Been trying to figure out how I feel about this issue (people with SSA marrying
someone of the opposite gender for whatever reason). I've come to a simple
conclusion:Political- I support their RIGHT to marry whomever they
choose. No ifs, ands or buts.Personal- I feel sorry for both
partners in that marriage, because they chose to marry someone that wasn't
right for them in some way. The most common from what I've seen is a
homosexual man marrying a straight woman. I feel so sorry, especially for the
woman, who has to accept that she will never be his ideal. See how
easy that is, 'defenders of marriage'? Separate rights and beliefs.
I would like to say something to Michael and Jenet. You seem like wonderful
people and although I do not agree with you, I do believe that you care. I just
want to suggest that you take some time and talk and get to know other gay
people. Being in my relationship has been the good part of my life! The
difficult part is dealing with all the people I care about who treat me
differently! How often have you taken a moment to listen to what gay people have
to say? You may always believe the same, as far as religion goes, but if you
took some time and allowed us to sincerely tell you our stories, I promise you
that you will change the way you perceive and view us! I have friends who have
married and ones who didn't but went back to church. I would never ridicule
their decisions, but that can never work for some of us! I could never live a
lie! I can not live my whole life based on a lie! I almost died. I had a near
death experience! I know that God accepts me as I am!
Thanks for being brave and sharing your stories. God bless you and your
@JSB"If Gay marriage is legalized, legalization of polygamous and
polyamorous (two or more adults of each sex) "families" will
follow."That's a slippery slope logical fallacy."isn't it time for us to start living in a mature and responsible way
and to discourage selfish, irresponsible sexual behavior?"Perhaps, there's just one problem with that..."Is it too
much to ask and expect of our fellow citizens to live a chaste life?"... there's no reason to oppose monogamous homosexual relationships
since those encourage responsible sexual behavior. "Are people
who desire this kind of civil society really mean spirited bigots"Desiring a more chaste society in and of itself isn't bigoted, but if one
is taking a position contrary to that claimed goal by making an exception in
order to target one particular group... that would seem to carry some animus
with it towards that particular group.
The reason tax breaks were given to couples with children is because it is in
the government's best interest to replenish and grow the next generation of
workers/taxpayers. Previously, it was common practice in our society for people
to get married and then have children (in that order), so tax benefits were made
available to married couples (because of their reproductive potential) in the
hopes that it would help incentivize couples to marry and reproduce. Seems
we've lost sight of that objective. The government doesn't subsidize
marriage because it wants more married couples, it does so because it wants a
larger future work force. (And please do not respond with, "Well what about
infertile couples?!" as that is a tired, overly-simplified argument.)I guess you could argue that stable relationships are also a benefit to
the country, with which I would agree, but because marriage (straight or gay)
does not ensure this by any means, that argument becomes somewhat insubstantial
when you consider the poor return on investment that would be for the
government.Paying people with tax breaks to have children is all
about dollars and cents for the government.
re: "I think you missed an opportunity to really explain options that people
with SSA have."What about the folks who are afflicted with ONLY
opposite sex attraction? Would society view a decision to marry someone of the
SAME-sex a rational and logical thing for them to do? Does this
situation make sense and the best way to insure the success of their
marriage?We need voices of hope, voices of reason and truth for
these marriages too. Until that happens I see a train wreck in the making.
Been there done that. The biggest lie I ever told myself, was that
I'm only same-sex attracted, but I'm certainly NOT one of those!
re: "...without redefining marriage to eliminate mothers and fathers"History shows us that marriage is not defined by those who are excluded.
Otherwise, why would we allow opposite sex felon spousal, child, drug and
alcohol 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. Some say the meaning of voting was redefined,
confusing people about the real meaning of voting, by including another gender.
Nonsense. A right to marry someone for which there is no attraction
or desire of intimacy is simply no right at all. The "ideal way
for bearing/procreating children" does not have the slightest relevance to
civil marriage law. Parental fitness and procreation is an issue for adoption,
reproductive and family law.
@JSB:"Just like heterosexuals must control their sexual appetites, so
should responsible homosexuals."For you, "controlling your
sexual appetites" seems to mean having sex only with a person of the
opposite sex, who you've married-- a chaste ideal you think saves us from
social ills. Oh, and what a lucky coincidence, it aligns with your own
emotional and sexual attractions.But for gay people,
"controlling your sexual appetite" means NOT having sex, NOT marrying a
person of the same sex, NOT existing in alignment with their own emotional and
sexual attractions.@JSB:"Is it too much to ask and expect
of our fellow citizens to live a chaste life? Are people who desire this kind of
civil society really mean spirited bigots or are they genuinely concerned good
citizens?"Reducing gay people to an out-of-control sexual
appetite is offensive and inaccurate. Seeking to exclude them because you
believe it’s morally wrong to be gay is bigoted.You refuse to
see gay people as whole people, whose emotional and sexual lives are reflective
of a meaningful human existence.So yes, expecting your fellow
citizens to live life according to your values is too much to ask.
@ Sven: You misunderstand hate crimes legislation. Since everyone has a sexual
orientation, sexual orientation hate crimes laws would protect everyone - just
as religious hate crimes laws protect everyone including Mormons whose chapels
in Chubbock, ID have recently been vandalized.While it is true that
there are anti-vandalism laws in place, the nature of the vandalism in this case
elevates the harm caused by the vandalism and hate crime legislation will allow
the state and/or federal government to elevate the punishment to match the
increased level of harm.This increased level of punishment is not a
"special right" for Mormons, but an equality of protection based on the
severity of the crime.
