Quantcast

Comments about ‘Gay marriage: What's next for Utah?’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, July 3 2013 5:30 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
5th Amendment
Salt Lake, UT

@very concerned

"I am not convinced. The scientific case seems to me to be inconclusive of that. Even though there is some research suggesting there is biological same-sex attraction, that does not mean homosexual relations are uncontrollable or desirable."

What is the specific scientific basis for the genetic, biological, and endocrinological orientations of opposite sex, or ones own individual attraction? I'd very much like to know that, before I made assumptions about the specific origins of another's sexual orientation. I'd like to be able to lay out and thoroughly explain the genetic markers, biological and endocrinological factors of my own attractions before trying to explain or even judging someone else.

Moreover, is it possible to reach the same conclusion that certain heterosexual relations are uncontrollable or desirable? If so, which behaviors should be codified into civil law? Homosexual behavior in Lawrence v. Texas was determined to be constitutionally protected.

Excal
Layton, UT

Homosexuality is the bedrock issue. It is wrong because it is self-defeating. No society of homosexuals can procreate and is therefore doomed to fail. For this reason, a heterosexual society, which tolerates homosexuality, let alone encourages it, does so at its own peril, and therefore has the duty to protect itself against the practice and promulgation of it among its members.

Hence,society should deem marriage as a privilege, not a right. It should be carefully regulated, to ensure that no unwise class of unions is sanctioned that would be detrimental to its own future. That well-meaning, but short-sighted members are willing to shoulder the extra burden and risk placed upon heterosexuals, by the sterility of the homosexual unions of a society, may be recognized as a generous and just sentiment by some, but it is a selfish and unjust position to take in reality, from the heterosexual point of view that regards the welfare of its posterity above that of those members who choose to sacrifice their posterity on the altar of personal preference.

The SCOTUS decision is indeed "troubling." Truly, the wisdom of the wise has perished and the understanding of the prudent is hidden.

sharrona
layton, UT

RE: Contrariuses,Bible quotes when they do exist in the actual Bible passages.

The O. T. The Holiness Code contained different types of commands. Some were related to dietary regulations or to ceremonial cleanliness, and these have been done away with in the New Testament (Col. 2:16-17; Rom. 14:1-3). Others, though, were moral codes, and as such are timeless. Thus incest, child sacrifice, homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, and “the like”, are still abominations before God.

RE: it's not talking about judging people's sins".
Wrong (John 7:24)is universal in application according to the truth and evidence of them; and do not find fault with that, which you yourselves allow of, and which Moses and his law, and your own practices, justify. Universal in application
RE: Thanks for reminding me of it. (Mt 7:16). Can be doctrine, Christians have the right to judge bad teachings. i.e…

THE Book of JUDGES: Compromise, a serious problem today, is one of the main themes of Judges. Influences, chiefly idolatry and immorality. “And the like”, means that this is not an exhaustive list of sins.

5th Amendment
Salt Lake, UT

re: Excal said:
"Homosexuality is the bedrock issue. It is wrong because it is self-defeating. No society of homosexuals can procreate and is therefore doomed to fail. For this reason, a heterosexual society, which tolerates homosexuality, let alone encourages it, does so at its own peril,.."

A red herring argument? I think we would do well to look to the evidence here. The evidence show us that we have had a society of homosexuals for thousands of years. Procreation of the species has never ever been a problem. Moreover, modern reproductive technologies have greatly benefited no- fertile couples of all sexual orientations. The fact is simply that homosexuals can and do have families. A society that tolerates homosexuals has absolutely NO effect on the capability of opposite sex couples procreation ability. Honestly, just look around you.

Elles
Lehi, UT

One of my concerns is that we will end up like Sweden where LDS temple marriages are not legally recognized by the government since the Church will not perform marriage ceremonies for those of the same sex.

Erin R.
Salt Lake City, UT

We actually don't live in a democracy.

Excal
Layton, UT

@ 5th Amendment.

Your argument against the self-defeating nature of the homosexual union, that it is a distraction, is specious: Regardless of the fact that the seed of a male and the egg of a female may be combined to conceive a child artificially, only one of the partners to the union can be the child's father or mother. The homosexual couple cannot share a posterity.

Given this inescapable fact, the result is inevitable: The homosexual union is doomed over generations, even if it can sometimes be maintained in the short term. This self-defeating fate extends from the personal relationships of homosexual individuals to the homosexual society in general, as extended families become impossible to identify.

With extended family relationships impossible, the homosexual element of society eventually becomes "a luxury" that the heterosexual society cannot afford, on so many levels. Your argument that history includes this element in every past society is something that implies the contrary, does not hold, since none of these societies persist today, except as the posterity of heterosexuals.

The fact is, homosexual unions are self-defeating and represent a burden and risk to any society that tolerates them, let alone encourages them.

