Published: Thursday, April 10 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
There you go again...Using Science and Common Sense, to argue
Hysteria and emotion.BTW -- Is it just me, or has
the Deseret News taken a rather sudden and much harder far-right turn as
It has been proven and reproven that children do better in a home with both a
Mother and a Father, I don't know why people keep thinking that just
because they want a different lifestyle, that they have to prove what has been
proven over and over again to be false.. I also have worked with children in
our school system for over 30 years, and I can tell you that I support the
statistics that children do much better, when they have a Mother and a Father...
I have seen it with my own eyes, That is the fact, stop trying to change fact
and truth, just because you want something different.
@Betcha The problem is the research does not support your antidotal
experiences. I suspect that would be because the children you see struggling
ccome from single parent homes not same sex couple homes. You are right the
facts are clear but they do not support you.
BetchaWaltham, MASo - you've seen a difference. Great.What do you suggest?We FORCE couples to get married?And then FORCE them to stay married?And FORCE them to be happy with
it?I'm a heterosexual man, married for over 30 years.Raised 4 wonderful kids.Statistically, in the BEST situation imaginable
for kids.I consider myself LUCKY for being in the minority because, most marriages end in divorce.I see the world for what it
is, and ask that people try harder.Others, see the world for what it
isn't, and then want to FORCE people to do what they should.I'm LDS -- I beleive in the Pre-mortal world I chose to follow
Christ, and support his plan of Free Agency - and invite others to do
likewise.Some still think Lucifer had the right idea.
The opinion of the State of Utah about the Regnerus study: "Thus, the
Regnerus study cannot be viewed as conclusively establishing that raising a
child in a same-sex household produces outcomes that are inferior to those
produced by man-woman parenting arrangements."This is part of
the official documentation submitted by Utah in the Kitchen v. Herbert same-sex
marriage appeal.The State of Utah also stated: "As the
State’s briefing makes clear, the State’s principal concern is the
potential long-term impact of a redefinition of marriage on the children of
heterosexual parents. The debate over man-woman versus same-sex parenting has
little if any bearing on that issue, given that being raised in a same-sex
household would normally not be one of the alternatives available to children of
heterosexual parents."In other words, it is not really about the
children - or, at least, not about ALL children, just some children whom the
State cares about, the rest - eh, whatever.
In all States, marriage is prohibited between siblings or close cousins. Why?
They love each other. Are they being discriminated against because they are
forbidden by law to share that love? Doesn't the 14th Amendment protect
them? Just what is the reason for such "outlandish" laws? It's to
protect the children.Those who support same-sex unions tell us that
the children will not be affected. They've told us a lot of things - just
like Obama has. They want the "freedom" to marry someone of the same
sex, no matter the consequences to society or to the children that they adopt or
take into that union from a former marriage. They cherry pick
judges. They cherry pick data. They castigate anything and anyone who presents
data that contradicts what their propaganda machine is feeding us.Children need a man as their father and a woman as their mother to raise them
according to eternal principles. They need the example of a man and a woman to
show them their proper role as human beings. They will not get that in a
The simple fact is that the best way to raise children is in a family with
mother and father. A wide array of statistics (facts) supports this. It is in
society's best interest to support and encourage and strengthen
"traditional" families, and to provide legal protection for newborns to
enter into such a family.
Mr. Richards - You may be unpleasantly surprised to find that marriage is not
prohibited among close cousins in many states. In fact, Utah allows it when
both are over the age of 65 or both are over the age of 55 but one is unable to
reproduce. And while typical legal justifications for such
limitations is based on children, it is not for the reasons you espouse. In
fact, the legal justifications for these marriage limitations rest on the likely
physical impediments that children will suffer from as a result of inbreeding.
I have seen no case law justifying such marriage restrictions based on the
argument that raising the kids in that environment will be harmful to them. But
then again, you could always correct me because you are the self-proclaimed
constitutional expert (despite apparently being completely unaware of the actual
case law and state laws surrounding cousin marriages).
Facts, who needs facts, we should base all laws on religion, well our religion
anyway.Sad, how many refuse to acknowledge that a family is best,
NOT just your idea of a family.
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahWith all due respect -- You keep insisting Gay couples will ALL have children.Many will
not.FYI -- People marry for love, not just for having sex.People marry for love, not just for having children.I'm sorry
-- But you just can't seem to get past that, or seperate the
to airnaut momments ago...Agreed. Having kids is not a prereq for
getting married or vice versa.Some get married because they want the
tax write off.