@Baccus0902 said:"...the National Coalition of Anti-Violence
Programs reports that the number of actual or suspected anti-gay murders is on
the rise: from 14 in 1997 to 33 in 1998 and 28 in 1999."Okay,
please provide the actual cases (not "suspected" cases, whatever that
means) of anti-gay murders and violence that are supposedly plaguing our nation.
If this is such an epidemic, it should be easy to provide names, incidents in
question, convictions and other data for these cases.I ask again,
why should the penalties for violence or murder, perpetrated against
homosexuals, be different from those same acts being committed against other
members of our society? We already have laws on the books for murder and abuse.
Why should one group have more value placed on them in the eyes of our justice
system, over another group. Murder is murder. So,
homosexuals never commit acts of violence against other homosexuals? Are we to
believe that any and all violence that happens to a homosexual, is always by an
evil homophobe? I'll wager a good portion of violence against homosexuals,
is by other homosexuals. Nice to have a scapegoat though.
@ SVENSpecial rights????"Unlike race, gender, age,
ethnicity or religion, sexual orientation is not a protected characteristic
under current federal civil rights law. But following the 1969 Stonewall riots
of gays in Greenwich Village, a key goal of the gay and lesbian political
movement has been to win civil rights protection against discrimination in
employment, housing, and elsewhere. Too often, gay men and lesbians face
hostility, discrimination -- and sometimes deadly violence -- solely because of
their sexual orientation. Hate crimes committed against gays,
lesbians, bisexuals, and/or transgendered individuals constitute the
third-highest category of hate crimes reported to the FBI -- 14% of all hate
crimes reported nationally, according to the Human Rights Campaign. And while
violent crime rates have been declining generally, the National Coalition of
Anti-Violence Programs reports that the number of actual or suspected anti-gay
murders is on the rise: from 14 in 1997 to 33 in 1998 and 28 in 1999. "SVEN: You can give yourself a few minutes to look for some of the
crimes against LGBT that make the news. Many go unreported. Study, compare and
then decide if you will keep your mind set about violence against homosexuals.
Schnee: If Gay marriage is legalized, legalization of polygamous and polyamorous
(two or more adults of each sex) "families" will follow. After all,
these people "love and are committed to each other" too. These
"families" are anxiously looking forward to that door being opened.
Legalization of three or more homosexual people getting "married" could
also happen. The long term socially chaotic effects of gay marriage and what
will follow will be disastrous for our society and tragic for the children
involved. Given the serious problems we presently have in our society, whatever
our sexual inclinations are, isn't it time for us to start living in a
mature and responsible way and to discourage selfish, irresponsible sexual
behavior? Is it too much to ask and expect of our fellow citizens to live a
chaste life? Are people who desire this kind of civil society really mean
spirited bigots or are they genuinely concerned good citizens?
Amen to LDS Lib:The March 2014 Ensign: "Some would have us
believe that the Church’s stand against same-gender physical relationships
is a temporary policy and not an eternal doctrine. Such a belief would be at
odds with the scriptures, with the words of modern prophets, and with the plan
of salvation ..."First Presidency, 1947: “… inter
(racial) marriage, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most
normal-minded people … We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a
growing tendency… toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter
of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of
the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine."
Jews traditionally see themselves as the Covenant People, having a contract with
God, and therefore they are required to do or not do certain things. They have
never expected Gentiles/Goyim to keep the covenants that are (to them)uniquely
Jewish. A Catholic nun or priest has taken a vow of chastity, but no priest
expects every member of his parish to remain single and celibate. As a Mormon,
I do not keep kosher or observe Catholic days of holy obligation. Nor do I face
Mecca and pray five times a day. However, I keep the covenants I have made. I
have family members who are not LDS. I wish they wouldn't drink alcohol or
use tobacco, but I am not going to try to force them to follow the commandments
I have covenanted to keep. There are countries in the world where strict moral
standards are enforced under penalty of imprisonment, torture, and even death.
Agency means nothing, for all must be forced to comply. Now, whose plan was that
again? We should be free to preach and embrace God's word as we understand
it, but when a theocracy is established, Jesus will establish it.
EstoPerpetua said:"These people are part of our civilization and
deserve equal rights as do all Americans including LGBTs..."Two
points:1) Homosexuals don't want equal rights; they indeed want
special rights. Ever hear "Hate Crimes"? Somehow, according to
Homosexuals, crimes committed against are more serious and harmful than crimes
committed against Heterosexuals. The whole idea of hate crimes is anything but
"equal rights."2) What does transgender even mean anyway?
Apparently this a person who just cannot decide if they're male or
female...even though they have anatomy that tells them otherwise. Okay, so what
"equal rights" do these folks require? Maybe the freedom to use
whatever bathroom they deem appropriate on a given day, if they are feeling a
little more male than female, or visa versa?I'm very curious
what your thoughts are?
