a scarlet letter? Shun them? Sterilize them? Frown deeply? What does "no tolerance" mean?

Salt Lake City, UT

Humans were given 100,000 spiral neurons to give them moral reasoning. Animals do not have these and only have instinct. If people act like animals, they should be locked up like animals.

Santaquin, UT

I think the author's point was very clear. His point is summarized beautifully in the last sentence of the article, "Instead, we should rise to the highest of what it means to be human, and herald the virtue [of] self-governance to give the best in us to our children." In other words, we should demonstrate through what we do and say that fidelity to marriage vows is the wisest course so that our children will emulate our behavior, giving them the best chance for happiness. No where in the article is there the remotest suggestion of punishing adulterers.


For many many many years the leadership of the LDS Church has stated that the traditional family is under attack. For a long while I did not understand what they meant. I believed them, but I guess I hadn't seen this attack first hand.

This past years the blinders have come off and now I see when I once was blind.

Who would have guessed 15+ years ago (When the Proclamation to the Family was released) that homosexuality would be considered natural and monogamy would be considered unnatural. Did anyone see the MSNBC commercial telling parents to not see their children as their own, but as the communities children?

We need to stand up and defend our families from these direct and frontal attacks. If we don't defend them who will?

Jim Cobabe
Provo, UT

Rather begs the question. I think we must survey the lions to determine if they really love the ones they eat. I suspect that if they could fill out a survey form, lions would enthusiastically vote in support of this idea, although that may not exactly convey every nuance of the intended meaning.

West Jordan, UT

Interesting how Laslocky's focus is on the offending party and how they feel about themselves after cheating. And of course we can't get thru a topic like this without pro and anti religion bashing everywhere.

What if this issue isn't about religion or morals or standards? Maybe it should be about who is getting hurt, and whether or not a selfish married offender (animal or not) is justified in hurting an innocent spouse or innocent children. Is that really OK on any level? I guarentee if you've ever been the innocent victim of a cheating spouse or parent, you'll see this a whole lot differently than someone who hasn't live through that.

J Thompson

Where do "rules" come from? Are they just the ideas of the society in which we live, or, are they much more than that? Were they given to mankind by their maker so that mankind would not destroy themselves or the societies in which we live? We accept that animals were "imprinted" with "instincts" that control their lives, but, many claim that they somehow came to life without any "instincts" "imprinted" in them. Isn't that a little strange, that the Creator would help his animal creations, but that He would ignore the highest form of life that he Created?

Are we free to change those rules to suit the wishes of society, or should we hold on to those rules, knowing that anyone intelligent enough to create us just might be intelligent enough to tell us what we can and cannot do?

There is no way to divorce religion from basic rules. Either we are the creator or we are the created. We either control the sun, the moon and the stars, the orbit of the earth and its times and seasons, or we don't.

Fidelity in marriage is an absolute - if we want a stable society.

Tooele, UT

I have been married for 11 years now and I am proud to say I have never once cheated on my wife. According to these people, I should be as restless as a kid in a candy store eyeing the candy bars waiting for the store clerk to going into the back room. NONSENSE!

I'm not saying my wife and I have never had challenges or problems. But for heavens sake, I believe I have much more self-control than this.

Salt Lake City, UT

Saying that "animals do it" has been one of the most ridiculous arguments I have heard. If somebody wants to make a point by comparing themselves to animals, then have at it. But don't expect it to convince me one bit.

Huntsville, UT

Guess what Che26; I'm a gay man, I've been with my partner of 15 years and I've never once cheated on him.

Oh my, the sky is going to fall.

Miss Piggie
Pheonix, AZ

@Tekakaromatagi: "Being 'repressed' apparently did strange mental things to people. I never saw that happen."

Perhaps that's because few if any people conducted themselves so that they never get 'repressed.'

@ClarkHippo: "I have been married for 11 years now and I am proud to say I have never once cheated on my wife."

Perhaps your spouse has the good sense to satisfactorily provide for all your needs.

Layton, UT

That lady on the Oklahoma frontier better watch out. If she remarries, her new spouse might kill off her children so that they won't compete with his new ones with her. Lions do it and a lot of other animals. Oh, and I've been married 23 years. My husband has put up with a lot because of my health problems, but he loves me anyway. Infidelity. No way. I am a blessed woman.


I can't wait to see laws imposing criminal penalties for adultery and divorce. Everyone in Utah seems so eager to use law to impose religion. I've lived in countries where that is the case. No thanks.

Should we tolerate cheating in marriage? That is between you and your spouse. If the question is whether you should tolerate cheating by someone you are not in a relationship with? Leave other people alone. Live your own life and let them live theirs. Personally if my wife cheated on me I wouldn't divorce her. I can't imagine life without her. It would be like someone telling me I couldn't have food. All I would be concerned about is her happiness, and how I can make her happy.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Cheating is cheating, period.

school tests,
or speeding.

Animal can't cheat because they are driven survival instincts and have no moral compass or right or wrong.

Cheating is selfishness,
plain and simple,
it doesn't matter what the issue is.

Cheaters never prosper.

to comment

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