CHARLIEBROWN2292
,

Time only will reveal the collateral effects of allowing Gay Marriage, but collateral effects there will be! One of them will be that our kids will be taught by public institutions that there is nothing wrong in experimenting with sexual partners of both sexes. Sex will be portrayed as a fun activity rather than something sacred meant to perpetuate the species under carefully tailored conditions. Many among the rising generation will get confused enough they will lose a sense of their own gender and some - like in Sweden - will choose to end their lives as a result. Sex drive will suffer no restraint, and it will soon become impossible to keep people to One-Partner-Only relationships. Children born under such circumstances will greatly suffer - especially when they will be missing a father or mother. The whole society will be in shambles, and no Welfare Agency will ever be able to fix the mess...there are things one shouldn't tolerate under any circumstance, and Gay Marriage is one of them!

Contrariusiest
mid-state, TN

@Piret --

"I think we've made some progress since the time of the "mesopotamians""

Sure. I only mentioned it to correct the people who claim that same-sex marriage has never been done before. In reality, they have occurred throughout history. :-)

@prinze777 --

in re: protest attacks --

I was living in Knoxville just a few years ago, when a man stormed into a Unitarian church there and SHOT NINE PEOPLE just because he hated "liberals, Democrats, blacks, and gays".

Gay people in the US are still **EIGHT TIMES** more likely to be the victims of violent crimes than straight people.

Another gay man was shot and killed in NYC just a couple of weeks ago -- WITH the shooter shouting gay slurs at him -- in yet another obvious hate crime.

We see continuing violence against gays all over the world -- like those mobs in the country of Georgia that have been LED BY PRIESTS.

In some countries, homosexuality is still PUNISHABLE BY DEATH.

And during the Prop 8 campaign, PRO gay-rights people were attacked as well.

It's very clear which side has suffered the vast majority of violent attacks. And it sure isn't the anti-gay forces.

Contrariusest
Nashville, TN

@sharrona --

"Others, though, were moral codes, and as such are timeless."

Those Old Testament moral codes include the commands to kill all adulterers -- which include people who divorce and remarry -- as well as to kill children who don't respect their parents. Among other things.

Are you **really** sure you want to stick with every one of those codes?

"By calling this covenant 'new,' he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear." (Hebrews 8:13)

"Wrong (John 7:24)is universal"

Sorry, Sharrona, but yet again you're adding things to quotes which simply aren't there. *Please* try to stick with the actual quotes.

@Excal --

"No society of homosexuals can procreate and is therefore doomed to fail."

Celibacy is also "doomed to fail" if everyone were to practice it. Nonetheless, many religions revere their celibate monks and priests.

Obviously, therefore, this "doomed to fail" test is completely irrelevant when we're talking about morality.

@Elles --

"One of my concerns is that we will end up like Sweden"

Sweden doesn't have separation of church and state.

We do.

Problem solved.

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

very concerned: "I am trying to champion abstinence outside the bounds of traditional marriage as the basis of a happy society."

And therein lies the problem. The game is rigged. Unmarried heterosexuals have a legal escape clause from abstinence and chastity-- marriage. A straight teen coming of age only has to abstain for 5-10 years or so during courtship, then he or she can do whatever after getting married. It may be a struggle now and then, but it is a manageable sacrifice. You are asking gays, on the other hand, to abstain for their entire lifetimes. They don't get the "sex within marriage is OK" option because they don't get the marriage option. The playing field is uneven. If you really want a happy society where everyone has the same shot at happiness, then you should be supporting gay marriage.

Fullypresent
Salt Lake City, UT

I am still trying to understand the argument that allowing gay individuals to marry will destroy marriage for straight couples? I would think encouraging strong and long term committed relationships especially if you are going to have children involved would benefit all of society. States that have passed laws to allow gay individuals to marry have not seen the end of straight couples marrying and going on with their lives. We have a high marriage rate in Utah. I can't imagine that would decrease if gay individuals were also allowed to marry.

Evidence Not Junk Science
Iron, UT

@ Excal "Given this inescapable fact, the result is inevitable: The homosexual union is doomed over generations, even if it can sometimes be maintained in the short term. This self-defeating fate extends from the personal relationships of homosexual individuals to the homosexual society in general, as extended families become impossible to identify."

Are you arguing against the posterity of ALL extended families because of adoption, and reproductive technologies for single heterosexuals, non-fertile heterosexual couples or just homosexual couples, married with children before coming out, or just never married with children?

Marriage law is not a means to stop GLBT from having children for "posterity." Perhaps sterilization or adoption law might work better?

Separate homosexual societies? Homosexuals have always been part of any society even those like Iran who refuse to recognize or hang them.

What threat is there now, or ever has been from homosexuals in a society to heterosexual procreation? Do you have any evidence that heterosexual procreation has diminished because of so called "homosexual societies?"

Other than describing a parade of horribles, or sky will fall arguments, one must conclude that you are of course entitled to your own opinion, but not your own set of facts.