People created religion and all of the related religious books, not God. They
believed the world was flat until science proved otherwise. There are good
values that teach us to be kind and love one another. Why not practice the good
values which are based on common sense and leave the rest back in the dark ages
from whence it came from. As for marriage, it is ironic that those who preach
about marriage as being between a man and women do not mention all of those who
never marry and have children or those who marry and never have children. These
people are part of our civilization and deserve equal rights as do all Americans
The Desert News is very much interested in the developments of the Same Sex
Marriage issue. It makes sense the LDS church investigates and explores this
issue since there is discrepancy between the LDS doctrinal concept of marriage
and the broader view of the civil and secular society.In pursue of the
truth would be interesting that the Deseret News publish articles written by
LGBT people. It would be interesting to know the various points of view of LDS
homosexuals on this topic. With all due respect to Mr. and Mrs. Erickson,
they don't have the expertise or the first hand knowledge of what means to
be gay. You can find very accomplished writers, psychologists, and professionals
in all fields that are gay and could provide us with well written and objective
papers on this issue.I always remember this line from the movie "In
Search of Happiness" "only when you are not afraid of the truth you can
From LDS dot Org:The Church has advocated for rights for same-sex
couples regarding “hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and
employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the
integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of
churches.” In Salt Lake City, for example, the Church supported ordinances
aimed at protecting gay residents from discrimination in housing and
employment."Reading that, The Church could still fully
support Civil Unions and Domestic Partneships.I stand with the
Church, and our gay Brothers and Sisters.Anyone suggesting
less is NOT following official LDS Church policy.
There once was a time when LDS Church leaders said polygamy would NEVER
change.It did, and many ultra-Conservative members left the Church.There once was a time when LDS Church leaders said Blacks would never
receive the Priesthood in this life.It changed, and many
ultra-Conservative members left the Church.There is a time now when
some say Gays will never be married in the Church,I'll give you some
advise -- Don't leave the Church if/when that changes.BTW
-- The same thing applies with Socialism/Communism...I'm
good with it, ALL of it.
@bj-hpYou are not reading the quotes or the church website. The
quotes clearly state that same sex attractions are a choice while the church
website clearly states it is not a choice. How is that not a contradiction?The church has clearly changed its stance on homosexuality over the
years. I've been a member for a while and seen it. A few decades ago in
Utah they used to send some homosexuals to mental institutions. Read up on the
churches use of aversion therapy in the 70's, it does not make for pleasant
@John Pack Lambert of Michigan:Let's make laws against
religious bigotry and discrimination instead.
bj-hp says:"...that both will state that those with Same Sex
attraction must obey and be chaste. That some may not be able to marry in this
life but that they are not repeat not to live the gay lifestyle."1) If we marry, then we'll be as chaste as any heterosexual couple within
marriage.2) The second half is utterly ridiculous. Why should any
gay person "wait until the next life" (which is a fiction!) and waste
this one? This is the life we have, this is the life WE SHOULD LIVE - there is
not "next life".@JenPen;FYI. We don't
"suffer from same-sex attraction", you do suffer from the delusions of
religion though.@JPLOM;Do we get to make laws that
restrict your rights? No? Then you do not get to make laws that restrict ours.
Marriage at route means the uniting of a man and a woman. The nature of the
institution only exists when it has a man and a woman. Children are best off if
raised by two parents one from each gender. It is time people
started recognizing this, and making law that strove for this ideal.
I applaud the people in this article who are strong enough to see the end from
the beginning and do in their lives what will bring true and lasting happiness
now and eternally for them and for the children who depend so much on the
stability only marriage between a man and a woman can provide them. 2 Nephi 24:3
"And it shall come to pass in that day that the Lord shall give thee rest,
from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast
made to serve." To those who suffer from same-sex attraction, we love you
and pray for you to be strong enough to make the moral decisions that will bless
you and those you love eternally. Marriage between a man and a woman is
essential to God's plan for the eternal happiness of all of His children.
UT Brit: You are misrepresenting what they are saying. If you went and read
the entire part of where your quotes come from you will find that both will
state that those with Same Sex attraction must obey and be chaste. That some
may not be able to marry in this life but that they are not repeat not to live
the gay lifestyle. This means that in this life they must abstain from all
sexual relations unless they are to get married by the definition the Lord so
states. Homosexuality in and of itself is not a sin but to act I repeat act on
the attraction which then becomes a choice they are then going against the law
that our Heavenly Father has stated. Marriage is defined as between man and
woman. Nothing else matters but that definition. In the end it will matter
greatly because same sex marriage will not and again I repeat will not go beyond
This is why it is so important to have separation of church and state! People
are so sure that they have the truth, that they can not separate the two. So,
when it comes down to making up rules or laws, they don't even bother to
consider another's point of view! LDS people have given themselves the
privelege of deciding what marriage should be! They have taken for themselves
the authority to decide which marriages and families will be eternal and it will
only happen if it is done their way! They also feel like they should have the
right to religous freedom, which would include the right to take away the rights
of gay people and deny them any kind of equality in society.You keep on
insisting that something is wrong with gay people and you won't let go of
it! We will continuie to fight for our rights. I have had a gay partner for 15
years. It feels right because it is! I am happy! You don't want that story,
do you! You don't want any successful gay stories and there are many! I
The problem is the moral stigma regarding same-sex sex, which is a social bias
that contradicts the innate natures of gay people. Many times people suppress
their innate desires to get along with society. Others don't.
Boyd K PackerThere is a falsehood that some are born with an
attraction to their own kind, with nothing they can do about it. They are just
'that way' and can only yield to those desires. That is a malicious
and destructive lie. While it is a convincing idea to some, it is of the devil.
