Comments about ‘Family Research Council weighs in on Utah gay marriage case’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Feb. 6 2014 6:06 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
1A-all the way
SLC, UT

Why can't gays understand that most utahns think that gay marriage is wrong. Just like most Americans think it is wrong to marry your daughter, or sister. There is no discrimination here, it is wrong. It doesn't matter if their sister or daughter is their love of life, or if they were born that way. It s wrong, and it should not be legal to do so.

Another example... Most Americans think it is wrong to use meth. Just because some people think it is ok, and want to legalize it, because it denies them the right to be happy...would that be ok. Would that affect your life, your marriage, if meth was legalized. Of course it would because people think it is wrong.

Anything that happens in the world has an affect on something else. How else do you think I've come to love dark chocolate? Because my mom liked it, it was in the house,, and wanted to taste it, it so happens that I liked it.......I wasn't born to like it. Get it?

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

@Scientist:
"The idea of "inalienable" and "inherent rights" is fundamental to the Founding documents (Declaration and Constitution). This means simply that "rights" are not given to individuals by any external power, such as government. Rather, individuals have "rights" for no other reason than because they are citizens."

You misunderstand. All men have rights and those are given to them by their creator. Not just people who have been deemed to be citizens. In your paradigm, government can decide who are citizens, i.e. who has rights and they can decide who isn't citizens, i.e. who does not have rights.

Just as creationists who literally believe in the Bible run off of a logical cliff when they try to age the world at 6000 years, atheists run off of a logical cliff when they try to explain that there is no higher power, but people still have inalienable rights and there is no absolute morality.

genetics
Canada, 00

You seem to misunderstand- marriage fulfills, in most cultures, the biology of male + female= children.
Social sciences are soft sciences because bias is a huge problem. For example, see:
Geoffey D. Munro and Peter H Ditto. Pers Soc Psychol Bull June 1997 vol. 23 no. 6 636-653 (this article has been cited as recently as 2013)
In addition, references supporting pro-homosexual views are cited much more often than those studies less supportive:
ALTER R. SCHUMM (2010) EVIDENCE OF PRO-HOMOSEXUAL BIAS IN SOCIAL SCIENCE: CITATION RATES AND RESEARCH ON LESBIAN PARENTING. Psychological Reports: Volume 106, pp. 374-380.
This documented bias is likely in support of a political point- that's intellectually dishonest.
Finally, concerns about sample sizes are well known in this area- see this abstract: Douglas A. Abbott, (2012) International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol. 2 No. 13; July 2012.

TheTrueVoice
West Richland, WA

@Ariz: Thank you! I did not know that, and appreciate your correction. The key takeaway is that the court can't attribute an amicus brief to either party in the case. Regardless, the rest of my post stands... FRC = known, recognized hate group.

@1A-all the way: Where to begin...

"most utahns think that gay marriage is wrong"

Um, no.... don't think that is quite accurate. But let's say that it is - are you suggesting that this would be justification to deny civil rights? Because of personal moral disapproval?

"most Americans think it is wrong to marry your daughter, or sister."

Please. This "slippery slope' logical fallacy is the most spurious argument of all, and it's just a ridiculous one. Gay humans want the *same* rights as straight humans. Incest will still be unlawful. Bestiality will still be unlawful. Marriage should be the committed relationship between two persons of consenting age which is lawful in all other ways.

Toward your other argument: to conflate illegal drug use (a matter of criminal law) with marriage (a matter of civil law) indicates a misunderstanding of concepts.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

1A-all the way says:

"Why can't gays understand that most utahns think that gay marriage is wrong."

Why can't most Utahns understand that what they think about someone elses marriage doesn't matter? They should stop worrying about other people's marriages and focus more effort on their own.

@Tekakaromatagi;

Your creator is not my creator. I don't believe in your fairy tales, please stop trying to force them on the rest of us.

Testimony
Philadelphia, PA

1aAllTheWay,

You can stand on a hill and yell what you believe all day long. It's a free country. But, what you believe is not necessarily true. I believe differently.

