Duane E. Jeffery, Associate Professor of Zoology, Brigham Young University,
talks about the eternal implications of gender roles as related to
intersex."The very existence of human intersexes poses some interesting
unanswered questions in LDS traditions and beliefs. Traditional LDS expressions
on gender identity also fall short of embracing the complexity demonstrable in
the real biological world. Sex, as traditionally posited, is an immutable
characteristic of an eternal spirit, of which the mortal body is only a
tabernacle. The body is in the image of the spirit, and it is tacitly accepted
that this extends to sexual characteristics. An increasing body of medical data,
however, gives one considerable cause to reflect on the precise nature of that
relationship. Whatever theoretical role may be ascribed to the influence of the
spirit, it is a biological reality that sex determination, in the physical body
at least, is affected by and almost certainly controlled and determined by
genetic and hormonal means, in other words, it not only has a physical basis of
identifiable dimensions, but it is subject to considerable malfunction and
@ rhappahannockActually it is the proponents who LGBT rights who
should be carrying the "Biology not Bigotry" sign because they are the
ones fighting WITH science. Those defending traditional marriage are actually
fighting AGAINST science. Even a tiny bit of research into the matter would have
shown you that actual science conclusively shows that same sex attraction is a
perfectly normal variation of sexual identity across scores of different
species. As it turns out, a small percentage of the population in
species as diverse as humans, birds (several different types), large numbers of
mammals, and so on. So in fact what the LGBT community would like from people
such as yourself is recognize actual biology and stop being bigoted.
I dont agree with SSM, I also think divorce should be illegal, parents should
not be allowed to separate, widowers should immediately have their children
taken away (unless they remarry straight away). People who have children and are
unmarried should have the children taken away. Poor people should have their
children taken away. Any family with a husband and wife (and middle
to upper class) should be legally made to adopt children that have resulted in
the actions above.There I just made everything perfect.
@RanchHandI didn't say children were guaranteed a mother and a
father. I said they deserve and need both. Marriage has a large effect on
children raised in those families, so marriage IS about children. Depriving
children of a strong traditional family structure is selfish and immoral.
@Avenue"Should we get to vote on whether children get the mother AND
father they rightfully deserve and need?"I dunno, though I do
notice a distinct lack of any lobbying to prevent single people from being adopt
so that leads me to believe none of you really care about this "mother AND
father" thing and instead you just need an excuse to ban same-sex marriage.
@Mick"A black man and white woman were denied marriage because of
their skin color. That is prejudice."Right. Now what about
same-sex couples? You'd call that a choice rather than something one is
born with. Okay... what about a law that limited marriage to people of the same
religion? Religion is a choice after all, and the law would be applied equally
since it applies to all faiths. "When rights were given to the
blacks they didn't demand to be called white."No, but the
interracial marriages still just called themselves marriages.
I love the sign in the article: "Biology not Bigotry." Proponents of
gay marriage are fighting against science. There are scientific reasons for
society to encourage and subsidize heterosexual marriage as it helps stabilize
society. The same hormones, pheromones, and evolutionary adaptations in
heterosexual relationships are not there in homosexual relationships.It seems that the gay's are astroturfing all articles on gay marriage,
using multiple accounts to vote up comments and trying to romove all comments
that take a differing view of the situation. Just like with Mozilla,
photographers, and cake makers, they are trying to silence all non-politically
Even though attempting to voice support for equality and rights for all
individuals rather then a select and chosen few seems to be an exercising
futility on this form and pro SSM comments/posts most definitely seem to be
monitored by a very different set of rules I will attempt and direct my post as
if I were "speaking in front of a large group and or speaking directly
towards an individual". Let's now see if the same rules apply because I
know what a sensitive subject religion is especially here in Utah. Can someone
please explain all the references to the bible along with biblical quotations in
order to prove any point regarding this matter or any other state legal issue?
Our founding fathers many of whom were Atheists (perish the thought) left their
own lands to establish one which was founded on "separation of church and
state". These founding fathers drafted a document that they called The
Constitution. Many posting on this site should read it at some point. Could
possibly assist with accurate and factual posting.
