Comments about ‘A day later, same-sex marriage advocates make a 5-year prediction’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, June 27 2013 5:50 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

Marriage is about creating a situation where the form is of child bearing. This does not require each couple to have the potential in reality, just to have that outward form. Man/woman as the standard is the way we create that form.

As marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman it fulfills its purpose of creating a stable environment to raise children. We allow marriages to dissolve for many reasons, but that does not mean we should allow things that cannot ever be marriages.

The other troubling result of Kennedy's ruling is that it will fuel refusals to grant any rights to those who disagree with things other than man/woman marriage. By presenting them as bigots it will justify denying them 1st amendment rights to chose how to speak, and specifically chose not to lend their speech in support of ceremonies that they object to.

Centerville, UT

16,000 people die each year from AIDS in the US. Most young men having sex with men (MSM). The media barely even covers this.


I doubt that we'll get gay marriage in all 50 states within 5 years, but it WILL come. Maybe 10 years.

I look forward to that day.

@John --

Once again, you continue to ignore the fact that gay couples can raise children just as easily as any other infertile couples can.

Hundreds of thousands of children are ALREADY being raised by gay couples, with or without marriage. Denying gay marriage to these couples won't change that. But allowing gay marriage will HELP those kids, by encouraging stable families.

Gay marriage HELPS children.

Sugar City, ID

Advocates for same-sex marriage predicted Thursday that in five years, "we will bring marriage equality to all 50 of our states."

I predict we will see a more serious secession movement than ever before. The Federal Government is becoming more tyrannical than the King of England ever was.


@Tumbleweed --

"16,000 people die each year from AIDS in the US. Most young men having sex with men (MSM). The media barely even covers this."

If you are concerned about HIV, then you should SUPPORT gay marriage. Marriage encourages STABLE, MONOGAMOUS relationships -- which decrease the transmission of STDs.

@John --

"Marriage is about creating a situation where the form is of child bearing. This does not require each couple to have the potential in reality, just to have that outward form."

Marriage isn't about "form", John -- marriage is indeed about REALITY.

And the REALITY is that gay couples can raise children just as easily as any other infertile couples.

Another reality is that gay couples are ALREADY raising hundreds of thousands of children -- with or without marriage. Denying gays the right to marry wouldn't change that. So the issue of childrearing is a red herring.

Salt Lake valley, UT

@John Pack

The history of marriage shows that marriage used to be for raising of children, but not for the idealistic reasons we apply to it. Marriages were arranged for political/family reasons, and children were born as labor to help the financial goals of the family. It's just been the past few hundred years that marriages were for the romantic reasons of the couple. Today, marriages are for companionship and not for rearing children. And, marriage seems to be going out of style as more and more couples live together without marriage.

Concerning gay marriages, I think the only solution that will work is to remove government from marriages and let government focus on civil rights through social unions. Marriage today is a social function and should be regulated by social groups, churches being just one of the social categories.

Government = civil unions
Social groups = marriage

Some people advocate that all marriages be civil marriages regulated by government and that all persons be required to have civil marriages. Then, persons choosing so could have ceremonies by the church or social organization of their choice. This might work, although it would have more government regulation than I would like.

Cedar Hills, UT

All current Utah laws that reference the term "marriage" should be changed to the term "heterosexual marriage." As a result, there will be no claim of discrimination. Nothing to do in Utah, but try to pass "homosexual marriage" laws, instead of piggybacking on decades of laws that reference marriage.

Northern Utah, UT

The lies that people tell regarding the stability of homosexual relationships is staggering. Plain and simple homosexuals want to be on the same playing field as heterosexuals when it comes to marriage, which they never will be. Studies have shown that even in a committed relationship,male homosexuals will have 5 to 8 sexual partners a year. In "The Male Couple", authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that, in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years:Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships. This study hardly spells a wholesome environment to raise children that so many champions for this cause are stating. What on earth are we doing here! Marriage between a man and a woman has worked for thousands of years. Why are we wanting to define marriage so differently from its origins?

Salt Lake valley, UT


Even better would be to revoke all Utah laws referencing marriage. Let's get government out of the business of regulating marriage. Let government focus on civil liberties via social unions.

