Allow me to summarize: The sky is falling!
I'm in good company in this debate.People who agree with me:Mormon Prophet MonsonPope Francis And considering who
those men speak for, according to their religions, its even better company to be
in!They think only men and women should be able to marry.
Good article! If the same sex marriage folks get their way we'll see if it
really ends there or where the author of the article cited said it will. The most simple, stable configuration of a family is and always will be
a mom, a dad, and children united together through marriage of a man and a
It's not a real secret; there are a notable number of people active in
trying to change marriage who openly acknowledge that their goal is to remove
marriage and the family altogether, and that this is the way to do it. They
often state it as some means of "freeing women", or eliminating the
"selfishness" of people who cling to families rather than the collective
government.Just look at it; marriage is the bond of a man and a
woman. If we can't say that, then how can one say that it's between
any two people? Why not three or more? Who's to say it has to be between
people at all? Why aren't willingly single people "entitled" to
this-or-that? Why can't a single person who'd be a good parent adopt
alone? The slope isn't just slippery; it can't be visually missed.
Chris B.You are correct. That is what they teach. In fact, here is a
quote from the current Aaronic Priesthood Manual:“We recommend
that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of
somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those
are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious
background, without question”But even though that is what your
church teaches, that is not how we make laws in this country. Otherwise rich
would not marry poor, a college graduate would not marry a high school dropout,
and blacks would not marry whites, and Catholics would not marry Mormons.
The author makes an excellent point: The legal definition of marriage is really
the sum of the 1,000 laws that relate to marriage. If the state replaces those
laws with a relationship that each couple defines, then none of the marriage
rights in those 1,000 laws are applicable anymore. In such an
Orwellian world, we might be able to apply for those legal rights individually.
Just as likely, these rights would cease to exist, and the government will take
it upon itself to enact new laws that increase their control over parents and
Fatheroffour,There is a difference between recommending something and
calling something immoral and unacceptable. Our church teaches marriage between
one man and one woman. They recommend the other items mentioned and but are not
defined as immoral if entered into. Incidentally, while those
recommendations are not doctrine and should not be put into law, they are
reasonable. Marriage is not easy and the more a couple has in common the less
problems they can run into. There is proof of this wisdom in my own family
where two good people from different nationalities have married and struggle
greatly with the cultural differences. Their children feel the effect. No moral
judgement in this, just an observation.
This article argues that the growing number of singles is one of the evidences
that marriage equality is really about destroying marriage altogether.This
begs the question, what do you want gay people to do with their lives?If
you don't want gay people to be single and you don't want them to be
married to each other, what do you want them to do? Do you want them to marry
opposite sex spouses? Or would you prefer if we all just didn't exist?
The sky is falling! The article assumes that the ratio of gay marriages is
greater than the straight marriages. It's not even close. It's close
to less than 1% of all marriages. That couples cohabiting with each other
choosing not to get married is nothing new and after seven years they are
automatically married in the eyes of the law. No one is saying anything about
the high number of those failing to get married and the article is blaming gay
marriages for it. That doesn't make any sense. Seeing it's from the
Federalist Papers, that explains. A very opinionated article that has no basis
on what it's really talking about. Just more smoke over nothing.
"Same-sex marriage isn’t really what marriage equality activists are
fighting for. It’s really about ending civil marriages altogether"Uh huh... all this effort trying to get civil marriages when they want
to end it. That makes no sense at all.
Father of Four,Sorry, my church doesn't say that. That
doesn't come from any publication of my church. I'm Catholic
It is upsetting to see that the eventual intent of the SSM clan is to eliminate
marriage benefits as a whole and put relationships, including those with our own
children, under the dictatorship, disguised as "watchful care", of a
totalitarian and extreme leftist government that has eliminated our freedoms,
rights, and privileges under the guise of "liberty and equality for
all". There is something horribly sick and wrong in the minds of these
elitists (and sympathizers) who fail to see the consequences of the evil designs
they are so deceptively promoting. Yes, I believe in treating people, all
people, with dignity and respect. But to manipulate people into thinking there
is an equality that is really a private agenda to propel government control is
wrong and unethical. If this movement is successful, society will literally
crumble into disarray and we will become government property without freedoms,
not people supported by a government allowing for and protecting our freedoms.