BYUAlum,You are mis-representing genealogy. As an avid genealogist,
people do not always trace people to a mother and a father. Many times I see
"unmamed fathers," orphans, and adopted children. Children have been
raised by their LGBT parents for millenia.That they are registered
on genealogical records by nuclear family standards is only coincidental, not
@Avenue;Marriage isn't about children, it's about the
people marrying.Nobody is guaranteed a father and a mother. The
only guarantee in life is that we are going to die someday.
Marriage was instituted by God. People have tried to redefine it but they
cannot. Nor do they have the right to do so. Marriage is not the
president's to change, it is not Congress' to change, nor is it a
justice's to change. Everywhere the people have had voice on this issue in
this country, they have defended marriage. Same-sex unions will
never be the same as marriage, even if people try to call them marriage. And it
is not bigotry to defend what God instituted. Rather, it is duty. We
are seeing an attack on marriage and the family. If anyone should be upset, it
should be those who support marriage between one man and one woman. Yet, it is
these supporters of marriage who have been extremely patient through abuse,
slander, hate, loss of freedom and rights, and yes, bigotry--the very things
that the equality people decry and claim to be suffering.
@RanchHand"Your parents are in a "relationship of choice".
Should we get to vote on whether or not they are allowed to be married?"Should we get to vote on whether children get the mother AND father they
rightfully deserve and need?
This is an absolutely states' rights issue, period. It doesn't matter
whether it is the definition of marriage, polygamy, prohibition, or slavery!
Slavery would have died on the vine and over 600,000 men would have lived great
lives and watched their children and grandchildren grow up. Because, however, we
have the compulsion crowd as a part of our nation, free choice, agency, and
consequences are suffering! Millions of men, women, and children will suffer,
free enterprise will suffer, opportunity, justice, and equality will suffer,
individuality will suffer, and the moral climate will suffer. With 50 states
able to make their own decisions, real solutions and truth will emerge. if
California wants to legalize drugs, or put everyone on welfare, then let them do
so. Someone once said that the best thing that ever happened to the growth of
Utah was the California legislature. If states are allowed to have bad ideas,
eventually that state will figure out what it means to have a good idea!
Colorado will figure out that legalizing marijuana doesn't make for good
citizens. The list is endless! States' rights is what the constitution
supports and for good reason.
@Mick wrote:"The LGBT community can still have rights given by
the state as couples. That is where they should have started. They would have my
support. But they are not married."Did you vote for Amendment 3?
If you did, then you voted against ANY kind of civil union for same-sex
couples.Because that was what Amendment 3 did. But suddenly, a state
that voted to ban same-sex marriage AND civil unions is coming over all
conciliatory-like."Marriage is between a man and woman and
should protected."Explain how same-sex civil marriage would
deprecate opposite-sex civil marriage.
Choosing homosexuality is the same thing as choosing to not have children.I am just stating the obvious.A self imposed limitation.Enjoy your limitations.Abraham chose to have no limitations.
His seed is more numerous than the stars.
@Mick 6:49 p.m. April 12, 2014The right to marry in a manner
consistent with one's sexual and affectional affinity is an individual
right, and is protected by the US Constitution.
@Mick;1) We aren't even allowed ANYTHING "resembling
marriage" in Utah. Amendment 3 prohibits ALL recognition of our unions.2) How does the marriage of an LGBT couple harm marriage between a man
and a woman? If "traditional marriage" needs protection, it certainly
doesn't need protection from LGBT marriages.3) Just as
inter-racial couples were denied marriage equality based on skin color, LGBT
couples are denied based on gender. What difference does it make the reason,
the outcome is still the same: discrimination and unequal treatment.4) "The constitution protects individual rights. Like my right to choose
to be muslim or Mormon or any religion. No where in the constitution does it
protect couples rights. They are individual rights."--- What
about MY individual rights to choose my marriage partner? What about my
partner's individual rights to choose his? How can you possibly make that
statement and not comprehend the hypocrisy? (Not to mention you failed to grasp
the point of my comment: you said we have equality to choose to marry someone of
the opposite gender; being FORCED to choose to marry the opposite gender when
not interested is like being FORCED to choose a religion you don't believe
Ranch Hand-The constitution protects individual rights. Like my
right to choose to be muslim or Mormon or any religion. No where in the
constitution does it protect couples rights. They are individual rights.
