Are Judges lawmakers. If that is the case we can throw away democracy, elected
representatives and the constitution as the judges find things in the
Constitution that are not in there to overturn the will of the people in the
name of so called Equal rights. Real sad thing is since Satan does not support
those that listen to him in the end people that engage in sin and try to make it
legal will not get his support once he has them drug down.
higv wrote:"Real sad thing is since Satan does not support those
that listen to him in the end people that engage in sin and try to make it legal
will not get his support once he has them drug down.I see a glaring
problem with your comment. Concepts such as "Satan" and "sin"
differ and conflict amongst various religious groups that profess a belief in
them, and are therefore, unreliable. The article discusses the
complicated and varied possible outcomes of the Marriage Equality issue as they
relate to the court system of the United States. Arguments that reference
"Satan" and "sin" are simply not relevant in a court of law. In
fact, offering them in a court setting would mark you as an un-serious person.
You are completely free to hold those beliefs and make those arguments to your
fellow citizens as a means of persuasion. Just be clear that they won't get
you anywhere in front of a judge.
"...Satan does not support those that listen to him in the end..."Wasn't his plan to limit--actually forbid--choice? I think we all
need to take a strong look at who is listening to Satan when we try to force all
people to live the same way. We know that such a plan does not leave room for
growth.It took me a long time to grow to the point of accepting who
I am and knowing that God still loves me. It took years of fasting and praying
to realize that I deserve to love and be loved. I finally understand that God
does not want me to be alone, and he's leaving it up to me to find somebody
I will love for the rest of my life--and beyond.For too long I was
listening to Satan. I believed that I wasn't worth loving. I believed I was
doomed to be alone for the rest of my life. Those are the lies that he has been
@higvJust like those SCOTUS justice who struck down Colorado
Amendment 2 which discriminates gay people, judges on this case they are also
just doing their jobs: follow the US constitution to determine whether Utah
Amendment 3 is constitutional. And my bet is they will strike down
Defining marriage as the union of a man and a women is constitutional. If
the courts rule (as the have) that it is not in the best interests of society to
redefine marriage to include polygamous marriages, then how we define marriage
isn’t about rights and it is within the constitution to bar same sex
marriages. I believe it is in societies best interest to define
marriage as between one man and one women. I hold this belief not because I am
homophobic or hateful. My opinion stems from my beliefs in God (a
constitutionally protected right) and my beliefs about why we are on earth, that
traditional marriage with all its flaws is best for society. It
isn’t about ones right to redefine marriage as many try to twist the
debate, it is about what is best for society. People have the right to pursue
happiness and if living with a same sex partner is what makes them happy so be
it. Any legal relationship concerns for these and other people who wish to live
together for what every reason can easily be managed through common law
States rights are the future, no matter the ruling! Even the tolerate anything
crowd will be annoyed at the federal intrusion into everything in our lives,
which is the natural result of not having any morals, but still wanting a civil
society! Can't have it both ways!
The Oklahoma case is kind of a mess because of the "standing" issue. The
Gay couples sued the Governor but the Circuit Court said that was the wrong
person to sue. They told them to start all over and sue the County Clerk
instead. Unlike Utah, in Oklahoma the County Clerk works for the judicial branch
so presumably the Governor would have now power over them. To make matters
worse, the State is challenging if the Clerk is the right person to sue. Its a
mess.Since both sides in the Utah case are in agreement as to the
issue of standing I doubt very seriously that's going to be a problem. One
outcome however, may be that the justices send the case back to Utah to have a
trial on the facts of the case. In particular, the assertion of the State that
excluding same-sex marriages is for the benefit of children.This is
what "full judicial review" is all about though. There will be several
rulings by several different District Courts before the Supreme Court takes one
up I expect.
Marriage is a religious institution and its definition is best left to people of
religion. The US Constitution nor its amendments does not say or imply that
marriage is a civil right, thus the court needs to except the proposed changing
of the definition of marriage in order to gain equal rights. This court and
others need to clear their minds and accept the facts above and decide for
marriage as a man and woman union, not something else.In California the
legislature defined civil unions for those same sexers who want legal
recognition for their unions. And the legislature gave equal rights under the
state laws to those civil unions. Case closed, and it's a model for other
governments. But the same sexers weren't satisfied until they could make
over the institution of marriage into something that it isn't for their own
(immoral) purposes and justifications.We can have a government that
realizes and supports equal rights under the law without changing the definition
of marriage from its time honored standing and biblical beginnings into
something convenient and politically correct in this day.