Evidence Not Junk Science
Iron, UT

@charilebrown
"Time only will reveal the collateral effects of allowing Gay Marriage, but collateral effects there will be! One of them will be that our kids will be taught by public institutions that there is nothing wrong in experimenting with sexual partners of both sexes. ........"

Other than describing a parade of horribles, sky will fall arguments, or fear based bumper sticker slogans, perhaps the solution is to codify your own religious view into civil law? We could also propose a federal law stating which religious view will be the law of the land and we can all vote on it.

In the meantime, moral disapproval, animus, or fear are simply not valid reasons to discriminate against a minority.

AmericaV
Huntsville, AL

I sure hope we see states seceding before it comes to this. The nation is all but done anyway. Stick a fork in it already.

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Gay "marriage" is a myth. The purpose of marriage is to bind a male-female relationship that in, most instances, bear children. The husband or the wife, usually, has to stay home and raise the children. This is a social good. It is encouraged with health insurance for one partner, inheritance rights for the surviving partner if the other one dies. We give tax benefits.

If two people of the same gender marry, why should they receive benefits? They will never bear children. If one of the other dies, the other can keep on working.

(Yeah, there is a straw man argument that someone will probably make, what if the wife is infertile? Well, do we really want to have the government poking around like the rude aunt who asks when their is going to be some 'good news'.)

I didn't serve in the military. I don't meet the present conditions to receive Veteran's Benefits. Geez, I wonder if I am being discriminated against. Equal protection under the law. I don't have a mortgage, how come some people get to deduct mortgage and I don't. I feel like a second class citizen already.

Cougar in Texas
Houston, TX

Contrarius,

Why do you exclude or misrepresent information that would damage your claims? I find this in virtually every research I do on your information. Examples:

The language you quote from Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health does not appear in that decision, but is attributed to CA Justice Ronald George, although no reference is given. Mediamatters cut and pasting?

"Canada" did not reaffirm its polygamy ban. Did "America" pass Prop 8? It was a British Columbia reference case devised after BC failed to convict any polygamist (and continue to fail to do so). The trial focused almost exclusively on the BC branches of Warren Jeffs' FLDS and cited Jeffs' well-known excesses to justify their decision. The decision also confirmed that polygamy is legal in Canada under common law, but formal polygamous marriages are not.

Brazil legalized gay marriage earlier this year. Brazil has also given legal status to at least one threesome.

It is coming, and many of your pro-gay allies agree that it is.

It took 50 years to transition from overturning anti-miscegenation laws to allowing gay marriage. The transition to polygamy and other non-standard forms of marriage will not be so long.

Evidence Not Junk Science
Iron, UT

@Tekakaromatagi
"Gay "marriage" is a myth. The purpose of marriage is to bind a male-female relationship that in, most instances, bear children......."

How will excluding same-sex couples and their children from the institution of marriage prevent this so called "binding of the male-female" relationship? How is it not a "social good" for same sex couples to raise their children, with the same marriage benefits? If you do some research you will find that same sex couples do indeed have children! They really do! The even use the exact same reproductive technologies that opposite-sex couples utilize. They even adopt and still are allowed to called themselves married! Their marriages are no more of a myth than interracial marriages were decades ago. What about the children of same-sex couples? Why do you want to demean and inflict harm on these families as Justice Kennedy found when DOMA was struck down as being unconstitutional? Your disapproval, and ill-will, fear and dislike are not valid reasons under US constitutional law. Hate isn't working anymore either.

Wow, now we have pure awesomeness, what a great country we live in! Let freedom ring, Liberty and Justice for ALL.

Logical Fallacy
Salt Lake, UT

The arguments about protecting traditional marriage by denying another's ability to marry are interesting. The argumentation goes something like this:

"We have no bigotry or ill will towards homosexuals, and ignore the harm done to their families, we just want to protect marriage."

A logical fallacy? Someone who steals a car is in no way a thief, they only want to protect their right to have transportation.

Some only see what they want to see. This is called "Denial".

Contrariuserer
mid-state, TN

@Cougar --

"The language you quote from Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health does not appear in that decision"

That's a valid quote -- but you're correct, I've got a misattribution there. Thanks for pointing that out!

The quote is actually from the California Supreme Court in 2008. Still a perfectly relevant court decision, despite my miscredit. I apologize for applying the wrong citation, though.

I'll see if I can figure out how I got confused there.

"'Canada' did not reaffirm its polygamy ban."

Sure it did.

From "Jurist" legal website:

"The recent ruling of Chief Justice Robert Bauman of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in the Polygamy Reference offers the world's most comprehensive judicial treatment to date of the legal status of polygamy. Bauman concluded that Canada's criminal prohibition on polygamy is a violation of the guarantee of freedom of religion in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but accepted that this is constitutionally justified as a reasonable limitation intended to prevent harm to women, children and society. This is a welcome ruling that, if upheld, should prevent the spread of polygamy in Canada. "

to be continued!

to comment

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