Hightek-If you read earlier posts you see people comparing slavery
or interracial marriage bigotry to marriage equality. They are not the same at
all.Interracial couples who were denied marriage were denied because
of the color of their skin. A black man and white woman were denied marriage
because of their skin color. That is prejudice. They still fell under the
definition of marriage, man and woman. Not the same argument as two men wanting
to become a couple. When rights were given to the blacks they
didn't demand to be called white. The LGBT community can still have rights
given by the state as couples. That is where they should have started. They
would have my support. But they are not married.Marriage is between
a man and woman and should protected.
@BlackDiamondYou're comparing people to magnets? People are not
magnets. If you try a scientific experiment on 100 magnets, provided the
controls are right, the magnets will always perform the same way.People are much more complex and diverse and unpredictable and wonderful than
magnets. It would appear that you simple can't comprehend that gays and
lesbians are genuinely and exclusively attracted to their own sex. I can't
imagine that you'd understand people who are attracted to both sexes, or
those people who don't experience sexual attraction at all.But
they do exist. They have lives and careers, parents and siblings, joys and
sadnesses, and many of them have their own families: partners, and often,
children. And their relationships deserve the same legal protections and
recognitions as those of opposite-sex couples.And their marriage
being legally recognized will not affect your life in any way. Marriage
won't be any weaker for no longer being exclusive to opposite-sex couples.
@Ali Bell (photo); But discrimination is.@Ms. Ellis;""why should recognizing an adult relationship of choice be more
important than recognizing" the needs of children."Your
parents are in a "relationship of choice". Should we get to vote on
whether or not they are allowed to be married?@My2Cents;Wow. @iron&clay;I don't want to be in heaven
if it's going to be filled with people like you. I'd much rather burn
in fire and brimstone for all eternity.@Mick;You've
always had the right to choose your religion, as long as it's Muslim. How
does that shoe fit?
Marriage has always been, is and always will be a heterosexual union. Marriage
is the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. No man can be a wife and
no woman can be a husband. Perhaps laws need to be changed to allow some legal
protections of marriage to same sex couples in taxation, visitation etc.
Marriage should be reserved for the interest the state has in having successful
Each State has an interest in seeing successful families. Unfortunately since
the sexual revolution of the 1960's too large a percentage of families have
deteriorated through divorce, and irresponsible, out of wedlock sexual
relationships. Changing the definition of marriage will, over time, take a
further toll on marriage and the family.Rutgers sociologist
Professor David Popenoe writes, "the burden of social science evidence
supports the idea that gender-differentiated parenting is important for human
development and the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and
irreplaceable." He then concludes: "We should disavow the notion that
mommies can make good daddies, just as we should the popular notion that daddies
can make good mommies. The two sexes are different to the core and each is
necessary; culturally and biologically;for the optimal development of a human
being."This is why 34 states continue with the definition of
marriage as the union of a man and a woman, Many doing so by amending their
constitutions. This is why many states are defending their laws.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. SSM breaks the law of attraction. Just
like a magnet, a plus and a minus would attract. Positive and positive would
push against each other.
@Jeff in NCThat is because there is no such thing as an accident in
SSM - it cannot happen because there has to be a man and a woman to have one...
Take the high road, don't lower yourselves to the levels of people arguing
against nature's laws.
@MickWho is comparing marriage equality to slavery? People do
compare marriage equality to interracial marriage equality, and rightly so.