Find the picture accompanying this article interesting. And telling.Supporters of SSM and all things LGBT scream about the immorality and
illegality of crosses on highways at the site of car wreck victims--or
Nativities on public squares.But they don't see the irony of
the hypocrisy of co-mingling their 'religion' with the city offices of
@higv - Sir, you have it so terribly wrong. The Constitution is what grants
individuals rights not restrict individual liberties. A state law cannot
supersede federal law, the ruling found that state of Utah amendment three was
in violation of the 14th amendment. Hence, amendment three has been overruled
pending the state. The constitution is working as designed.
I can understand the frustration of those of same-sex attraction. Their stand
on equal civil rights is obviously constitutionally firm and their full
acceptance in society long overdue. Still, I see no advantage to anyone in
insisting that straight and gay unions be declared identical. Billions of years
of evolutionary growth unmistakably favoring bisexual unions and group welfare
prove otherwise. I would think that it is to everyone’s
benefit—straight and gay alike—to recognize and appreciate the
uniqueness of what got us here.
Red Corvette said, "Only one outcome counts and that will be the one issued
by the Supreme Court granting marriage equality to all."No, that
is very short sighted thinking. The only outcome that REALLY counts is what will
occur at judgement day when we will all stand before Jesus Christ and give an
accounting of whether or not we complied with His commandments. That is one
judgement that will not be overturned.
@ higvDietrich, ID"Are Judges lawmakers." No, they are
not. They are the branch endowed with the power to verify the constitutionality
of the laws passed by the US Congress and in this case by the States. You see,
Democracy may be a dangerous and misunderstood concept. The SCOTUS is precisely
there to prevent the tyranny of the majority over a minority. Our Constitution
Rocks!!!! don't you agree?Across the land of our country the
whisper of justice is "blowing in the wind". (Sorry, I was listening to
Peter, Paul and Mary this morning)Same Sex Marriage soon will be an
option in our country. That, my brothers and sisters is a beautiful thing. My
Heavenly Father is pleased!!!
@ higvThe Constitution exists to protect the minority from the
"will of the people." Also, this country is not a democracy. It's
To 1 Voice: I completely disagree with your points.Defining marriage as a
union of a man and a woman is not constitutional. The definition of marriage
cannot trample on the rights of anyone.I do not believe societies best
interest is to define marriage between man and woman. I believe it should be
defined where the maximum number of people benefit from it. My God also allows
woman to hold the priesthood and blesses same sex marriages, unlike yours.Your statement: "Any legal relationship concerns for these and other
people who wish to live together for what every reason can easily be managed
through common law relationship laws." Just read the second part of
Amendment 3 (2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized
as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect. It
specifically prohibits any other way of accomplishing the rights gained in
marriage including your so called common law relationship laws. (2)
No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or
given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.
Look at what the choice is. The Federal Government cannot rule on marriage -
according to the Supreme Court. The STATES have the right to determine what
form of marriage is acceptable within that State - according to the Supreme
Court. Judge Shelby disagreed with the Supreme Court. He used the minority
opinion as the basis for his ruling; therefore, according to same sex advocates,
the Supreme Court is wrong and Judge Shelby is right. God defined
marriage as being between a man and a woman. God declared that any sex outside
of marriage is wrong. Judge Shelby disagreed with God. Judge Shelby declared
that he, not God will define marriage.The people of Utah voted and
decided that marriage in Utah would be defined as a union between a man and a
woman. That became part of the Utah State Constitution. The Supreme Court
approved a State's right to decide. Judge Shelby legislated from the
bench, which is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. Again, Judge Shelby
decided that he was right, that the Supreme Court and the U.S. Constitution are
wrong.It is a strange case.
To Really??? I found your comment very moving and thought provoking. I am glad
that you have found your true self and now know what you are seeking and what is
intended for you. May you find that special someone and have a lifetime and
beyond of happiness.
The state legislature needed to make a law that if the amendment is found by a
court of law to be unconstitutional, all marriages based on "love"
should be considered legal. Those "loving" marriages should include
polygamy, marriages between close relatives, and marriages between adults and
their animal or physical possessions. After all, who are gays to say that
people with these "loving" desires should be denied their right to marry
what they "love?" This law would also force the judges to
consider the slippery slope argument up front. It would force those who want to
avoid the implications of marriage based on "love" to deal with the
logical reality - if there is a right to marry based on "love" it
extends to all people, no matter their inclination.
This is strange. No one who wrote or voted on the Constitution thought it
extended to redefining marriage to gay. No one who wrote or voted on the equal
protection clause thought it extended to redefining marriage to gay. No one who
wrote or voted on Loving v Virginia thought it extended redefining marriage to
gay. Yet, Utah has to spend millions protecting its Constitutional right because
a few rogue/shopped Judges one day decided that all those documents extend the
redefining of marriage to gay. I miss our democracy, and please don't
tell me we are not a democratic government because you are wrong.
The CA Prop 8 is still the best scenario to be litigated. THere, the government
provided a means for gays and lesbians to record their relationships. They
recieved all benefits of marriage so no benefits were lost to those groups. The term Civil Union was also a resonable term to describe these
relationships which are certainly different than what marriage has represented
throughout history. From a simple matter of proper communication and
understanding using the terms "Civil Unions" and "partner" are
better representations of what these relationship really represent. Wives
having wives just doesnt make sense.
@ BJMooseThe fact that we disagree is why this is in the courts.
Unfortunately, a few liberal judges in lower courts misunderstand the
ramifications of their misinterpretation of the constitution. The constitution
does not give individuals the right to define marriage as they wish. It is not
about equal rights. If it were then states could not restrict marriage in any
way as it would be considered discrimination. If polygamy and bigamy
can be excluded from the definition of what constitutes a legal marriage then so
can marriages between individuals of the same sex. If not then anything goes.
The constitutions does not guarantee the right to marry whomever you
want. Supporting traditional marriage does not, as you say, trample the rights
of individuals who wish to live in SS relations or polygamous relationships.
They still have the right to pursue happiness as they see fit.Again,
I believe traditional marriage with all its flaws is in the best of society.
This is why I support the traditional definition of marriage.
@ LovelyDeseret"I miss our democracy, and please don't tell
me we are not a democratic government because you are wrong."Nope. This country never has been, nor will it ever be, a democracy. We are
a republic. Listen to the Pledge of Allegiance once in a while. "I pledge
allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for
which it stands,....."Equal protection applies to everybody.
Nobody gets to pick and choose who gets rights.
Really? Arguing Satan, God, and The Bible in a courtroom. Good luck with that
legal strategy. Posts mentioning this only confirm how many in Utah are in for a
serious reality check once Judge Shelby's ruling is upheld.
Uhhh, hey guys. Satan isn't real. You know that, right?
@higv;The Constitution guarantees equal protection to ALL American
citizens. You should read it sometime. 'God' and 'Satan'
are irrelevant.@1 Voice;Article IV Section II:"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and
Immunities of Citizens in the several States."@dave4197;Many religions believe in marriage for LGBT. What about their religious
views? Don't they matter to you?@Ajax;Equal means
equal.@I Choose Freedom;Don't count your chickens
before they hatch; Jesus said "treat others as you want to be treated",
he didn't say "discriminate against others".@Mike
Richards;Once again, go re-read amendment 10. It PROHIBITS
violation of the rest of the Constitution by the states.@LovelyDeseret;Guess what, dear. LGBT people ARE Americans too AND
covered by the Constititution.@Back Talk;Separate is not
equal, besides Amendment 3 precludes Civil Unions.@1Voice;Polygamists and bigamists are already married to one person. That is what we
@MikeRichards 6:28 p.m. May 4, 2014What you apparently don't
understand is the fact that, while the states can control the decision-making
where marriage is concerned, the states' decisions cannot infringe on the
protections found in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. Judge Shelby
correctly found that Amendment 3 to the Utah Constutition violated the
Plaintiffs' 14th Amendment rights.Shelby's decision quoted
a dissenting opinion solely as dicta, and it did not serve as controlling
authority for his decision. Shelby's decision was soundly based on
controlling authority from a multitude of Supreme Court cases going back to the
1880s. Shelby agreed with the established and authoritative cases from the US
Supreme Court.Free to preach and argue God's law as much as you
want -- it is your 1st Amendment right to do so -- but recognize that
"God's law" is not controlling authority in the secular country
that is the USA. Shelby's job was to consider and interpret secular law,
not God's law, since the USA is not a theocracy. Shelby did not
"legislate from the bench" nor did he act contrary to the US
Constitution or the Supreme Court.
@Really??? "Men are that they might have joy". You do deserve to love
and be loved. We all do, but within the bounds the Lord has set. I sincerely
hope you can find true happiness. You may one day realize it will only come
from following the commandments of God. If you choose to live in this life
contrary to His commandments, you will be disappointed to find there won't
BE any happiness "beyond".@Baccus0902 & BJ Moose: I
don't know who your "heavenly father" or "god" is, but I
know mine is most certainly NOT pleased. If the definition of marriage can be
changed, I suppose the definition of God and His commandments will be next.
