Comments about ‘Linda & Richard Eyre: Tipping points: Is the family doomed?’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, April 15 2014 4:10 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended

I'm grateful for people like Richard and Linda who understand the fundamentals of what makes society work and who are tireless in promoting that which will preserve and strengthen society. It often seems like an uphill battle.

I remember the flak President Ezra Taft Benson received when he talked about the importance of mothers being in the home to raise their children. But he was right, and now we're reaping the harvest, and a bitter one it is. Each time I read in the news of a mass shooting, of stabbings, of murdered infants, of lying, stealing, corruption, I wonder if the perpetrator was raised at home by a mother who taught them proper values, or whether they were dropped off at daycare and were simply tended during their formative years, or if they even knew their father. Of course we've become quite good at shifting the blame (to guns, for example), but the bottom line is that people who commit crimes have not learned proper values regardless of their implement of choice. And we will not survive without proper values that can only be taught in the family.

Cleveland , OH

Wow. A problem and... wait for it... a book. And, they will keep talking about the book in future columns until it is published, and then will continue to sell it.


Let it Go!
Omaha, NE

Uh... Hello world? Stop destroying yourselves by destroying the family structure!!! If you guys think marriage is not "cool" because cohabitation is so much easier and cheeper, go on ahead and do that! Just think about how happy you will feel in 50 years compared to a married couple of 50 years. Trust me, there is a difference between pleasure and happiness!

Salt Lake City, UT

Interesting is that if same-sex partners were allowed to marry it would actually increase the number of two-parent families. About 8 million children, the biological children of a gay person, are in same-sex partner households in the United States. But due to opposition to marriage equality a vast majority of them are not in a legally-recognized family. Would it not be society's best interest for them to have married parents, with all the benefits and protections marriage affords?

Houston, TX

When my brother and I were young teens, we discussed what we thought our futures would bring. During the conversation, he made a remark that surprised me: "The fact is, we are the marrying kind." After a little thought, I agreed with him. Fame and fortune didn't mean that much to either of us, but being married to loving wives and having a family was our top ambition.

Now 50 years later, I can see that what he said was so true. Both of us have been married for 40 years, with children and numerous grandchildren who draw strength from each other. It really makes a difference.

t-ville, UT

The Eyre's credibility diminishes by lumping the familial problems of single parent homes with eager same-sex couples willing and able to raise adopted children. The status of the "nuclear" family is interwoven into the larger fabric of society, with one problem influencing many others. It is both irresponsible and naive to propose a broad set of expectations by which we can then judge individuals without also approaching the variety of factors that may inhibit pursuing those expectations.

Seattle, WA

I'm with you on the importance of strong families and working to make sure the family maintains its place as the most fundamental unit of society.
I do wonder how our brothers and sisters who experience same-sex attraction and support families fit into this and what options we are giving them if both being single and being in a same-sex marriage are characterized as being anti-family.
In our families and churches, how to do we support single people who experience same-sex attraction and choose to remain single and celibate? Would you characterize a person in that situation as pro-family or anti-family? It is important to remember that our culture generally discourages these people from being public about their feelings, so we most likely will not know the reason why they are single.
Because of this, I am always concerned when I see people characterize single people as anti-family.

San Antonio, TX

"About 8 million children, the biological children of a gay person, are in same-sex partner households in the United States"

Source, please?

There are 74 million children in the US, you are claiming that 11% of all children are in same-sex households.

According to the US Census "Out of the 594,000 same-sex couple households, 115,000 reported
having children." (http://www.census.gov/prod /2011pubs/acsbr10-03.pdf) So for the 8 million children number NOT to have been pulled from thin air, each same-sex couple would have to have 69 children in their household.

The reality is that less than 1% of the nations children are in same-sex households and any contribution to the stats reported in the article would be minimal. The stats also show that a small minorty of same-sex couples raise children (19.3%).

Sugarland, TX


Mr. and Mrs. Eyre should really read your number, and focus on those 99% of children and their parents, how those families are doing, advise how to keep them together, other than spending so much time and energy on how to stop same sex couples from getting married.


A "family" with two "parents" of the same gender is not the same as a traditional two-parent family. You get one gender role repeated twice, and it's not even a gender role that is relevant to the majority of children. I don't understand how putting children at psychological and emotional risk is something the state should advocate.

It's useful to spend energy to stop the redefinition of marriage because if marriage is redefined, there will be one less tool available to the state to incentivize traditional family relationships that have proven beneficial to the state. Here's an analogy: my employer gives bonuses for extra effort. But if those who don't get bonuses were to rise up and argue the converse, that not having received a bonus is an unjustifiable punishment, thereby forcing the company to give bonuses to everyone, there would no longer be any point in giving bonuses to anyone.