Black people weren't denied the right to marry, they were denied the right
to marry a white person. It's the same thing.I don't
understand how you're saying people are trying to "redefine"
marriage. I don't see it that way at all. Marriage is, and has always been,
a bonded union, either civil or religious, between two consenting adults (save
for some sporadic bouts of child brides throughout history). I don't see
that definition changing at all.It's all about perspective
@DanO,"Schaerr had to admit that Utah's laws harm children
of same-gendered parents." Excuse me, sir, but why are the same-gendered
parents not being held accountable here? Are they not the ones who put the
child in this uncertain position in the first place, knowing that the laws of
the land would not protect the child? I'd hold them accountable first
before pointing the finger at anyone else or anything else.
So called 'traditional marriage' at the exclusive expense of same sex
couples is not the 'high road'. It is the wrong road.
I think that 11-year old Heather Ellis hit the nail on the head.Why
should the needs of adults be more important than the needs of children? I
Actually, Tek, you actually argue my point. We don't have dowries any more,
do we? Marriage is much different now then it was a mere three centuries ago.
For the most part, women were treated as property and marriage was a business
transaction between a father and the prospective husband. They fact that
we're not trading chickens for wives tell us that marriage hasn't
always been the same.But you missed the main point that there have
been cultures that have honored same sex unions.
LGBT people-You have always had the right to get married. That has
never been taken away. Slaves had their rights taken away. Comparing the two
is so disingenuous. That fact that you don't like the definition of
marriage and want to change is so it suits you and your situation is a different
argument. I support the original definition of marriage.
Do 11 year olds in Utah really say things like "why should recognizing an
adult relationship of choice be more important than recognizing" the needs
of the children.Really? "Relationship of choice"? From an 11
year old? That is impressive. But I'm wondering if the
reporter, Ms Roche, asked her any questions or did we just go for a precocious
sound bite?Because I want this 11 year old to meet my adopted kids
and explain how being in foster care is so much better than having two moms. And how my family will hurt her family if we are allowed to get married
so we have the legal protections a married couple get for their children. Does she even know what those legal protections are? Can she explain
them, and explain why they shouldn't apply to my family, too?And "Biology isn't Bigotry."We're not talking
about biology. Unless you say that my adopted children shouldn't have the
same rights and advantages of other kids. Because that is what it sounds like.
In Utah, the word ALWAYS has been "It's our way or the highway".People are more confident about getting out on the highway now days.
It's quite arrogant for a straight person to claim they know that the love
of two people people of the same sex is not real--that it is not a genuine
attraction. I am saddened by such comments because I am still
mourning the loss of somebody who cared too much about what other people thought
of him. He wanted to be accepted, but too many people kept on reminding him that
he wasn't normal. He turned to drugs to hide the pain. Unfortunately, he
lost the battle and his life. We all need to do a better job at
showing love to all of God's children and stop reminding them that they are
sinners. Let's allow all to have the ability to establish healthy and happy
relationships with the people that they love.
By choosing homosexual relationships, whether legal or not, is putting a self
imposed barrier in front of your advancement to receive the blessings of
heaven.**Lose opportunity for continuation of the seed/lives, not
just in this life, but at the judgement day after you are resurrected.
@chessermesser If you like biology perhaps you would support annulling all
marriage in Utah where one partner is unable to reproduce. You could then match
the functioning spouse with another "fit" person of the opposite sex.
They could have natural children and increase the population. Going further you
could test children early on and if proven to be unable to reproduce they could
be sent to special camps where they could live celibate chaste lives. Biology is
@DanO: "Also, the form of heterosexual marriage known today is a relatively
new construct." I don't know where you got that information, but you
should probably stop listening to that source. A relatively new construct in
which culture? When the conservatives say, "Marriage is the foundation of
civilization for the last 5000 years." I cringe (although I agree with the
overall point). Marriage has been a part of human societies for probably a
100,000 years.The Incas considered that they became civilized when
men began to take responsibility for the children they fathered, i.e. as opposed
to sleeping around a lot.Native Americans had dowries, if the young
man wanted the young lady enough he would make the effort to prepare the dowry.