No one is locked into that kind of life.Dallin H OakesDallin H. OaksWe should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and Gay
are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings or behaviors. We should
refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or
specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use
these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is
consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect
to the critically important matter of sexual behavior.The
contradiction is shown from the new website below, right at the top of the
page.Mormon and gays websiteEven though individuals do
not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them.There are many more quotes.
Ranch - And don't be surprised when they don't change their minds.UT Brit - Go ahead and post those quotes, I'd love to read them.
@ ImaUteFan You wrote: @Ranch - If you think the
Church will EVER changes its position on SSM marriage, here you go:Then you go on quoting Elder Oaks."Our understanding of
God’s plan and His doctrine gives us an eternal perspective that does not
allow us to condone such behaviors or to find justification in the laws that
permit them. And, unlike other organizations that can change their policies and
even their doctrines, our policies are determined by the truths God has
identified as unchangeable."ImaUteFan:I think the
LDS Church will change, you know why? Because, I know the leaders of the Church
are good men who wants to do the will of God.Did you read the book
"the Miracle of Forgiveness" by President Kimball? Can you say the
posture of the church has not changed since that book was first published?I believe in God's Revelation to his children, and I believe the
time will come when the gospel will be fully revealed and we will know and
understand why homosexuality is part of humankind. This is not a new phenomenon,
you find it at any time in history, any culture and ethnicity.
@ImaUteFanI can provide quotes from apostles alive today that are a
direct contradiction to what the churches stance is regarding homosexuality.
Meckofahess says:"go read the... Ensign and see what the
Church's position is on same-sex marriage. ... you are on the opposite side
of the Church's doctrine on same-sex marriage. Please explain how you can
reconcile your position with the teachings of the Church."---
Once upon a time, LDS members were told to examine the teachings and decide for
themselves. Are you now supposed to just say "yes sir!" and all the
thinking for yourself stops there?@brotherJonathan;And
if we marry in our churches that allow SSM, what then, do we get to use the word
"marriage" or will you still be offended?@Azazael;FYI. We, too, are parents and families. @ImaUteFan;I'm just pointing out how inconsistent your church has been,
historically. Don't be surprised if they change their minds again.
I find this article not only insulting and disrespectful but overwhelmingly
cruel!!LGBT in Heterosexual marriages is not a new idea, It was the
norm for a long time. After I finished my mission, as a god LDS man
I wanted to marry. However, as an LDS man I wanted to be honest. I promised
myself I would never marry someone I couldn't fully love, I wouldn't
expose the mother of my future children to deceit or suffering of any sort
because of my nature. I was told that I could be cured. I went
through the Reparative Therapy the church and some secular groups offered at the
time (1978) I was not cured. Actually, at the end they said this was like AA you
are never cured, you just live one day at a time and control it.In
1981 I found my soul-mate, a wonderful man. We have a wonderful daughter and we
are very happy. I want to make sure the life we have built together is not
destroyed when one of us is gone, that is why we need to get married.
IMO It's this hedonistic philosophy that whatever you are sexually
attracted to.. you should indulge, that leads people to reject the possibility
that if they experience same-sex attraction, that they can't control that
attraction.We expect people who are sexually attracted to children
to control that urge. We put them in jail if they don't.We
expect someone who is attracted to a woman that is not their wife to control
their attraction and their urges.Before anybody goes there...
I'm not comparing gay people with pedophiles or anything. I'm just
comparing the need to control our sexual attractions and our urges when it comes
to taboo sexual attractions. We can't always control what
attracts us. But we can still control how we respond to those attractions and
urges.Some people have what seems like a natural and uncontrollable
attraction to something that is still taboo in our society (children, people
they are not married to, close relatives, etc). We need to learn to control
that attraction. That's part of the test the individual has been
given.May sound harsh, but it may be worth thinking about from that
re: describes the Hobson’s choice presented to same-sex attracted men and
womenactually, that's a false dichotomy. There are lots of options
that aren't "stay in the closet" and "become a gay activist
totally defined by their sexual orientation"so their entire
premise is built on a fallacy.
To those who continue to promote legal bigotry and discrimination while hiding
behind supernatural dogma.... tick-tock, tick-tock... April 10th will be here
soon.That's day that the 10th District Appeals will hear oral
arguments... and shortly thereafter, they will agree with the Shelby ruling, and
the days of Utah creating 2nd-class citizens (both adults *and* children) via
marriage apartheid will be over.For too long, the regional
majority's ability to enact dogma-driven legislation has harmed its
citizenry. Those days are now over. In order to continue to repress your fellow
citizens, detractors must now provide proof, using reason and logic, that SSM is
harmful to society. You can't. Because it isn't harmful.
And never has been, except those who allow dogma to control their thoughts and
behaviors.There is a reason why every single federal court ruling
since Windsor last summer has thrown out *ALL* of these lame arguments banning
SSM: they are intellectually dishonest, they cannot withstand the most casual
constitutional scrutiny, and they are patently un-American.