Government = social unions
Social groups = marriage

Salt Lake City, UT

And so the fight to redefine marriage, one more means of demeaning and devaluing it, will continue.

Anyone actually surprised by this?

The forces of evil have **always** been as relentless and those for good. I suspect that fact will remain in the future.

The trick is figuring out how to distinguish between the two and then, most importantly, face toward and push for that which is good.

Huntsville, UT


3 of my 5 siblings have been divorced and are on their 2nd marriage, a 4th is in the process of getting a divorce. My heterosexual father had multiple affairs while married to my heterosexual mother. I've worked with numerous heterosexuals who were in the midst of an affair. Should we ban heterosexual marriage then, because heterosexual men are having affairs? You should talk to one of your LDS Bishops and ask the simple question, "approximately how often do you have to deal with infidelity in your calling"? You will be stunned, STUNNED, at how often they have to deal with infidelity.

But, I'm with you. Anybody who has been unfaithful to their significant other/spouse should NEVER be allowed to re-marry. How does that work for you?

Blue AZ Cougar


Well said. What this debate really boils down to is validation. Same-sex supporters are asking that the government and the rest of society validate their choices and feelings. A law like Proposition 22 or a state constitutional amendment like Proposition 8 do not prevent ANYTHING in the bedrooms of same-sex couples.

So what is it that same-sex couples want? They say equality. There's equality of federal tax benefits, which I think is a legitimate concern. But equality in the sense that "my marriage is the same as yours" -- not so much. You cannot force people to swallow their morals and accept same-sex marriage as valid -- people fundamentally disagree with the practice.

Don't come looking for validation of your marriage from me. I have no problem with equality in the sense of tax, housing, healthcare, etc. benefits. But you cannot require me to validate your marriage in the sense that it is morally acceptable, because I don't believe it is.


@trueconservative --

Here's a dose of reality for you:

Legal gay partnerships actually appear to break up at roughly HALF the rate of straight partnerships, from the data we have so far.

"In the states with available data, dissolution rates for same-sex couples ...ranges from 0% to 1.8% annually, or ***1.1% on average***, whereas 2% of married different-sex couples divorce annually."
-- from "Patterns of Relationship Recognition by Same-Sex Couples in the United States", published in 2011 by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law.

If you oppose promiscuity, then you should SUPPORT gay marriage. Marriage ENCOURAGES monogamous, stable relationships.

Gay couples are ALREADY raising hundreds of thousands of children, with or without marriage. Attempting to deny marriage to gays won't change that.

If children are important to you, then you should SUPPORT gay marriage. Marriage encourages stable families, and that is GOOD for children.

orem, UT

"A day later, same-sex marriage advocates make a 5-year prediction"

Of course they do. The tide is rolling their way. Now that the definition of marriage is being redefined to two people who love each other regardless of their gender, why not broaden the definition to be even more inclusive? Why stop at two people? What so magical about that number? There are many situations where children are being raised in homes with one dad and a few moms. Society has marginalized these families as well and shamed their children. They have been incarcerated for loving and marrying who they love. Where are their civil rights? The man loves all the women and they love him. Isn't that the new requirement for marriage? - love only. Marriage is about what the adults want, and if what they want isn't sanctioned by society then shame on society for oppressing them and their children!

Society draws a line somewhere, or nowhere. Since gender doesn't matter any more, why should the number of adults?

On so many levels marriage between one man and one woman makes the most sense, still.

Blue AZ Cougar
Chandler, AZ


Those are good points. It's not as linear of an argument as you're portraying it (i.e. kids do better with 2 parents, ergo same-sex marriages = heterosexual marriages). Some people believe gay marriage is not the ideal environment for raising kids -- certainly the factual studies and science behind those claims have yet to be seen, but from a religious standpoint I think people have some basis. Regardless, that's an ancillary argument for opposing gay marriage (at least in my mind).

Just out of curiosity, what is your religious affiliation (if you have one)? I actually really enjoy discussing the various points of view through these comments, even though nothing I say will persuade anyone else to change their mind, and vice versa.