My proposed solution: save the family unit, especially the sacred union of a man
and a woman, and keep it intact (see also "The Family: A Proclamation to the
FatherOfFour,First, I agree with Jeanie.Second, please
check the 2014 manual.
@FatherofFourYou are right about the Aaronic Priesthood Manual. It also
says: “In selecting a companion for life and for eternity, certainly the
most careful planning and thinking and praying and fasting should be done to be
sure that, of all the decisions, this one must not be wrong. In true marriage
there must be a union of minds as well as of hearts. Emotions must not wholly
determine decisions, but the mind and the heart, strengthened by fasting and
prayer and serious consideration, will give one a maximum chance of marital
happiness”. It makes sense for people to marry, first someone of the
opposite sex, and then try to match as well to that other person as possible. It
makes sense that this would either eliminate, or substantially reduce a lot of
the heartache and frustration that major differences can cause.
Nice to hear from the tin foil hate segment of society.
@SchneeA gay activist gave a speech saying, and I summarize, the
Gays didn't really want marriage, but to end the institution of
marriage.You can find the video and story on the internet if you
willing to look for it.Redefining marriage does in fact make it less
@Chris B: "I'm in good company in this debate."I'm
in good company in this debate.People who agree with me:The
Dali LamaArchbishop Desmond TutuConsidering the work these men
have done for healing and peace and equality around around the world, that is
good company to be in. Dali Lama: "If two males or two females
voluntarily agree to have mutual satisfaction without further implication of
harming others, then it is okay."Desmond Tutu: "I would not
worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this. I
would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven. No, I would say sorry, I mean I would
much rather go to the other place.'
Many of the disturbing trends in society can be traced back to the
disintegration of the traditional family, so gay "marriage" is not
really a "tin foil hat" or "sky is falling" issue as some
pretend; rather, it is a real and tangible attack on the family that will
inevitably result in more societal dysfunction. Then, of course, the government
will step in and pretend to have solutions for the problems that government
created. It's a pattern that's been repeated numerous times during my
life.It's unfortunate that so many have framed the issue as
haters vs. non-haters, bigots vs. the liberal-minded, because that isn't
the crux of the issue at all, as is succinctly pointed out by the article. Those
of us who support traditional marriage are doing what little we can to preserve
and protect society. But then I guess the mis-framing of an issue is one way of
getting what you want in our post-rational age.
Marriage is such an important institution in society. Because of this fact,
society has given helps to safeguard and support marriages. SSM advocates want
these same benefits, but do they produce what a 'traditional' marriage
does? The differences between men and women are significant. Hence marriage
between men and women presents difficulties that need to be addressed. Getting
along with anybody can be trying. Unfortunately, our society seems to be losing
the gumption to stick-to-it and work things out. SSM may be cashing in on the
problems between the sexes. But, they will fall prey to the problem of
sticking-to-it as well, since they seem to be following a "it's what I
want that matters most" philosophy.
Stella Morabito is speaking from a twisted U.S. perspective, using bits and
pieces out of context, and scaring readers with apocalyptic language.Look, instead, at the most advanced countries of the Western world which
approved of ame-sex marriage years ago. First, these countries recognize only
civil marriage as valid (the religious ceremony is an optional extra), which
avoids the whole issue of religious freedom. Second, same-sex couples constitute
a tiny fraction of the population (some 3%) without any detrimental impact on
hetero marriages or the family. Third, the movement to obtain recognition of
same-sex marriage has actually reinforced the value and desirability of marriage
also for hetero couples.Recognizing same-sex marriage becomes a
non-issue once approved. Please, don't predict calamities.
Morabito's article lays out a great conspiracy theory but she doesn't
support her assertions. Certainly there are some activists out there who would
like to end government-sanctioned marriage, but that doesn't mean that all
or most of the people in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage are in favor of
abolishing marriage altogether. And it's ludicrous to suggest that what
supporters of same-sex marriage really want is to end freedom of association and
create a world in which biological parents don't have the right to raise
their own children. By what bizarre turn of events could the views of American
society possibly change to the point where they would allow their leaders to do
this? It simply won't happen.I favor traditional marriage, but
absurd, extremist speculation like this really doesn't help the cause.