Cleveland , OH


My boss gives a bonus to people who work hard, except the left handed people don't get a bonus, no matter how hard they work. Boss wants to encourage traditional right-handed workers. If he gives lefties a bonus too, then the right handed people won't be encouraged.

How about we recognize families who are raising kids?

Salt Lake City, UT

I, for one, am for traditional marriage and against any redefinition of it. I also am interested, even intent, on trying to find out how I can make my voice heard. I will welcome what the Eyre's want to share to help me do that. Realizing I will be in the minority, I nevertheless feel as strongly about this issue as the opposition; however, I hope to keep my actions and words civil and courteous, something that I've noticed is also not as valued by the "vocal majority".

Thank you, Eyres! Keep up the great work!

Provo, Utah

I believe two adults (man and women) should raise children. The man is the role model for the boys, and the woman is the role model for the girls. Would you want the women playing the man role in a same sex marriage raising your boys? What type of family life do we want to teach our children, because it will affect many generations to come?

Salt Lake City, UT

Earth's climate, as well as culture and civilization evolve, ever changing. Mr. Eyre may think his way of living is best, "eternal", but that's a perverted view of history. Few humans have enjoyed his privileges, attending Harvard, raised by decent folk not far removed from agriculture, in America, in Utah, a large family, a fancy house and suburbans, etc. There are not enough resources on planet Earth for everyone to live the utopian vision he sells. When America was the dominant economic power, coincidentally the same time the author and baby-boomers lived, many were able to enjoy excess. Now that the whole planet has woken up, thrown off the yoke of imperialism, and compete for jobs and resources, the authors way of life is soon to be unattainable for his grandchildren. Sad to see people living in fantasy land memorializing their excess picture-perfect lifestyle. Western Civilization started dying in the late 1700's. Today its on its death bed, barely conscious, with oblivion nearing at a much faster rate, soon to be overtaken by rising Eastern, Arabic, and quasi-Latino civilizations. In a few centuries people will wonder what it was like to live in Western Civilization.

American Fork, UT

If all we can do is embrace a vision of the past then we shall forever be disappointed because it is gone. We should try to figure out how to be who we are instead of who we were.

Bountiful, UT

Children should have a mother and a father. Meaning that adoptable children should go to homes where they can be raised by a mother and a father.

That said, if defending traditional families is the goal, then be respectful of people who choose differently. Years ago there was so much shame with being gay that many gay people chose to enter into heterosexual marriages to hide the fact they were gay. Churches who today claim to be defenders of tradional marriage even encouraged this. It goes without saying that any time a person marries another person they can't be attracted to, that marriage can not blossom. Nor is it fair to the other spouse.

A Scientist
Provo, UT

The lie implicit in the "supporters of traditional marriage" is the notion that same sex marriage is a threat to "traditional marriage".

It is not.

Granting legal status to same sex marriage will NOT "redefine (traditional) marriage" one iota.

Moreover, Traditional marriage advocates argue on the one hand that their support for "traditional marriage" can NOT be equated with animus against LGBT people (who aspire to marriage equality). Yet on the other hand, they equivocate by implying and (falsely) assuming that the desire for marriage equality is an attack (motivated by animus) against "traditional marriage".

It is not.

And such arguments betray the hypocrisy of the (typically religious) "traditional marriage" advocates.

Midlothian, VA

I know many young people who do not want to get married because that is when the fighting and problems begin. It is sad that the fundamental principle of family is being diminished by people who are misunderstanding family life.

It takes commitment, love, and forgiveness. It is a place to learn and grow. It is hard, but it is an important work! Believe in Family! It is the building blocks of our society!



You apparently missed the first part of my comment. Left-handedness isn't relevant to my workplace, whereas gender roles are a fundamental and indispensable aspect of parenting.


I'm not sure how you inferred a focus on material wealth on the part of Richard and Linda. I also think you vastly underestimate the ability of what we as humans are capable of accomplishing if we are committed to correct principles and have the freedom to live our lives as we see fit, which is the direction Richard and Linda are promoting.


Of course, there will never be mention of the damage done to families by Mitt Romney, the Koch Brothers, and other members of the 1% who are actively working to decimate the middle class. If we had more equality of opportunity, and if we would do our duty to punish the "success" that Romney, Koch, et al are having at destroying the middle class economy, we would have more marriages, we would have more children born in two parent families, and we could have single income households because it would be possible to actually make ends meet on a single income.

to comment

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