Lebanon, TN

@Blue --

"It's not as linear of an argument as you're portraying it"

It isn't really a linear argument at all. It's more like three or four parallel arguments:

1. gay couples are raising kids with or without gay marriage, so efforts to deny marriage to gays don't help children.

2. gay couples aren't stealing kids from stable straight homes. Denying gay marriage doesn't increase the number of kids in straight homes, so, again, it doesn't help kids.

3. experts widely agree that kids grow up just fine with gay parents.

4. we don't invalidate straight marriages based on their success or failure at raising kids, so we have no right to invalidate gay marriages based on that same argument.

"what is your religious affiliation"

None of your business.

Anything I say will be "used against me in a court of law" -- so I don't plan to disclose that info.

I'll go so far as to say that: 1. I have been a regularish attendee in two different Christian denominations over the course of my life; and 2. my closest religious affiliation will actually be pretty obvious if you pay enough attention to my posts. :-)

Lebanon, TN

@jeanie --

"Why stop at two people?"

Here we go again.

1. polygamy -- polygamy creates concrete dangers to citizens. Public safety has always been a valid legal argument for limiting personal freedoms.
-- For details, look up the 2011 case in Canada, which easily reaffirmed the constitutionality of their polygamy ban -- even though they've had gay marriage for years now.

2. adult incest (adult siblings, adult parent/children) -- illegal in every state because of public safety concerns. Not only is there the question of undue influence/coercion amongst close relatives, but also the risk of genetic defects in offspring is very high (roughly 30-40%).
-- For details, look up any of SEVERAL recent court cases, in both state and Federal courts, which have very clearly and uniformly declared that homosexuality rulings DON'T apply to incest.

3. child incest/pedophilia/bestiality -- children and animals are incapable of giving informed consent. Therefore, they can't sign marriage contracts. Informed consent is a bedrock principle of all our contract laws. It can't be removed.

4. In contrast, gay marriages **don't** convey any special risk to public safety.

The courts easily distinguish between these different practices -- even if you can't.

Hyrum, UT

@ Contrarius:

You spew out a bunch of questionable assertions with your 4 point argument, but back none of it up with any valid statistics and/or sources. Where does your information come from?

I've very seldom been able to find any "experts" that claim kids grow up just fine with gay parents, let alone any "wide expert agreement" contending such. Since not enough gay couples (for statistical relevancy) have been raising children long enough (less than a generation) to make any valid "expert" assertions, your claims again seem very suspect. Most reports I've read say that it's still too early to determine the extent or degree of negative effects that may result from that particular arrangement.

As far as whether amazondoc wants to discuss his/her religion, that's his/her business, not yours. The question wasn't posed to you, so why stick your nose in it by answering for someone else? Maybe amazondoc doesn't figure it is anyone else's business, but let the person who was posed the question do the answering.

USS Enterprise, UT

To "Contrarius" go back and read the court case, and become informed on polygamy. The canadian case that you cite only states that the FLDS culture is bad, it does not say that polygamy is bad. In doing some reasearch about what women think about polygamy and the benefits, I found that many women would welcome it since it would give them a chance to have more adult help around the house.

Actually gays do pose a risk to public safety. According to National Violence Against Women Prevention Research Center, up to 45% of lesbians are abused by their partners. In comparison, only 11% of women in heterosexual relationships report abuse. The fact that in the gay community there is so much more abuse than in the straight community should bother you and your ilk. Why promote a lifestyle that tends to be so abusive?

Lebanon, TN

@Tators --

"You spew out a bunch of questionable assertions with your 4 point argument, but back none of it up with any valid statistics and/or sources."

We only get 200 words per post, sorry!

"Where does your information come from?"

You'll have to be more specific.

"I've very seldom been able to find any 'experts' that claim kids grow up just fine with gay parents"

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the National Association of Social Workers ALL support gay marriage -- because they agree that kids grow up fine with gay parents.

From the position statement of AAP: "There is an emerging consensus, based on extensive review of the scientific literature, that children growing up in households headed by gay men or lesbians are not disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents" and "Marriage strengthens families and benefits child development".

From the APA: "...children raised by same-sex couples have been shown to be on par with the children of opposite-sex couples in their psychological adjustment, cognitive abilities and social functioning."

to comment

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