@Ranch - If you think the Church will EVER changes its position on SSM marriage,
here you go:"Our understanding of God’s plan and His
doctrine gives us an eternal perspective that does not allow us to condone such
behaviors or to find justification in the laws that permit them. And, unlike
other organizations that can change their policies and even their doctrines, our
policies are determined by the truths God has identified as unchangeable.. . . But man’s laws cannot make moral what God has declared
immoral. Commitment to our highest priority—to love and serve
God—requires that we look to His law for our standard of behavior. For
example, we remain under divine command not to commit adultery or fornication
even when those acts are no longer crimes under the laws of the states or
countries where we reside. Similarly, laws legalizing so-called “same-sex
marriage” do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments
and our standards concerning it. We remain under covenant to love God and keep
His commandments and to refrain from serving other gods and
priorities—even those becoming popular in our particular time and
place."Dallin H. Oaks, October Conference, 2013
Baker Boy said:"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."Why don't you
answer the question: "Why wouldn't a strait person consider marrying a
person of the same sex?" The answer is easy; homosexuality goes against the
laws of nature. Ever wonder why homosexuals only make up about 2-3 percent of
the entire population? Men and women were designed for one another. Yes, I
said designed. Men and women have the ability to procreate. Men and women are
designed to complement one another. More often than not, when I see
a homosexual couple, one of the individuals will almost always take on the more
feminine role, while the other takes on the more masculine role. For instance,
when you see lesbians, one will almost always take on the male role; wearing
men's clothes, men's hairstyles, acting more masculine etc. The other
will take on the more feminine role. They are, in essence, proving what nature
Contrary to what some posts here seem to suggest, this article is not trying to
advocate all people with SSA marrying people of the opposite sex. No one is
suggesting forcing people to marry people that they are not attracted to. In the context of the Amendment-3 debate this article is trying to show
that the basic human right to marry and have a family is not being denied to
anyone; rather, that SSM seeks to redefine marriage.@ModerateWe entrust legislators with the power to enact laws for the benefit of
society. Families and parenting benefit society. Laws promote homeownership
over renting and give benefits to small business owners. Legislators should be
able to enact laws to promote the definition of the family that they believe
best promotes the good of society.I’m with @Locke. We
don’t need a redefinition of marriage to address the real grievances of
Call it what it is "A Civil Union". If both sides of the debate
would agree that a civil union between the same sex is a partnership with rights
specified by legal agreement and not a marriage this would be more acceptable to
all that are opposed to the wording. Marriage by definition is between man and
woman. Rights on both sides could be preserved.If the real goal is to
promote this practice of same sex as being a true or viable alternative to male
and female union and can produce the same results: this is not logical or
accurate. Same sex does not produce offspring. The question of public display of
affection is always a difficult one whether homosexual or heterosexual. Use of
our constitution so equality under all law is persevered, this is paramount to
fair and just treatment of all citizens.
Comparing me to a drug addict, a kleptomaniac, a paedophile, etc. isn't
going to win you any points with "Heavenly Father," OR the LGBTQAI
community, OR the Federal Court system.By all means, continue.Our lawyers thank you. "Animus" as a reason for a
law is not admissible in court.
I am male, born in 1941 and I was attracted to a military man. When I was five,
I was emotionally attracted to a 6 year old boy. The following years continued
to yield the same attraction to the same sex. I tried having
girlfriends, including a very attractive Marilyn Monroe type girl. I could not
become aroused by the opposite sex. They are like a pretty flower to which I
have no sexual attraction.I went into the Navy in 1959, came out in
Washington D.C. in 1960, and met my lifetime partner in 1962 in Boston.I received an honorable discharge in 1963, went to business school and learned
computers, worked as a computer software professional, married my partner in
2004 when it became legal in Massachusetts, and retired in 2008. Today we are continuing to live our American dream, normally, as two married
homosexual men.People need to be taught to know themselves i.e. know
thyself and be true to thyself. Or today, we might say:Know who you are
and be that person. People need to stop trying to teach what they think or
heard about who a person is. They simply do not know others, only themselves.
Q - Why is everybody mentioning that they are LDS?A - Because Utah
is still a de facto LDS theocracy.NEWS FLASH:CIVIL
marriage has NOTHING to do with the LDS Church or any other church. If your church teaches that same-sex marriage is not acceptable, then obey
your church ... or leave and join a church that teaches equality, like the
Episcopalians.Atheists and pagans marry every day in courthouses
around the nation ... even in (GASP!) Zion. Their marriages are legally valid,
and they receive all the benefits attached thereto ...AS SAME-SEX
COUPLES SHOULD! It's in the CONSTITUTION (14th Amendment).
Actually, I was just made aware last week of a marriage that is exactly what
this article is about. A gay man marrying a women and having a family. Without too many details..the result is a decades long marriage where
sex was still practiced, just not where you would hope it was in a marriage, and
a terrific amount of trouble for the children. Working against
human nature is not a good or practical thing.
To me saying that marriage equality is something that should be denied gay
couples because they should learn to live within the constraints of society
while fully embracing their same sex attraction, is a little like saying we
should free slaves but not allow them to integrate into society. I ask, after
150 years have we really fully integrated the decedents of former slaves into
our society or do we still have structures in society that either openly or in a
subtile way close them to the opportunities many of us take for granted like
voting, getting a loan, or going to a good school.
This is about people having equal rights. GLBT people should have the same
rights as anyone else. This isn't a redefinition of marriage any more than
having marriage between one man and one woman replace the notion of polygamy
that is the norm in the Bible. I know it's hard for Mormons to
understand this, but the way you feel about gay people isn't the issue. It
doesn't matter that you don't "hate" gay people--it matters
that they should have equal rights and opportunities. Their marriages
won't affect yours any more than yours affect other people.And
the fact that they found this one gay man who seems to have talked himself in
circles in order to justify trying to deny equal rights not just to himself but
to others like him is just pathetic.
@ NewAgeMormonDraper, UTYou said and I quote: "Since most
Deseret News readers are LDS, I think it's very telling that 90% of the
comments here are in favor of allowing equality for all. The tide has turned and
it's now only a matter of time. Yes, I'm an active member of the LDS
faith and I not only see the writing on the wall, I support it."What a ridiculous statement. It is obvious that many if not a majority of the
commentators on some of the Deseret News articles are either gay or gay
supporters. The majority of LDS members oppose same-sex marriage. You claim to
be an acive member of the LDS Church. If that is true, go read the March
edition of the Ensign and see what the Church's position is on same-sex
marriage. It appears that you are on the opposite side of the Church's
doctrine on same-sex marriage. Please explain how you can reconcile your
position with the teachings of the Church.
@ B man: You should read Gibbons "Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" -
because it doesn't say what you think it says.
@ Jimbo:"the sexual part of marriage is only a small part of the
relationship and often but not always, the longer a couple is married, the
smaller it gets."Even so, there will still be the physical
intimacy -- cuddling, holding hands, snuggling together in bed -- and if the
desire for that intimacy isn't there, the marriage will still suffer. Sex
is only a part of the physical attraction needed for a good marriage. How many
of you would want to be in a lifetime union with someone who would just as soon
that you stay on your side of the bed and on your end of the couch?
The underlying error in this story is the idea that a gay person can easily
enjoy sex and intimacy with a partner of the opposite sex. My gay cousin
explained it to me this way: "Imagine, as a straight person, that
you're expected to become intimate with a person of the same sex. How do
you feel inside? To a gay person, having sex with someone of the opposite sex
creates that same feeling, often bordering on revulsion." Now ask yourself,
is it fair or reasonable to ask your son or daughter to spend the rest of their
life in a union with someone who is totally turned off by the idea of sexual
intimacy with them? And what sort of model does that set for any children they
might have, growing up with parents whose relationship is Platonic, at best?
@Karen R. "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?"As long as government at any level regulates and
defines marriage, the government officials will continue to stick their noses in
other people's business. Only by ending government regulation and defining
of marriage and letting individual people and social groups define marriage will
we be free of interference by others. I'm active LDS and accept the LDS
definition of marriage, but I think others should be able to define marriage for
their relationships. The "others" I speak of do not include government
officials who currently define marriage.
This article seems to sum up conservatives views of LGBT's. And that is,
it's ok to be different as long as you act the same.
" . . redefining marriage to eliminate mothers and fathers."Man, I need to read more of these pieces. I had no idea the Gay Mafia was
intent on eliminating mothers and fathers. That changes everything!
Thank you for sharing this very helpful viewpoint of the fact that there are
multiple choices for those who have same-gender attraction. Support
for traditional marriage is support for a standard of morality that is best for
society, best for the rearing of children, and best for civilization. It does
not take away anyone's rights to live their life as they see fit (all of us
subject, of course, to the consequences of our decisions). And it is
good to know (particularly for those who are LDS and who struggle with
same-gender attraction), that they can find peace, hope, and joy without acting
out in a way that contradicts their belief in God and in his commandments.Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Erickson, for sharing this.Also, for
all who use the idea that legalizing SSM is just the path of history and that
anyone who opposes it is standing on the wrong side of history... this
wouldn't be the first time in the history of the world that a popular
opinion trend has led to terrible consequences for the civilization that went
that direction. For example, see Gibbons "Decline and Fall of the Roman
The question to be asked personally is whether we are or we are not children of
a loving and wise God who has a personal plan for each of us. If it is so, then
all must ask ourselves what that plan is for each of us - personally. Voices of
Hope offers a paradigm that is an alternative to those previously offered
regarding homosexuality and marriage. Might it not be true that we are in fact
spiritual creatures having a mortal experience? Might it not be true that we
actually can choose to obey the commandments of a real and loving God? Might we
not be at risk if we choose our own human thinking over that of a loving God?
These Voices of Hope stand as a testimony to the reality of God in these
people's lives.As a society, we need to ask ourselves the same
questions. Where is God and our true identity in all of this?
@Badgerbadger:The moment YOU decide not to marry the person you
love, then you can comment about "me, me, me". Until then, you're
nothing but a hypcrite to expect of others what you're unwilling to do
yourself. @katy;Did you marry someone you're not
attracted to? Why expect otherwise of us? If we marry, then we too are
"chaste", or are you not "chaste" within your own marriage? Why
remain single if you have found your soulmate?@ImaUteFan;Have you been paying attention to the news lately? How do you know that your
church won't "embrace ssm" in the next 30 years? They change often
enough to not be able to, with any degree of security, say that. Besides, your
Proc applies to you and nobody else (regardless what you may believe).
"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."Wow I thought this article was about marriage and here Sal starts
talking about global warming.
Larry Chandler, if God is the same yesterday, today and forever then He will say
to us the same things that He says to "them." Why would God command one
person to do one thing and another something altogether different? None of the
issues at hand withstanding, God is not a God of confusion but of order and
justice. Choice is a big part of this article. God gave us the right to choose.
We can do what He tells us to or we can choose to co-opt what He tells us,
ignore Him or reinterpret His word and go a different route altogether. Being
LGBT or straight has nothing to do with God other than how we choose to follow
@JSB;Homosexuals married to one another are just as "chaste"
as heterosexuals married to one another. Marriage promotes monogamy and reduces
promiscuity. You should be supporting SSM as a means to that end. For whatever
reason, you equate being gay to being promiscuous while at the same time, you do
everything possible to prevent monogamy. You DEMAND that homosexuals remain
celibate for life. Why don't you try it yourself!@O'really';The "lie" is that we have to do it
your way. We will be perfectly happy and joyful in a same-sex relationship.