The whole issue of homosexual "marriage" is mostly the consequence of a
continuing devaluation of the institution of marriage, generally, in the minds
of more and more people.It is little wonder that there is so little
concern about the distortion or, at a minimum, the dissolution of the definition
of marriage when its importance to so many people is in such a precipitous
decline.Unfortunately, like many a neglected treasure, the actual
value of marriage to our society and everyone that is part of it will only be
better appreciated long after the negative effects of its undervaluation are
Despite what some may want to read into scripture or quote religious leaders
from throughout the world. In Christianity "A plain reading of Scripture
accompanied by two thousand years of church history affirm the teaching of
Scripture that upholds the view of marriage as the union of one man and one
woman, but the Scriptures also speak plainly of another truth: that no sin is
wider than Christ’s mercy if one will only repent and believe."Separate religion and secular if you want but the religion of
Christianity marriage is between an man and a woman.
Well, I'm just wondering what the state of the family is in MA, where
same-sex marriage has been legal for 10 yrs.?What utter nonsense.
Same sex marriage isn't doing nearly as much damage, if it can be called
that, as traditional marriage is doing to the concept.
And with this, Deseret News falls into reporting conspiracy theories as fact.
What's next Building 7?Can Des News go any lower?
"Same-sex marriage isn’t really what marriage equality activists are
fighting for. It’s really about ending civil marriages altogether,
according to Stella Morabito, a writer for The Federalist." I went to
"The Federalist" website. The argument is very unconvincing.
I was always taught that the first one to invoke "Nazi" or to use fear
mongering (this article) in an argument is the loser because you don't need
to go there if you have a credible argument.
It's all "the gays" fault.The fact of the matter is
that you heterosexuals are the one's ruining marriage; LGBT couples have
barely had the opportunity to marry; you can't blame your failures on us.
I read Morabito's article in The Federalist. I tried valliantly to find
even a morsel of truth in it. Sadly, there was no truth to be found.
@fatheroffour for race and economic background recommend to marry someone the
same as it is easier to adjust that way, though all marriages can work out. As
for religion church leaders have always taught that since people not of the LDS
faith cannot go to the temple. Besides being unequally yoked causes problems as
few people join the church after marrying someone not of the faith. Even
Abraham Isaac and Jacob told there own children that. So if you feel strongly
about wanting to worship your way good idea to marry someone that way, and it
is church doctrine to marry someone of the faith. You are not shunned if you
don't, but interfaith marriages have caused many problems with people
hoping to convert there spouse.
Coming from a country with SSM, I can attest that it has not made a single
difference to myself, my marriage and my family. It seems SSM is only important
in the US, have not heard a peep out of the church leadership about anywhere
else.To all those who say that all homosexuals want to ban marriage
completely because of what one person said, would be well to note that there was
someone on these very comment boards saying that homosexuals would be rounded up
and gassed like the jews because of them wanting SSM. Crazy people are crazy and
thats why I dont let the voice of an individual mark a whole group.
@the truth"A gay activist gave a speech saying, and I summarize, the
Gays didn't really want marriage, but to end the institution of
marriage."It's foolish to consider the words of one person
to be representative of an entire group of people.
Can an advocate of homosexual marriage lay out for me what ALL of his criteria
for marriage are? Give me a comprehensive list of what makes marriage marriage
from the revisionist camp's perspective. Key words: ALL; comprehensive.
@brokenclay;All? Well, the VERY SAME THINGS in a heterosexual
marriage. That's pretty "comprehensive" for you. No
Humor me, Ranch. Just list them out-- one comprehensive list of the criteria for
marriage. The reluctance of the revisionist camp to lay out their
definition of marriage could lead me to believe that they have something to
hide.Again, key word: comprehensive.
Funny that nobody mentions diversity since ss marriage was introduced.
Diversity matters especially in marriage. Without diversity of the sexes you
don't have marriage you have something else. You have a union of people
that is approved by the state. I know a women who struggled with ss attraction.
She left the church, came back to church, and married a man. That was 30 years
ago. Many of her friends who never struggled with ss attraction have long since
been divorced, some more than once. With God you can do all things in
What shlock.Next can we expect an article from Pat Buchanan
explaining how AIDs is God's revenge on gay people? Apparently
we've given up all pretense of being a serious newspaper and exercising
some editorial discretion? But oh, when to comes to "moderating"
comments the bar is ever flucuating and inexplicable.
If this is the window to the future, then we are in BIG trouble.Also, I have a question for the concept of gay marriage. If everyone else
decides to do it, how is the human civilization going to reproduce? Are you guys
going to support births out of wedlock or sexual relationships with someone not
your spouse? Or both?Am I the only one who can see that?
That was some article. Do people actually believe this stuff? Essentially the
article said if same sex marriage is legalized then America will become a
totalitarian state. That is a perfect example of the slippery slope argument.
If people want to know what will happen to a society where same sex
marriage is legal it's not that hard to find. In many countries it has been
legal for the better part of a decade. What has happened in those countries?
Have any of them fallen into horrible totalitarian regimes of suppression and
genocide? Nope, it turns out that life and society just go along as they had
before. That's all that will happen here in America. The country won't
fall apart, no one will be tearing up the constitution, you'll get up and
go to work just like you did before, you'll com home and have the same
family, the sky won't fall.
@Let It GoLet me see if I understand this. You are wondering what
would happen if every single human being on the planet decided to be in a
dedicated homosexual relationship. Well if that happened then yes, there would
be some issues regarding reproduction. However, that hinges on an the event that
every single person on the planet would actually do that. There is no way that
would happen. When was the last time all of humanity agreed on anything? What
would it take for you to enter into a homosexual relationship? I know I'm
not going to. In fact, only people who are homosexual will, and that will be
about 2-5% of the population. So no, humanity won't have trouble
Here is why we want to get married. We have been together for over five years.
Living together, dated for a year before that. We adopted a child and are
adopting another. (Gay couples can do that in Ohio. Not everywhere.) We are
looking for a house to buy. We have two cars and all the stuff a family has. She works full-time, I am a stay-at-home-mom and work a very flexible
part-time schedule. We have done everything we can to protect the kids if
something happens to both of us. But her family has said if something happens to
her they will take me to court and try to get everything that has been set up to
protect the kids. She was offered a transfer to a state that does
not have gay marriage, so far we have not been able to find a job for either of
us in a state that would let us marry. We are a family, and we need the
protection that comes from being married.There is more to this, but
that is the important parts.
We should go to a system in this country that Mormons are already very familiar
with: Civil Unions and Church Marriage. Civil Union licenses would be issued
by the government for the purposes of affording any two people who want to join
together the legal benefits currently accorded to married couples. Church
Marriage would be performed by the couples religion of choice according to that
religion's teaching (i.e., Mormon Temple Weddings). Those who need a
Church Marriage to be saved (or need their church to define Marriage as between
one man and one woman) could create their partnership under this method. Those
who want a Civil Union to take advantage of financial benefits could create
their partnership under this method. Those who want both religious and
financial benefits (assuming they practice a religion that endorses their
partner of choice) could create their partnership under both methods.
@OneWifeOnlyHow about "marriage," which takes place at the
courthouse and consists of buying the license, signing, and paying the fees. It
is legal and recognized by the government. And "ceremony"
which is social, takes place in a church/temple/synagogue or woods or rented
hall and is for friends and family and may include religious rituals/blessings
or whatever. Marriage is legal, unless you want to have every law
and regulation concerning marriage to have to be annotated to say civil union.
@brokenclay"Give me a comprehensive list of what makes marriage
marriage from the revisionist camp's perspective."Two
adults who want to make a lifelong commitment to each other that may be
religious or secular in nature. (And aren't blood-related).What'd you expect for an answer? It's the same thing as a
heterosexual marriage except replacing "A man and a woman" with "Two
1. "Two" -- from a secular perspective, this criterion is just as
arbitrary as limiting a contract to a man and woman. Different forms of
polyamory are extremely common in the world today. Why do these relationships
not get the protection of the law?2. "adults" -- teenage
sexuality is to be encouraged, but not commitment? Is the cutoff for adulthood
whatever the state decides it should be? 18? 17? 16? Also, are we talking adult
humans here, or would we include the guy who wants benefits for his pet as
well?3. "lifelong commitment" -- again, an arbitrary
criterion. Why does a contract that conveys benefits have to be permanent?4. "aren't blood-related" -- what if an adult
father-daughter couple agrees to undergo some form of permanent birth control?