The more the traditional marriage proponets argue the weaker their arguments
appear. This is one of the reasons why public opinion has swung so much over
the past 10 years. So many of us know and have seen same sex couples be great
family members, civic leaders, church members, neighbors, business partners and
parents that the lies and distortions told by soical conservatives have become
so evident and irrelevant. Truth, love and respect are winning the social
In what other instance is the Gold Standard the measure of what should be
allowed? Certain exercise regimens yield better results than others; we
don't force people into to abandon all other exercise. What is best for
society is not the basis of law - otherwise we'd forbid smoking and almost
all drinking, require everyone to walk (in bright orange vests) whenever
practical, etc., etc., The standard is "when does an act infringe on someone
else's right to life, liberty and happiness?" My brother in a premortal
existence wanted to force everyone to adhere to the Gold Standard. His plan was
rejected; it infringed on my choice.
Families are primarily structured to raise the children for the next generation.
It is for this purpose that government has given certain perks to families. The
adults of the family need to be unselfish for the outcome of the children to be
good. It is not all about the adults, and adults who don't figure this out
aren't good parents.As the family structure has deteriorated,
the outcome of children has deteriorated, and so has our society as a whole. It is insane to seek the further destruction of the family. Our nations
children are struggling enough now. Blaming schools, the rich, the churches for
the will not solve the problem, because they are not the cause of the problem.
The cause is the disintegration of the family. While it might be
tempting to take offers from those who tell us they can do it better, (the
LGBT), history and science tell us otherwise. Oh that we spent the
energy wasted seeking SSM to strengthen existing traditional families, for the
sake of our country's children.
@Mike Richards - They need the example of a man and a woman to show them their
proper role as human beings. They will not get that in a same-sex union.We're a lesbian couple. We adopted a special needs child who had
been in foster care for a couple of years and pretty much had no chance of being
adopted by a "mom and a dad." IT seems like a lot of "mom and
dad" homes don't want kids with problems who need a loving home. I am at home full-time, my wife works in IT for a big company. We are
now fostering a second child who has been in the system for several years, and
have started adoption process. So have we done the wrong thing for
our kids? Should we stop the adoption process? Should we forget about wanting a
bigger home so we can foster other kids in the future? (We need more bedrooms
and a bigger dining room.)We are stable, hard working, go to a
Church with lots of activies, I am the room mom at school. What more do you
The only thing that we really learn here is that Dr. Rubinfeld doesn't like
what the researchers listed in the editorial “In Our Opinion: A mom and a
dad,” April 6. There are a couple of problems with his critique. First,
academic research can really only be discredited by the legal community through
successful litigation or a conviction. Collectively the legal community does not
have the qualifications to discredit research in other disciplines. The second
issue is treating the editorial as if it were a scholarly work. It is not a
scholarly work it is an advocacy publication. It is unreasonable to expect an
editorial writer to present anything that doesn't prove his or her
point.The final point that I would make is that while the DN
editorial points out issues that are problematic about the methodology used to
generate papers supporting the pro-SSM position, Dr. Rubinfeld just casts
aspersions on the information presented in the editorial.
Stalwart Sentinel,You've made my case. When "harm" can be
shown to the child, that "union" is not allowed. Marrying a sibling or a
1st cousin is know to be harmful to a child. When a child's life is
compromised by the actions of the "parents" that union is not
permitted.LDS Liberal, Open Minded Mormon, airnaut,Before you
tell us what we need to do, please re-read "The Family: A Proclamation to
the World". It clearly tells us that marriage is between a man and a woman.
That is the word of God through His prophets. He makes no exceptions. He is
no "respector" or persons. Candied Ginger,Thank you
for "adopting" someone who was rejected by others. What are you going
to teach that child about his/her role in life? Are you going to tell him/her
that the proper role includes procreation? Are you going to tell him/her that
procreation is only allowed in marriage? Are you going to tell him/her that
procreation is between a man and a woman and that any form of sex outside of
that union is improper?
Haven't seen very much "sound science" coming from the Deseret News
these last few years.
Thank you Mr. Rubenfield. Politics can be a soul-destroying
endeavor. It is especially troubling when so-called religious organizations and
those touting religious devotion, claiming high moral standards, get mixed up in
the lies/misrepresentations in supporting various causes. Why do we
continually go down a path to justify positions and practices using sketchy and
flimsy arguments that can't be substantiated? It can be
faith-destroying for secular AND religious institutions.
@Mike Richards:Thanks for asking. We are showing both kids their
"proper role in life" is to love others and be fierce in the face of
injustice. They have a grandpa and grandma and aunts and uncles (some blood,
some choice) and already see some people have kids biologically, some (my
sister) choose to never have kids, and some adopt.We are active in
the UU church which has a great human sexuality curriculum. Ours are too young
for that, but we use proper words for body parts and have talked about
orientation as appropriate (some people are attracted to opposite, some to same,
some to both.) I'm a stay at home mom, my wife works but they spend time
with all the relatives and see how it works in other families and situations.
We are open about where babies come from and the problems of having
children when you are not married - they know the importance of marriage for all
parents, gay or lesbian or straight and that's why we support it.Thanks for being supportive.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments