Published: Sunday, Feb. 23 2014 12:51 p.m. MST
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...
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?).
@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.
The train has already left the station. Sorry about that.
"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
Extending rights of taxation, inheritance, visitation, etc. does not require
redefinition of "marriage." Why not extend legal benefits another way?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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
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.
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?
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".
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
@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.
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.
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?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments