Comments about ‘What the same-sex marriage movement is really doing to marriage’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, April 9 2014 1:05 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended

Allow me to summarize: The sky is falling!

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

I'm in good company in this debate.

People who agree with me:

Mormon Prophet Monson
Pope 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.

orem, UT

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 woman.

Midwest City, USA, OK

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.

Houston, TX

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 children.

orem, UT

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.

Seattle, WA

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?

Federal Way, WA

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.

Salt Lake City, UT

"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.

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

Father of Four,

Sorry, my church doesn't say that. That doesn't come from any publication of my church. I'm Catholic

West Jordan, UT

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 World").

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY


First, I agree with Jeanie.

Second, please check the 2014 manual.

Syracuse, UT

You 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.

slc, UT

Nice to hear from the tin foil hate segment of society.

the truth
Holladay, UT


A 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 meaningful.

Cleveland , OH

@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 Lama
Archbishop Desmond Tutu

Considering 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.

Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Wilf 55

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.

to comment

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