There is a 2000 year old Irish legend about an Irish chieftan telling his wife
one night that she married 'up' when she married him and the trouble
that caused. I know a Polynesian story that is constructed to illustrate that
what the man brings into the marriage and what the woman brings are equal.Don't blindly repeat what you've been told. It is Utah, it is
OK to think independantly.
This has got to be hyperbole at its finest: "There is no rights issue, its
all about the money and defrauding governemnt. Emotional love is a lie, and
impossible to accept. There is no such thing as homosexual can love each other,
it contradicts all laws of attraction and mating rituals that attract each other
for procreation"If it is not obvious exaggeration with the
intent to expose the weakness of the argument against same sex marriage, then I
am indeed fearful for our country. The incredible ignorance, misinformation and
intolerance displayed is breathtaking. It debases humanity and the western
concepts of emotional attachments.
One explanation you will NEVER hear gay parents use about why they are raising a
child is "it was an accident." Anyone who trashes gay parents has some
learning to do in life. I'd invite you to start by going to IHOP for
breakfast and observe the straight couples eating breakfast with their several
young children they are barely able to support. Watch them and ask yourself if
you can honestly conclude that just because their biological parts fit together
they are adequate parents.
I love the sign about biology. That about says it all, if marriage is supposed
to create and raise children. If it isn't, then what is marriage exactly?
@BYUalum 10:49 p.m. April 11, 2014I loved the honest response of the
11 year old girl in the article.----------------------You realize, don't you, that she was merely parroting what she ha been
told. She has no way to accurately analyze this subject, and there are a lot of
children (like Zach Wahls) raised in same sex marriages how would testify the
opposite is true. In fact Wahls did. Here's part of his
actual testimony, taken from his website -- "My family really isn’t so
different from yours. After all, your family doesn’t derive its sense of
worth from being told by the state, “You’re married,
congratulations!” The sense of family comes the commitment we make to each
other to work through the hard times so we can enjoy the good ones. It comes
from the love that binds us. That’s what makes a family." I wish I
could quote all of it, but the word limit won't let me.I wonder
how that little girl will feel when she learns the REAL truth about this
First of all, that there were only a paltry 100 people in the crowd speaks
volumes. Secondly, the AG asked the crowd to remain civil? Seriously? The signs
that were being displayed were so highly offensive as to make the crowd out to
be uneducated and ignorant. How these folks look in the mirror and convince
themselves they are not spreading hate and bigotry defies reason.
There is no rights issue, its all about the money and defrauding governemnt.
Emotional love is a lie, and impossible to accept. There is no such thing as
homosexual can love each other, it contradicts all laws of attraction and mating
rituals that attract each other for procreation. The only reason for
sexual attraction is procreation and that is limited to heterosexuals and
hormonal stimulation which is not present in a homosexual lifestyle which is a
self imposed lifestyle by choice and rejection.That is a note worthy
quote the news media had the courage to show, biology is not bigotry. But fraud
and criminla intent in denial is bigotry. Tax evasion, tax fraud and financial
theft is their only motivation and every thing they argue is based on some kind
of financial outcome.
History will show how wrong this crowd is/was when marriage equality will sweep
our great country.
@BYUalumI'm adopted. How does your narrow view of family
history and genealogy relate to me? Were my parents being "self-serving"
by adopting me? Does that make me a second class citizen in your eyes, because I
have no biological connection to my family? To my brother?A few
years after my adoption my mother died of cancer and I was raised solely by my
adoptive father. Am I less of a person for not having a mother? Your
attitude is narrow minded and repugnant. I feel sorry for you.
"Any other arrangement is self-serving and solely for self gratification, a
choice."I don't see how having the desire to share a life
with a partner that you love is in any way selfish. When a loving couple also
has the desire to combine their strengths and all that they have to raise
children to be kind and loving citizens, that is far from being self-serving.
What may also come as a surprise is that nearly all children go
through stages when they are embarrassed by their parents. It's a natural
part of emotional development--not a reason to remove children from homes.