According to your definition, procreation/family building is not a generally
intended end of marriage, so why limit it in this area? Examples could be
multiplied here.I'd further point out that these criteria could
well serve for any secular contractual agreement-- business, friendship,
roommates, etc., not just a romantic-type relationship. There is nothing here
that uniquely identifies marriage.
I am completely against redefining marriage for Constitutional reasons, economic
reasons, moral reasons, and logical reasons, however, I thought this article
went way too far and is very derogatory and not very nice. Gay people are
completely wrong about redefining marriage, but they still are mostly good
Jamescmeyer: "It's not a real secret; there are a notable number of
people active in trying to change marriage who openly acknowledge that their
goal is to remove marriage and the family altogether, and that this is the way
to do it."Really? Name them.Or did you mean
"zero" as your notable number?
Reading some of the posts here is great entertainment. Tiago asks a great
question: What do you want Gay people to do? Could one of you arm chair prophets
please outline the "plan of life" for a gay man - from cradle to grave.
I would love to hear how you would teach a gay man to live his life.
@SchneeSounds good to me. I don't care what words anyone chooses to
use to describe the public ceremonial act of creating a life-long commitment
between two people. What I care about is that everyone, gay or straight, has
equality under the law. The judge who performed our ceremony told us that a
wedding is not a marriage. It takes work and love and commitment to make a
marriage. 20 years and counting for us. I want that for everyone.
Sneaky Jimmy,The first rule is to obey the law of chastity, which
means no sexual relations outside of marriage. Violations of the law of
chastity, will, in the long run, bring sorrow to those involved as well as to
those who love them.Second, If one is interested in family life and
marriage, I suggest finding someone of the opposite sex who is amenable to it,
getting married, having children, and teaching and loving them all. If a
homosexual person can't stand the thought of sexual relations with a member
of the opposite sex, there's artificial insemination - the children will
have the benefit of knowing and being raised by their biological parents.Some gay people are opposed to the idea of marrying a member of the
opposite sex, some even going so far as to say they couldn't love such a
spouse. I think that position requires some serious soul searching, as it is
normal and healthy to love a lot of people regardless of their gender or sexual
orientation. Love is not the same as sexual attraction.
Candied Ginger describes the "homosexual lifestyle". Two moms with two
children. One mom works and one stays home with the kids. They have two cars
and are looking for a house to buy.Oh, the horror of it all!
@Pops"I think that position requires some serious soul searching, as
it is normal and healthy to love a lot of people regardless of their gender or
sexual orientation. Love is not the same as sexual attraction" That's a very disingenuous pair of statements there because they can
easily be flipped on you since I'm sure you wouldn't conceive of
marrying someone of the same gender. There's no assertion at all that they
can't love someone of a different gender or sexual orientation, nor any
assertion that love is the same as sexual attraction. You know very well that
there's a different kind of love involved in who you want to marry compared
to siblings or friends.
I wonder where God is in this whole debate. Wait...thank goodness I have
President Monson to look to for inspired guidance. In total, fifteen men whom I
trust for inspired guidance.
@ sneakyAbstain is the answer to your query. Just as an alcoholic, a
pedophile, a smoker, a klepto...you get it by now. Behavioral scientists can
tell you many with ssa can abstain, and many can be happy in hetero unions.
I'm not saying it is easy.....just being truthful.
This is a sobering article that lays bare the real, evil intents of conspiring
individuals. Every God-fearing family and person needs to read this and realize
what we are facing.From the time that Hillary Clinton said that
"it takes a village to raise a child", we have seen an attack on the
traditional family. We are already reaping the sad consequences of not holding
firm to the values of a marriage between a man and a woman who honor their
marital vows with complete fidelity and, who do not teach their children moral
truth, such as respecting others and the property of others and resisting the
urge to live a hedonistic life. If you have ever visited Detroit or Chicago, you
can begin to see where we as a country, and world, are headed.
It does take a village to raise a child: schools, libraries, playgrounds, etc.