Quantcast

Comments about ‘Michael and Jenet Erickson: Same-sex marriage debate needs 'voices of hope'’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, Feb. 23 2014 12:51 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
KJB1
Eugene, OR

If a gay man decides to marry a woman and raise a family, great. He should have that choice. That's still no excuse for using the law to deny same sex couples that same option. I'll give you credit for trying to come at this from a new angle, but no sale.

You guys can tap dance around and grasp at straws all you like, but the dominoes are falling quickly. You're no longer the ones who get to solely define morality and marriage and family for everybody else. If you learn to accept it and focus on you and yours instead of obsessing over how others live their lives, you'll probably be a lot happier in the end...

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

If that's what they want to have then more power to them. But... why can't the other gay people who want something different have that option too? Or for that matter straight people who want to marry someone of the same gender (I mean, if you think gay people should be just fine with entering in an opposite gender marriage, then shouldn't the reverse be fine too, straight people marrying a gay person of the same gender?).

Karen R.
Houston, TX

@KJB1

Yes, my thoughts as well. Isn't this story an argument FOR marriage equality? Doesn't this suggest that we really need to get our noses out of each other's business and let people make their own marriage decisions?

This also came across to me as a self-conscious attempt to rationalize the belief in something that a growing majority are realizing is and has always been unjust and immoral. There is nothing "wrong" with LGBTs. What is wrong is the way we have looked at and treated them. We're finally moving towards changing this.

Esquire
Springville, UT

The train has already left the station. Sorry about that.

Kalindra
Salt Lake City, Utah

"With more understanding about the diverse lives of same-sex attracted men and women, our society can learn how to recognize the equal dignity of gays and lesbians without redefining marriage...."

Ten years ago, during the Amendment 3 debate here in Utah, the LGBT and Ally community asked legislators not to include the second part, the part that states, "No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."

Legislators ignored those voices.

The LGBT and Ally community then asked voters to reject Amendment 3 because, by including that second part, it went too far. Sixty-six percent of active Utah voters that not only did same-sex couples not deserve marriage, their relationships deserve no legal recognition or protection.

Utah voters shut the door on "recognizing the equal dignity" of same-sex couples without "redefining marriage". Only by striking down Amendment 3 can any legal recognition and protections he given to same-sex Utah couples. And once it falls, there will be no chance of redoing it the way it asked for 10 years ago. That ship has sailed and it is not coming back.

Locke
Rexburg, ID

Extending rights of taxation, inheritance, visitation, etc. does not require redefinition of "marriage." Why not extend legal benefits another way?

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

Dear Mr. & Mrs. Erickson;

The choice of having a same sex marrige does NOT require any gay person to have one, it simply give us the option; the same option that heterosexual couples have.

Having spent 30 years "in the closet", depressed, lonely, AND suicidal, I can attest to the joy and happiness that I've found being open and spending my life with my loving, committed partner of over 15 years.

You have to ask yourself, "what would make a young gay person" oppose the opportunity for OTHER gay and lesbian couples to marry? Probably religion; how tragic and sad.

From now on, instead of opposing someone elses joy, how about, if you can't accept it, then simply ignore it?

BTW; would you ask your own son or daughter to marry a homosexual if they were heterosexual? Why do you ask us to do it then?

Sal
Provo, UT

The gay community celebrates the hand writing on the wall as state after state loses its constitutional right to define marriage as solely between a man and a woman.

Those who take the time to know God and his word also see the hand writing on the wall and it isn't nice for anyone. Droughts will deepen; plagues will rage throughout the earth; natural catastrophes will increase. We only break ourselves when we choose to ignore God's commandments. Majorities won't change the destructive outcome.

Ajax
Mapleton, UT

I personally support LGBT marriage. In my view, it is the inevitable choice in a free and fair society.

However, suppose a mother who, for whatever reason, wanted to give her newborn child up for adoption were to specify that the adoptive parents be biologically male and female. Should the mother appropriately have that choice? Would you call her a bigot? Suppose she specified a gay couple as adoptive parents. Would you think that equally bigoted?

Where discretion ends and bigotry begins is a highly difficult if not impossible line to draw. Even among those of good faith the boundary is blurred. Our only recourse are judges and juries, where verdicts in such abstruse matters are routinely imperfect and resolution seldom complete. Court cases of personal discrimination may go on for years, and every decision either way leaves in its wake a trail of damaged lives.