When you do family history (genealogy), you always link a father and a mother to
their children and then go back to their fathers and mothers for generations of
time. Will that ever change? Not that I can determine. From the beginning with
Adam and Eve, it has been a dad and a mom who have a biological family of
children. Any other arrangement is self-serving and solely for self
gratification, a choice. I can't see it changing the basic family structure
which is the basis of re-population of society.I loved the honest
response of the 11 year old girl in the article. More children should be able
and even encouraged to speak out. They are the ones who really suffer the most
from not having a mom and a dad in SSM.
I'm surprised the article didn't mention two outrageous statements
made by Cherilyn Eager at the rally. One, she claimed that her group would try
to impeach any federal judges who disagreed with her opposition to same-sex
marriages. Two, she urged the group to join her in opposing efforts to stop
people from bullying gays.Both of these positions smack of extreme
animus and seem entirely inconsistent with Reyes' "no hatred, no
animus" message. One can only hope the Tenth Circuit judges are paying
@SnapdragonThere is nothing respectful about stereotyping an entire group
of people suggesting they are unfit parents that people need to protect children
@Lovely,I'm not sure you listened to the same case. Schaerr had
to admit that Utah's laws harm children of same-gendered parents. He also
had to explain why he discarded the main piece of evidence Utah had the night
before oral arguments. Also remember, Schaerr effectively had to put a gag on
the Republican legislators as he didn't think they'd be able to keep
their mouths shut and not further harm the case. On the other hand, while the
judges had some tough questions for Tomsic, at no time were Shelby's
rational disowned. Tomsic agrees with how Shelby reached his ruling, but argued
he could have gone further. While some call him an activist judge, Shelby
actually used judicial restraint by being able to prove his decision rather
narrowly. Get ready for a big disappointment. Equality will prevail.
We can argue about what was recorded in the bible, what ancient peoples did,
what the law recognizes, should recognize, and every other action taken by man
that we ever know of or will yet come to know. But I do know something. Our
Heavenly Father loves us and forgiveness is possible. I know it. Others know it.
Others want to know it. There is no amount of persuasion of political power,
force, movement, or popularity that will change eternal truths.We
can craft whatever argument or principle we like. But submitting ourselves to
the work of our own hands is absurd. Happiness comes from keeping God's
commandments, not writing your own.
Baccus0902Snapdragon was talking about biology that creates
children, not race. You took her comments to a place she did not and
deliberately made her argument look hateful. Laws are based on
people's beliefs and what they believe is best for society. If more people
believe a certain way it usually becomes law. Maybe Mormons would still be
practicing pologamy if the majority of people did not believed their choice of
marriage was wrong.
Hiring Gene Schaerr was brilliant. He didn't need to be bailed out in the
oral arguments by the Judges. He stated his arguments so well that the other
side was forced to disown Judge Shelby's rational for his ruling. With all that said it is hard to not feel animus towards the gay community,
not for being gay or wanting gay marriage but for trying to force it upon us and
then demonizing us if we disagree with them.
Also, there are cultures not recorded in the Bible that have honored
same-gendered unions. Just because one hasn't done the research,
doesn't mean that same-gendered unions didn't exist. Also, the form of
heterosexual marriage known today is a relatively new construct.
I don not even know what he is saying by taking the high road. Traditional
marriage is not a personal attack on anyone. The fact that there has never been
gay marriage before shows it has not naturally been a part of marriage, ever.
Biology is not Bigotry.
The attorney general then urged them "to continue to take the high road, to
continue to be respectful and empathetic."It's not possible
to be respectful and empathetic at the same time you are denying someone
fundamental protections under the law that you take for granted. It's
simply not possible.
Eventually, the truth will come out that "traditional marriage" is not
under attack. Keeping gays and lesbians from getting married will not change the
number of children raised in single-parent homes, nor will it change the number
of children raised in two parent homes of the same gender, nor will it reduce
the number of children raised in two parent homes of the opposite gender.
It's yet another fallacy. Schaer could not point to any factual evidence
that marriage equality will do anything that harms "traditional"
marriage and even admitted that further denial of marriage rights will continue
to harm the children that are being raised in same-gender parented families.