I am straight, and Christian, and married. I am not gay.

But, I know people who are gay, and I also know what Christ wants us to do. Love them, as we love ourselves. Celebrate their happiness. Recognize God's love for and in everyone. Treat all people as equals. Leave judgement to God. (Romans 14)

If human sexuality is a subject for theology, then in the theology of my religion, it's a gift from God of intimacy and love, a blessing for a committed couple, and not a matter for gossip, coveting, or prurient interest.

You act as if people make a personal choice as to which sex attracts them. That's not true. After puberty and our hormones kick in, we definitely KNOW who we're attracted to. As a boy, I thought girls were icky. After puberty, I had very different thoughts! There was no selection, no experimentation, I just KNEW.

Gay people know, too. It's innate. The how and why is not for us.

Evidence Not Junk Science
Iron, UT

@genetics re: Social Science

Then we must conclude that every one of the following main stream organizations base their analysis on being "politically correct." Every single one, does that really seem rational?

Rarely is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case of gay parenting, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rights". These organizations include the American Academy of Pediatrics,[6] the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, American Psychoanalytic Association, National Association of Social Workers, Child Welfare League of America, North American Council on Adoptable Children, and the Canadian Psychological Association.

Evidence Not Junk Science
Iron, UT

Amendment 3 is also "under inclusive" by targeting only same-sex couples from marriage for the best interests of children. If a statute or amendment is about children, then civil marriage law should include limitations/restrictions for prior convictions for drug/alcohol, spousal and child abuse, or income level and educational attainment etc. This would be like a statute intended to preserve home heating, by mandating that front doors be kept closed, while leaving the back door and every window wide open. There is simply no rational basis that the governments purported objective will be achieved.

Captain Green
Heber City, UT

It's absurd that there is even a discussion on the matter. Marriage is and always will be between a man and a woman. It's been that way through all of time everywhere in the world. Every person has the same rights already... they can marry, have children, raise a family, be happy. No one is denied that. But society does not allow someone to marry their sister, or their mother, or someone of the same sex. The reason is because that is not good for society or for individuals. Anyone can do whatever they want (with consequences, however), but they will not be given "special privileges" by law based upon their sexual obsessions. That's just plain nonsense.

Testimony
Philadelphia, PA

CaptainGreen,

Where, where to even start... First of all, read more newspapers. Marriage between same sex couples is now legal in a host of our allied nations, from the Netherlands to New Zealand, from Canada to South Africa, from Denmark to Mexico. from Argentina to Britain. And. Nothing. Bad. Has. Happened.

It's been legal in Massachusetts for a decade, and by any objective measure, their state beats your state in every family performance metric.

Perhaps once upon a time, when gay people were treated like criminals, hunted down and arrested, their furtive encounters were of a more seamy nature, but since those unjust laws were overturned and they can live open, normal lives, we see that there's no sexual obsession there. Their attraction to their own kind is just a romantic attraction, of the exact same nature as heterosexuals experience, and those are the only people they can fall in love with and share their lives together.

Your comparisons to incest and whatnot are nothing but desperate insults and hatemongering.

There's absolutely no reason not to let gays marry. The District Court ruling against Utah's discriminatory laws and constitution will be upheld on appeal.

Evidence Not Junk Science
Iron, UT

@Captain Green.. Traditional discrimination is simply not a valid reason to continue the practice.
History shows us that marriage is not defined by those who are excluded. Otherwise, why would we allow opposite sex felon horrific abusers to civil marry? Interracial couples wanted to participate in the institution that traditionally did not allow them to marry. Tradition is simply not a valid reason to continue a practice of discrimination.
There are no:
-Interracial marriage licenses.
-Felony marriage licenses.
-Non-procreative marriage licenses.
Allowing same-sex couples to participate and/or strengthen the existing institution, means there is only ONE marriage license for all. Nothing has been re-defined. Look no further than "traditional voting" which was NOT "re-defined" by allowing women the right to vote.