Why settle for something lesser?@tomr;Please show how
SSM "disintegrates" society? You can't, because it doesn't.
I don't have a lot of data to support this, but every "gay person
happily married to heterosexual" story I have read has seemed to include a
gay person with SSA, not SS experience; an exceptionally strong bond between the
marriage partners; and a powerful religious commitment. Also, these men may
actually be bisexual, making the choice more of a choice. I would think that the
heterosexual-only partner would be taking a huge gamble (a la Carol Lynn
Pearson) by entering such a marriage. This is a puzzle with no solution that
everyone can accept. As for gay marriage bringing Apocalyptic consequences, I
think we can set it aside, and there is plenty of serious evil to do that (child
molesters, drug cartels, human traffickers, Kim Jung Un....).
It's funny that so many people comment on these stories stating that they
are members of this church or that church(many claiming the LDS church) but then
leave it at that. If you are going to bring up your religion in the
conversation, then you can't leave religion out of it. God clearly defines
what marriage is and what it isn't. So the instant you state your religion,
keep your comment in check with your beliefs.I love all equally even if I
don't agree with what they are fighting for. Marriage is what it has been
since the beginning of time. It has been morally the same as instituted from
God. Allowing something that is immoral does not make it moral. So no matter
what the laws say or what people may do, SSM will always be morally wrong. If they want the tax break that comes with being married, well that break
won't be along for too much longer as it is. The government will get rid of
it. Also, by calling people bigots, intolerant, and they're judging
just because they don't support your views makes you the same thing.
I am LDS, straight, support same sex marriage and agree with most of the posts
on this thread. One bit of pretty good science that hasn't been mentioned
is the Masters and Johnson study that illuminated the fact that there is a
variation in sexual orientation. They came up with a scale of 0-6 where 0 is
completely heterosexual and 6 completely homosexual and those in between have
various degrees of attraction to both sexes. It is felt by many that in those
mixed orientation marriages that succeed, one or both of the partners has some
bisexual feelings. Having said that, I agree with those who have said that the
sexual part of marriage is only a small part of the relationship and often but
not always, the longer a couple is married, the smaller it gets.
Another thought - there are many single people living chaste lives who have not
had the opportunity to marry anyone and they are as happy as many people that
A thoughtful article and gives another outlook on ways people try to keep their
families intact. Made me wonder why having feelings for others of the same sex
once they are married is any different from husbands and wives having romantic
feelings for other men and women, who are not their spouses. So many choices in
life that can have serious consequences.
Yes, voices of hope and voices of reason and voices of truth. Thanks for the
"Eugene Oregon is the first to weigh in on what happens in Utah. Go
figure."Utah was the first to weigh in on what happened in
Hawaii ('93) and Massachusetts ('99) and California ('08). Go
"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..."Actually I find that when I immerse myself in my own
selfish motives, I am not happier. Perhaps you should try considering what is
best for others, like children, and then you could be happy too.But
this statement reveals the true nature of the SSM marriage movement. It is all
about me me me, which is why they seek public endorsement. They are not happy
when they focus solely on their own sexual desires, so they want the public to
endorsement in hopes it will make them happy. It won't. Nor will it give
them children. Society didn't choose to endorse sexual desires
when it endorsed marriage. Society endorsed the most successful course for
raising children. Were it not for children, there would be no marriage laws at
all. To suggest that marriage law is all about sexual attraction is
a gross fabrication, perpetuated by those who themselves are all about sexual
attraction. Can't you consider or think about anything else?
NewAgeMormon - 90% of the comments here may be favoring marriage equality, but I
can assure you that 90% of the people making those comments are not LDS.You might want to reread the Proclamation on the Family. You should
already know since you are an "active" LDS member that the Church does
not currently nor will it ever condone or embrace SSM.
Total mormon propaganda !
Tomr of Salt Lake tells us that "the family unit (consisting of a marital
fidelity between man and woman) is the bedrock of society". Some bedrock, when 50% of all marriages end in divorce. One wonders why folks
who are so energized about stopping gay marriage don't turn their attention
to trying to reduce the divorce rate. Can't hurt, might help.
If history has taught us anything it is that the family unit (consisting of a
marital fidelity between man and woman) is the bedrock of society. Once you
tear that apart, the disintegration of society is not too far distant. We can
choose to ignore this much the same way ancient civilizations did, but it has
never worked and it never will.
The ideas expressed in this article reek of condescension and, dare I say,
animus towards gay people. The notion that someone should deny one of the most
fundamental aspects of his or her being by marrying someone he or she
isn’t physically attracted to, strikes me as risky and potentially
disastrous.While the authors detail some of the supposedly
successful marriages they seem to be trumpeting, one wonders how many such
marriages ultimately fail, creating bad relationships, broken families, and
unfortunate circumstances for children.
@JSBNothing you said about a chaste society wouldn't be accomplished
by same-sex marriage. In fact SSM would improve the situation rather than
detract from it since marriage encourages committed monogamous relationships. So
to answer your question..."Given the high cost to society of
promiscuous sexual behavior, why are people, both homosexual and heterosexual,
who advocate a chaste society by speaking out against gay marriage condemned as
bigots?"because it makes no sense at all to be against gay
marriage if you want to encourage less promiscuity.
