Comments about ‘Possible outcomes plentiful in appeal of Amendment 3 ruling’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, May 4 2014 8:04 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Ajax
Mapleton, UT

@ Lane Myer

I am sorry, but your logic is baffling. Heterosexual couples who are infertile or post-menopausal are still heterosexual. I am not sure why you equate them with homosexual couples. I cannot see why having children or not or questionable parenting skills of heterosexual couples are issues at all. I would think that heterosexuality and homosexuality are sufficiently different of themselves to warrant separate legal accommodations.

I fully support the rights of LGBT couples to legally join in unions of their choice. But to attempt to accommodate everyone within a one-size-fits-all marriage arrangement only leads to a legal and moral morass detrimental to all.

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

Mike Richards--you are confusing transgender people and gays. Transgendered people see themselves as a female in a male body, or vice versa. No, nobody has discovered a gay gene, but it is well established that a) gays felt different, from early childhood, and b) the chance that a boy baby will grow up to be gay rises steadily with the number of boys that his mother has been pregnant with before he was conceived. It makes no difference if the child is raised with these older brothers or if some or all of the older brothers were stillborn. The most likely explanation is that androgen and testosterone present in blood leakage during pregnancy and birth from the male fetus causes antibodies to be formed in the female and this influences the gender preference of the subsequent boys she bears. This is not the only factor involved in a boy being gay, but it is significant.

The percentage of gay boys in Utah is higher than, say, Vermont, because the birth rate per woman in Utah is higher and any given boy is more likely to have an older brother or brothers than in another state.

pbunny
Salt Lake, UT

"RedshirtUofU", you must really like your "desert island analogy" where you hypothetically put 1000 straight couples on one island and 1000 gay couples on another. I've seen you post it here at least 3 times. I guess your point is that gay folks shouldn't get married--since they die on the imaginary island. What would you think of also having 1000 infertile heterosexual couples on another island? When after 150 hypothetical years that island is filled with nothing but hypothetical corpses, will you take that to mean that infertile people shouldn't be allowed to marry? If your answer is "No" consider that the desert island analogy is simply a straw-man that you enjoy knocking down and it doesn't really mean or prove anything.

hockeymom
Highland, UT

@ Candied Ginger & Lane Myer
True, with science there are all kinds of ways to reproduce. I think the point is that God's plan (which BTW is also the laws of nature) is for male and female reproduction. Only that he has sanctified through marriage for all of His children. The experiment suggested by RedShirtUofU, has to do with what would happen under natural circumstances, not what is possible through science. God's hand may or may not be in those scientific methods, (invitro, surrogacy, etc.) and his hand is certainly not in the immoral circumstances (abandonment, neglect, abuse, etc.). Thankfully, there are good Moms & Dads who are willing to pick up the pieces and raise children brought to the earth through immoral means.

On the flip side, "Life" may find a way in the animal kingdom - I don't believe we want to be classified as animals, in fact have been given dominion over the animal kingdom, and are expected to rise above animalistic behavior. We have been counseled to "cast off the natural man", which means to rise above our base instincts and bridle whatever passions may "feel natural", but are deemed by Him to be immoral.

bj-hp
Maryville, MO

As Stated the Family Proclamation takes precedence over anyone elses as it so authorized by the Lord Jesus Christ himself. Those who refuse can and they can live how they wish but they shall stand before the Chief Judge and have to answer for disobeying the Proclamation to all. There is only one living Church upon the face of the Earth and Elder Ballard didn't mince words with it last night and neither shall I. This is a newspaper that is supported by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and should allow such to be posted.

hockeymom
Highland, UT

@ Laura Bilington
With all due respect, this sounds like somebody's "theory", and way too bogus to be scientifically backed up. Where is the research for this? Many many many families have multiple boy children who are all heterosexual. That theory boggles my mind.

Candied Ginger
Brooklyn, OH

@RedShirtUofU

We were willing to do civil unions, but state after state slammed the door in our face with laws and amendments outlawing any legal recognition of our relationships. Tired of standing outside the door begging, we are kicking it down and demanding, as Americans, our place at the table. Both court decisions and surveys show a growing majority agree with us.