A right to marry someone for which there is no attraction or desire of intimacy is simply no right at all.

Parental fitness and child bearing is an issue for adoption, reproductive and family law. In other words, some feel that it is perfectly rational to hold same-sex couples and their children morally and legally responsible for any failure of heterosexuals to act in the manner that the state wishes them to behave.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@Captain Green;

Wrong.

Kalindra
Salt Lake City, Utah

@ Captain Green: Have you read the Bible or studied history? The Bible is filled with situations where marriage was not between a man and a woman but between a man and several women.

There is also strong support in the Bible for sibling marriage, uncle/niece or aunt/nephew marriage, and cousin marriage.

And let us not forget the story of Lot and his daughters nor 1 Corinthians 7:36-38.

Many royal families throughout history have preserved their claims to the throne and their property rights by encouraging sibling marriage.

Additionally, many cultures throughout history have recognized same-sex relationships.

It is interesting that those who want so desperately to rely on the historical definition of marriage to defend their position must ignore or rewrite history in order to have the support they want. To me, this is an indication of just how shaky their position is.

ksampow
Farr West, Utah

Debate and sophistry by men can not change God's laws. That answers many of the other comments, but it does not answer the constitutional question. Judges can not use their own religious beliefs to interpret the constitution. However, a federal judge has no right to intervene in state issues and invalidate a time-honored definition that has been added to the state constitution by the will of the people. There is no denial of rights by upholding the traditional definition of marriage - gays can call their relationship a marriage if they want, but they have no right to force US and our STATE to call it a marriage.

Disgusted American
deptford, NJ

Family Research Council weighs in on Utah gay marriage case

...and There in Lies the Whole problem in a Nutshell.....NUT being the most important part of the word.

Disgusted American
deptford, NJ

ksampow

Farr West, Utah
(CIRCA 1960) There is no denial of rights by upholding the traditional definition of marriage - Black and white cpls can call their relationship a marriage if they want, but they have no right to force US and our STATE to call it a marriage. SOUND FAMILIAR???? Sorry - guess you'll be having a severe case of the Vapors, once Marriage Equality comes to ALL 50 STATES.....guess Russia will be getting some immigrants???

Kalindra
Salt Lake City, Utah

@ ksampow: "There is no denial of rights by upholding the traditional definition of marriage - gays can call their relationship a marriage if they want, but they have no right to force US and our STATE to call it a marriage."

So, gays can call their relationships marriage, they just can't have any of the benefits or protections that marriage entails - and in your opinion this is not a denial of rights.

The law states that a spouse is protected under the 5th Amendment from being coerced to testify against his or her spouse - denying same-sex couples marriage denies them this right.

Married couples can file for bankruptcy protection together - same-sex couples who are denied marriage are denied this.

Married prisoners get conjugal visits and considerations for the health of their spouse and any children they and their spouse may have - this is denied to same-sex couples who are denied marriage.

Death and educational benefits are provided to spouses of critically injured or killed police and firemen - denied to same-sex couples.

Without marriage, same-sex couples are not treated equally under the law. Your religion may be okay with that, but we are not a theocracy.

ulvegaard
Medical Lake, Washington

In today's society anyone who doesn't go along with every possible new trend or idea is considered a bigot and a hater. There are a great many in the world today who do not go along with the idea of same sex intimate relationships. Granted some of those individuals are jerks at best, but there are a lot of those on the opposing side as well.

I find it interesting that the vast majority of the posts I read regarding this issue are pretty similar. Those opposed to same sex marriage have specific reasons why they do - though we may not agree with their reasoning, they are reasons. The strategy of the vast majority of pro GLBT issues is to call those against it - bigots, neanderthals, homophobic, and so forth. Much of the research cited is lacking in breadth of sample study groups and duration since it cannot be effectively determined how well gay marriage will pan out in a thousand years.

We need civil discourse on both sides of the isle.

to comment

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