There is so much more to marriage than sex. I know a few couples who literally
can't have sex and they are very happily married. It's a fallacy and a
lie that homosexuals have to have a same gender partner to be truly happy. It
just isn't so. These hetero couples ( at least one in the pair with same
gender attraction) are speaking out to show that it can be done successfully if
both in the pair are committed to something higher than just satisfying
lust." Bridle your passions that ye may be filled with love..." comes
from scripture but it's a universal truth.
Eugene Oregon is the first to weigh in on what happens in Utah. Go figure.
Since most Deseret News readers are LDS, I think it's very telling that 90%
of the comments here are in favor of allowing equality for all. The tide has
turned and it's now only a matter of time. Yes, I'm an active member
of the LDS faith and I not only see the writing on the wall, I support it.
But, I don't want to understand same sex attraction, I don't want to
learn to appreciate long hair music, I have no interest in fine art, I
don't want to see people or animals fight to the death, I don't like
people who harm others, and I will try my best to influence my children and
those close to me to have the same attitudes. That said, I do not
deny any one the right to be and do as he pleases so long as he doesn't
harm or interfere with the rights and freedoms of others. I ask the same
consideration from others. I stand against any who would impose
their life values on me no matter how subtle or bright they do it. I am not a
religious person and I get as upset over evangelism as people flaunting a life
style that I don't like or want. I didn't ask to come to
this world, but since I only have a temporary visa, I'll try to make the
best of it.
This is not a solution to the problem. These are exceptions, presented as a
solution. Even the LDS church does not consider this a solution. Great, get
1,000 stories. What you have then is 1,000 exceptions. LDS authorities used to
tell gays to get married and those feelings would disappear. Experience taught
them otherwise. Do the authors think this is new?
Tiago says:"To be consistent to your position, it seems like you
would need to oppose gay people marrying anybody--not just people they
love."-- That, sir/ma'am, is their actual goal.
The biggest mistake same-sex marriage opponents made was defending Prop 8.Prior to the Prop 8 court case, the arguments against same-sex marriage
were half-truths, omissions, speculations, and mis-representations - all told in
60 second TV commercials. It takes longer to offer a decent rebuttal, so it was
difficult for supporters to get the real data out.During the Prop 8
trial, opponents had to provide the data to back up their claims - data they did
not have. Additionally, proponents were able to challenge the claims and
provide the full truth.Nationwide, citizens saw that there were no
real factual reasons to fear or prohibit same-sex marriage - and the tide
started turning.Now, opponents to same-sex marriage want to offer a
consolation prize - civil unions or domestic partnerships. After all, prior to
Prop 8 many same-sex couples would have settled for that....Two
problems: One - why settle for less when marriage is in reach? Two - even if
there was a willingness to settle, many laws and constitutional amendments
prohibit those as well. If the laws and constitutions have to be changed
anyway, why accept less than marriage?
People with SSD who marry heterosexually recognize the need for a chaste society
(i.e. one in which any intimate sex outside of heterosexual marriage is
discouraged) in spite of their biological attraction. Just like heterosexuals
must control their sexual appetites, so should responsible homosexuals. They
recognized that the more promiscuous a society is the sicker it is. Promiscuous
sexual behavior produces 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, pornography and related sex crimes and psychological problems. Plus,
promiscuity results in more abortions and/or unwanted children. Given the high
cost to society of promiscuous sexual behavior, why are people, both homosexual
and heterosexual, who advocate a chaste society by speaking out against gay
marriage condemned as bigots?
Ericksons: By focusing only on people in mixed-orientation marriages, I think
you missed an opportunity to really explain options that people with SSA have.
Even though you said that the point is not to imply that all SSA men and women
can or should marry someone of the opposite sex, you chose to only highlight
those who have, which gives the impression that they are the model of what
faithfully living with SSA looks like.The LDS church teaches that
"marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such
as homosexual inclinations" and "the perfect plan of our Father in
Heaven makes provision for individuals who seek to keep His commandments but
who, through no fault of their own, do not have an eternal marriage in mortal
life."There are many other Voices of Hope videos featuring faithful
LDS people with SSA who could not enter a mixed orientation marriage and choose
to remain celibate. Those people are no less faithful and have just as much hope
and potential for happiness.As a faith community, we can do better at
supporting the faithful single people with SSA among us.
I am a huge supporter of the Voices of Hope project, but trying to use those
individual stories to make your political point really fails. I'm friends
with many of the people in the videos. They are amazing people and are or would
be great parents no matter what. But, if we talk about averages and statistics
instead of individuals, marriage between a gay and a straight person is WAY more
likely to have major issues and fail than a marriage between two straight
people. The failed marriage of Doug Mainwaring, quoted in the story, is an
example of this. If you subscribe to Utah's argument that the legal
definition of marriage is all about what is statistically and on average ideal
for kids, I don't see how you can hold up these couples as a desired
situation. Having a mom or dad who is not attracted to the other is not the best
thing for kids. To be consistent to your position, it seems like you would need
to oppose gay people marrying anybody--not just people they love.
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?
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.
@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.
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
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".
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?
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.
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
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Extending rights of taxation, inheritance, visitation, etc. does not require
redefinition of "marriage." Why not extend legal benefits another way?
"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
The train has already left the station. Sorry about that.
@KJB1Yes, 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.
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?).
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...