@Mike Richards

I am a lesbian, a woman attracted to women. Not a man in a woman's body.

The causes of sexual orientation are not clear, however brain scans and other testing show neurological differences between straights and gays/lesbians. In other words, there are physical differences even if the causes have yet to be fully mapped. Current research is looking at genetic predispositions and hormones changes in the earliest part of pregnancy.

But it does not matter. My wife and I choose to be together, have a family, raise kids. Court after court is recognizing our legal right to do that and have the same legal protections as other couples.

@hockeymom
Statistics are not conclusive, but do show patterns researchers are following. Google it.

my_two_cents_worth
university place, WA

@1 Voice

No, it is you who has missed the point. You get to marry the person you wish to. In your world, however, gays and lesbians only get equality under the law if they choose to marry someone of the opposite sex, someone they wish not to marry. There will only be equality when gays and lesbians can marry who they choose OR you are not allowed to marry who your choose. Now, which way makes the most sense.

"Those in SS relationship are still free exercise their constitutional right to pursue happiness as they choose."

Unless, of course they want the same rights as you.

pbunny
Salt Lake, UT

Hi Hockeymom, I think Laura already made her maximum number of posts, but I will help you out. The effect you are questioning was first established in the 1990s. Many articles have been published since but the finding has never been refuted. If interested, please read:

Blanchard, Ray, and Anthony F. Bogaert. "Homosexuality in men and number of older brothers." American Journal of Psychiatry 153.1 (1996): 27-31.

A PDF of the article is free and available through googlescholar. It is mind-boggling, I agree, as is nature. We are amazingly complex creatures with amazingly complex systems that regulate sexual orientation.

Avenue
Vernal, UT

@Candied Ginger

While you may have the "legal right" in some states to be in a same-sex marriage, SSM is not a God given right. It is an abomination, as homosexuality is clearly seen as unnatural, according the Bible, which was written by God's ancient prophets.

"...God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
(Romans 1:26-27)

Tiago
Seattle, WA

Whether or not sexual orientation is changeable seems more important than the cause. The lived reality for the majority of people (gay and straight) is that sexual orientation (the gender of people we fall in love with) is binary, persistent, and immutable.
I am not arguing we are victims of nature. Highly motivated people can control conscious thoughts and actions. For example, straight guys can act gay in prison even thought they are not romantically attracted to other guys. Religious people who experience SSA can squash romantic and sexual desires that are out of bounds and some even marry someone of the opposite sex and reproduce. But, controlling conscious thoughts and actions does not change what gender a person is fundamentally attracted to.
Are opponents of SSM concerned that greater social acceptance will diminish the motivation for gay and lesbian people to suppress romantic and sexual desires? Are they concerned that less gay and lesbian people will be motivated to enter into mixed-orientation marriages?

hockeymom
Highland, UT

@ Tiago
I can only speak to my concerns - Yes, I think once a behavior is generally accepted, the likelihood that people who might not have tried it otherwise, will. For example - giving condoms without question in schools under the guise of "teens will do it anyway" may give kids who might have abstained, "courage" to have sex. Kids who are questioning their sexual orientation may experiment if it is deemed "OK" and natural. It seems to be the politically correct thing in liberal America to say you are at least "bisexual". If I say, "It's OK to play in the canal", my kids would, and their friends would join them. Remember what happened in the '60's with the "if it feels good, do it" generation. Lots of kids got sucked into lots of risky behaviors because their peers were doing it.

We want to preserve the morality in this country for many reasons - from the impact of research based social and health ills which homosexuality contributes to, as well as religious reasons already listed in this forum.

"America is great, because She is good. When America ceases to be good, She will cease to be great". Ezra Taft Benson

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

There hundreds, if not thousands, of verses and "rules" from the Bible that people choose to ignore. I don't understand the fixation with homosexuality. Why does nobody care if divorced people or people who commit adultery re-marry? Is that not an abomination according to God? Why aren't we fighting against people eating pork or shellfish? Why have we not outlawed tattoos? Why is it still legal to work on Sunday? Or Leviticus 19:27 “Ye shall not round the corners of your heads. Neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.” So haircuts and shaving should be outlawed too.... Right?

