Quantcast

Comments about ‘Becker joins mayors signing Freedom to Marry petition’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Feb. 13 2014 5:35 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
LovelyDeseret
Gilbert, AZ

If the redefining of marriage crowd has so many supporters why don't they persuade us that their argument is best for society? All I ever hear is that it is best for a small percentage of adults. This is the opposite of the pro-marriage crowd which says their side is best for society and children.
It then comes down to do we help families and children or a small percentage of adults.

Chasey
San Antonio, TX

Becker's comments warm the cockles of my heart. Oh wait...that's heartburn. Never mind.

DanO
Mission Viejo, CA

LovelyDeseret, why wouldn't the benefits be the same? Many same-gendered couples are already raising children. Marriage equality will help bring additional stability to those families, the same stability that families headed by heterosexual couples enjoy. But since children aren't a requirement of marriage, it encourages the same commitment as marriage between two heterosexual partners.

Spellman789
Syracuse, UT

@DanO
You talk about marriage equality as if heterosexual marriages and gay marriages were the same thing. They are totally different. Whatever laws are passed granting federal benefits to both types of marriages will never make them equal. The effects of gay marriage on children as opposed to the effects of heterosexual marriage on children remains to be seen over the long run. As the fact that children in gay marriages will be raised without a mother, or a father, but two mothers and two fathers, again they are totally different and the effects will also be different on society as a whole. It is interest how such parents feel to put their own needs and "rights" above that of the children they are raising.

Yorkshire
City, Ut

DanO "why wouldn't the benefits be the same? Many same-gendered couples are already raising children."

2 wrongs don't make a right.

Liberal Ted
Salt Lake City, UT

Why doesn't the "pro-marriage" group, stop trying to force to redefine marriage. And call same-sex marriage a "civil union" or "same-sex marriage", but, also give the same financial rights to that definition of marriage? And the argument that it is discriminatory to call two men living together or two women the same as a man and woman. They are different and should be termed differently.

I fell the same way with a man that lives with 5 wives or a woman with 5 husbands. We call people that co-habitat by that term. So why force the issue of redefining marriage from one man and one woman, to anyone that loves each other?

I haven't had anyone give a mediocre argument, other than they feel it's not equal. Which to me doesn't hold water. We could call all four legged animals with a tail a horse, but, it really doesn't explain what the animal is. We should call things as they are.

TA1
Alexandria, VA

Humanity is finally moving to an era where we acknowledge and respect differing views and don't try to pigeon hole everyone - even if it does not fit - well done Mr Mayor, many people are very grateful for your action!

SallyOMalley
Bozeman, MT

They already have the same rights to marry as everyone else, the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Isn't that that same right as everyone else? Everyone else can marry someone of the opposite sex and they can too. What they want is not the same rights, but special rights for a choice they have made. Eight major studies of genetically identical twins in Australia, the United States, and Scandinavia over the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion, gays were not born that way.

Visitor from California
Berkeley, CA

Thank you, Mayor Becker! You have helped make Utah a more welcoming state.

md
Cache, UT

@DanO So gays can't be as committed to each other without a marriage document? Civil unions with the same legal rights as straight couples, I understand and support.
Calling two same-sex partners married is like calling a square a circle. Try as hard as you want and you cant make those right angles of the square sloped to become a circle. Redefining marriage or a square and forcing it on us and our children to accept is wrong.
Gays don't want equality. They want a special place in society because they are so brave for coming out of the closet.

cavetroll
SANDY, UT

@LovelyDeseret

If the traditional marriage crowd has so many supporters why don't they persuade the gay marriage supporters that their argument is best for society? All I ever hear is that it is best for a small percentage of adults. This is the opposite of the gay marriage crowd which says their side is best for society and families.

ksampow
Farr West, Utah

Everyone already have the freedom to marry. Gays want to change the definition of marriage to call their own kind of relationship marriage, which it is not - according to the divine definition decreed by God and according to the Utah constitution..

Danny Chipman
Lehi, UT

If marriage is a right for all, well, then I have a few absolutely fabulous friends whose rights are being violated, as no one's married them yet!

Happy Valentine's Day! And Happy Singles Awareness Day.

skeptic
Phoenix, AZ

Putting aside unsubstantiated religiosity inferences, what differences does it really make. There are children with no homes or parents living in the streets, and the religious don't seem too concerned about them.. But they are up in arms over children having a good home and loving same sex parents. Go figure.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

The mayor understands what "Liberty and Freedom for All" means.
Why those against marriage are afraid of 2% of the population being able commit to each other through marriage, is beyond logic.

You hear that?... That is the sound of inevitability.

Values Voter
LONG BEACH, CA

Don't look now, but another Marriage Equality domino just fell -- now, Virginia!

Darmando
Parker, CO

Reading the news from Utah I find the pro child arguments of the anti equal rights crowd hard to understand because they are often dishonest.
Wasn't there a recent article about the large number of homeless gay teenagers in Utah who are homeless because they felt forced to leave their righteous, traditional homes and were not accepted? It seems the SSM people are better - certainly kinder - to ALL of Utah's children. Being raised in a "traditional" family won't make a gay child straight any more than being raised by gay parents will cause a straight child to be gay, and being gay in too many "traditional" families is dangerous and destructive to the child. I've yet to read of a child forced out of their SSM home.
The claim that gay people want "special rights" is particularly obnoxious and dishonest. Human rights are human rights. The right to love and thrive and be protected should be everyone's right. Human rights belong to all persons, even Utah's children.

across the sea
Topeno, Finland

The simple truth is this ... If it would be natural they could also have children by each other...

I have advocated, since -85, civil unions for couples living together and sharing households together FOR ANY REASON. That they could inherit each other, get insurance etc benefits. This has nothing to do with sex!
But I think that nothing is good for "gays" battling their own demons.

JSB
Sugar City, ID

Mayor Becker is wrong. For good reason, most Utahns desire a chaste society (i.e. one in which any intimate sex outside of heterosexual marriage is discouraged). The advantages of a chaste society over a promiscuous society are very clear. The more promiscuous a society is the sicker it is: More divorce accompanied by expensive and tragic social costs (custody issues, poverty, abused and neglected children resulting in more crime, drug abuse, school dropouts, social maladjustment, violence, sexual perversion, etc.) Also, in a sexually promiscuous society there is more venereal disease with additional cost to the responsible taxpayer. Sexual promiscuity encourages pornography and related sex crimes and psychological problems. Plus, promiscuity results in more abortions and/or unwanted children.

Legislating against sexual promiscuity is difficult (though there are laws against prostitution, underage sex and marriage, and sexual abuse). Given the high cost to society of promiscuous behavior, should a state be forced to legitimize these behaviors through liberalizing marriage laws? Can’t a state or the people of the state for the good of the state, openly encourage chaste behavior through social pressure by frowning upon sexually promiscuous behavior and encouraging chaste behavior?

G-Day-M8
WVC, UT

You cannot put aside the commandments of God. Mockery has consequences. Covenants have obligations.

Some say that religion is forcing a code of ethics on the masses and on the surface it seems like a rational argument but disobedience to the commandments is a willful choice. There is no compulsion as that would invalidate God Himself. With every law there is a consequence if broken and on the other hand there is a promise if obeyed.

Some say there is no God and therefore there is no Gods law but to say there is no God does not make it so. To say there is no sound in the forest when a tree falls because we were not in the forest when the tree fell does not mean there was no sound.

To know God, one must have hope in His reality and then act in faith, believing his commandments are Just and his promises are sure. There is no magic or superstition but there is confirmation.

I expect there will be mockery of my post so I leave this invitation to hope, then to act, then to know.

to comment

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