In my opinion, there is merit to the concern that in our rush to do the right thing we not unintentionally institutionalize a regimen of “correct thinking” that dampens the unfettered diversity of ideas and opinions so appealing in the American concept of liberty for all.

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

Last night I watched a cooking show, where chefs are have a basket of "mystery" ingredients and compete to create the winning meal.

Various kinds of chocolate had to be incorporated in three courses. One chef said he did not like chocolate, but as a chef he was challenged to learn to eat it so he could cook with it.

He won. Not because he learned to like or enjoy chocolate, but because he created a meal that pleased the judges.

Marriage is two people in a partnership with legal connections and responsibilities to each other. It is not about a relationship for others to judge and approve. Unlike cooking with chocolate, marriage is about the two people involved.

While some relationships can work and even thrive when one member is same-sex-attracted, this is not a model that should be mandated or for every Gay person. I tried marriage several times before I stopped trying to please the judges and have a relationship for the right reasons, with the right person of the right, for me, gender.

On the other hand, I love every kind of chocolate.

gmlewis
Houston, TX

The real message of this article is that gays have a real choice beyond the simple "either/or" eventuality popularly held in society - either you enter a gay marriage or you remain alone throughout life.

I would much rather have gay marriage legalized, and yet have a greater recognition in society that same sex attraction doesn't force you into a same sex relationship.

God gave us the power to choose, and that power to choose is one of His greatest gifts.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@Sal
" Droughts will deepen; plagues will rage throughout the earth; natural catastrophes will increase."

Never ceases to amaze me when people think the only anthropogenic climate change that occurs is a result of same-sex marriage.

george of the jungle
goshen, UT

There is principal that I think means friends [pal], then there is principle [ple],a pledge that we make. I start thinking about all the pledges I make like the marriage vows, taking the oath joining the military, signing a contract. there are a lot of nonnegotiable things, it includes religion. Being a man of principles, is both principal and principle. Like the facts of life or laws of nature.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Gay people can participate in opposite sex marriages. A voice of hope would say that's great; now let them participate in same sex marriages, too. Fortunately, the state of Utah is doing what it can to champion this cause.

CHS 85
Sandy, UT

This article is a joke. What about the woman who is married to the man who will never be attracted to them? What about them? Who out there would recommend to their daughter to marry a gay man and have children with him? Who wants their daughter to be married to a man and have a marriage where true intimacy can never exist? What could possibly go wrong?

Moderate
Salt Lake City, UT

Locke wonders "Extending rights of taxation, inheritance, visitation, etc. does not require redefinition of "marriage." Why not extend legal benefits another way?"

Why are such rights extended at all? Why should a married person get a better tax rate than a single person? Why should a person with a child get a better tax rate than a person without children? What you think of as "tradition", I think of as "government sponsored social engineering".

Baker Boy
Westminster, CA

The notion that a gay person would choose to marry someone of the opposite sex is, in this day and age, just plain absurd! So, some have done it in the past, probably because of social pressure and not being willing to come out of the closet and face public and family shaming, especially in states like Utah.

I would ask any straight person if he or she would consider marrying someone of the same sex. the idea is just plain stupid, yet expecting gay people to do the opposite plays into the ongoing discrimination of and disdain for gay people.

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

@gmlewis
"I would much rather have gay marriage legalized, and yet have a greater recognition in society that same sex attraction doesn't force you into a same sex relationship."

Fully agree, we do have a choice. And, at the same time recognition and respect for SSM will also help people to see that is a real option and perhaps stop some of the "marriage cure" marriages that end in divorce and misery.

E Sam
Provo, UT

Fine. Great. Our gay friends can choose any of a number of ways to conduct their lives. Thanks for another strong argument for marriage equality.

Larry Chandler
CEDAR CITY, UT

Well, said CHS85. Why would anyone subject a woman to a man who doesn't genuinely desire her? A gay man who wants a family (or keep his job) might acquiesce in the demands for him to marry, but it subjects his wife to a lifetime of loneliness and not feeling wanted. And this has happened. A good friend unknowingly married a gay man and while they did produce children. she always wondered why he never seems to want her, to initiate intimacy. "Maybe I'm too heavy for him" she would say as she began yet another useless diet plan. "Perhaps if I had my hair done differently or bought a better perfume." Nothing worked until her kids were grown, he acknowledged he was gay, they divorced, and she married a man who genuinely loved and desired her. Now she's very happy, but it took until she was 45.

If two people love each other, whether it's a gay man who loves a woman or another gay man or the same situation for women, who are we to tell them no? Does what our God say to us always say the same to them?

to comment

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