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Candied Ginger" please do the thought experiment. Imagine you have 100 random couples that are hetersexual and another 100 that are gay. Put each group on their own island with the essentials to survive (that means no test tubes or scientific equipment). Assuming that the couples are all 100% faithful, wait 150 years and observe the islands again. Which island will have people and which one won't?

Since the island with the gays does not have a natural means of reproduction, can you honestly say that they are equal to the hetersexual couples?

Since you keep insisting that gay couples are equal to hetersexual couples, it is now up to you to prove it. Prove to us that a gay couple is 100% equal to a heterosexual couple.

alanjones520
Tustin, CA

While I understand the religious point of view on this issue, it should be noted that the LDS church would be the least impacted of any religion or other organization if same-sex marriage becomes legal. Note there are other things legal that go against church doctrine like smoking, alcohol, sex outside of marriage, and the list goes on. These do not break the church. In the case of marriage the church has 2 levels of marriages, it can be said. One is the legal state marriage and the second one is the sealing in the temple. The church teaches the important one is the temple, so even if same-sex marriage becomes legal (which I think it likely will across the USA), it won't touch temple sealings. This is much the case is other countries where churches are not allowed to perform civil marriages, I think Brazil is one of them. And the church is not broken in Brazil.

USU-Logan
Logan, UT

@hockeymom

Nowadays, super majority of American people accept premarital sex, especially in young people. No matter how you disapprove it, it will happen. Giving out condoms is just a measure to protect people, also of public health interest.

Your kids and their friends are free to follow your discipline and only involve with people with opposite gender, but that doesn't mean other kids have to follow your way. They have their freedom too.

GingerAle
North East, OH

RedShirt, some couples can't afford medical artificial insemination. The procedure can be done with items from the average kitchen. Disallow kitchens, a first aid kit will suffice. Disallow that, I can think of several ways to create items needed.

You started with a conclusion and then placed restrictions until the only outcome was the conclusion you started with. It was not an "experiment," at best it is a meaningless exercise.

And two can play.

Your hetero island has no science, either, and they follow strict Biblical reproductive rules - intimacy is restricted to the most fertile part of the women's cycle.

At the end of 12 months there are 100 births. Allowing for nursing, year 3 sees another 100 births, year 5 another 100 and so on to year 17 with 100 original couples, 900 children, and the 17 year olds, who married at 16, add their own babies, making 150 births. Year 19, 200 births, year 21, 250.

After 150 years we find that resources were depleted in the first 50 years, overcrowding lead to disease, starvation followed, along with total social collapse.

That was fun.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

What is it with the liberals, you ask them to do a simple experiment in thought and they refuse to do so. They make things more complicated and have to twist things around just to make it so that they don't have to admit the truth.

To "GingerAle" since you don't want to actually post your response to the experiment, let me be blunt: Prove to us that the union of 2 gays is 100% equal to the union of a man and a woman.

I challenge you to do so. So far I just see many taking swipes at it, but they are afraid to actually offer anything showing that a gay union is the same as a marriage between a man and woman. IMHO you and others like you don't want to answer that challenge because you know that you can't.

GingerAle
North East, OH

Ok, Redshirt I'll keep playing.

On the gay island some people join together to create pottery, including some items to aid reproduction via non-scientific but very doable artificial insemination. Over the next two decades they have well over a hundred children. The second generation is 90 to 95% hetero, but they are raised in a village that values them as individuals who were wanted and planned for.

Over the next 150 years the society the village builds believes in sustainable growth and joyful living. Because of the gay and lesbian roots men are seen as highly creative and are expected to have a full range of feelings. Women are seen to be powerful and independent and from day one are equals in every part of the village. People are not shamed for being who they are and the society is peaceable.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "GingerAle" again, answer the core issue. Prove to us that the union of 2 gays is 100% equal to the union of a man and a woman.

I challenge you to do so. So far I just see many taking swipes at it, but they are afraid to actually offer anything showing that a gay union is the same as a marriage between a man and woman. IMHO you and others like you don't want to answer that challenge because you know that you can't.

to comment

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