Good luck with that.@I Choose Freedom: I agree. I have had SSM
supporters vehemently state; "YOU will be on the wrong side of history".
I may be. But I choose to worry less about history and more about Eternity.
America has been great because she has been good. When she ceases to be good,
she will no longer be Great.
Of all the possible outcomes, I hope freedom rings. First amendment rights and
freedoms are so important. Taking away freedom of speech and freedom
of religion will only make the divide worse, not better.
So many claim that the 14th Amendment guarantees them the right to marry someone
of the same sex. That is completely false. Nothing in the
Constitution gives "rights" to anyone. All "rights" come from
our Creator (God), as declared in the Declaration of Independence. Any male can
marry any female who will have him. Homosexuals have told us that
there is no gene that "makes" them homosexual. They have told us that
there is no physical evidence that distinguishes them as homosexual. They have
told us that there is nothing that medical science can use to prove that someone
is homosexual. So, their only "evidence" is that they "feel"
differently towards others than those who are not homosexual. Nothing in the 14th Amendment gives anyone the "right" to claim
discrimination because of their "feeling".
Why can't Utah devote it's energy to helping families rather than
limiting the definition of these families?Gary Herbert turning down Medicare
funds that would insure a lot of people who can't afford it is a good
example of how they don't!
@Badgerbadger I sincerely hope that you do not define freedom as the ability to
take away the rights of a marginalized group. Your same arguments were used to
try and maintain slavery, prevent interracial marriage. and other atrocities.
Also, not all religions/faiths are against SSM.
Mike: "Is homosexuality learned, or is it the product of certain
childrearing practices, or are homosexuals "born that way"? Evidence
points to the latter conclusion.
First, there is the evidence cited earlier that children who become
homosexual are different from an early age. Second, there is the ease with which homosexual behavior can
be produced in non-human animals by manipulating sex hormones. Third, there is the discovery that
male homosexuals have brain areas and biological responses to sexual stimuli
that resemble those of heterosexual females more than those of heterosexual
males. Fourth, there is evidence
from a variety of sources pointing to genetic influences on homosexuality. to be continued...
Continued... " What are some
findings regarding genetic influences on homosexuality? One group of researchers studied
identical twins and found that, of 56 sets of identical twins in which one
member was gay, the other twin was also gay in 52 percent of the cases. That
means that nearly half the identical twins of gay men were not gay, so it
suggests a strong but not determinative genetic component (Adler, 1992) In
Thomas Bouchard's study of identical twins separated at birth, there were
three pairs of male identical twins in which at least one was homosexual. In two
out of three cases, the other twin was homosexual also, despite being raised in
a different household and never seeing his twin brother during
childhood."" Psychology: An Introduction by
Russell A. Dewey, PhD
"Again, I believe traditional marriage with all its flaws is in the best of
society. This is why I support the traditional definition of marriage."Good for you. I fully support your right to define your marriage this
way. Define away, till you turn blue. I have one of those trusty "tradtional
marriages" myself, and it works pretty well most of the time.I'll never support the idea that "supporting traditional
marriage" has to also mean "forbidding gay marriages." Valuing one
thing does not automatically mean you have to actively prohibit the other. The
word games we play are just that; games. When someone says "I support
traditional marriage," it's just a softer way to say "Gay people
ain't getting married while I have anything to say about it!"Just drop the disingenuous use of buzzwords and say what you mean. Repeat
after me: "All this gayness is icky and I don't like it. Even though
it's been happening for ages, if they can't get married, I can kinda
sorta ignore it. Something something Satan and states' rights." See? Much more honest.
Wow. The willful ignorance by the SSM supporters on this topic is pretty
staggering (Ranch, I'm looking at you).#1. Equal Protection
does not take precedence over States Rights under the 10th Amendment. If it
did, Utah could be forced to legalize pot because Colorado is doing it, and a
thousand other State-specific laws. Nice try.#2. "Separate is
not equal" is false. We have separate bathrooms for men and women, separate
schools for young and old, and the handicapped. Separate universities for the
more ambitious and the less so. Separate does not mean not equal. Different
people have different needs, true equality will never exist because we are human
beings and we are all unique.#3 It is most certainly NOT the
responsibility of judges to ensure minorities are protected from the majority.
Their responsibility is to uphold the Constitution, period. The Constitution
does not allow for States Rights to be undermined for any group, minority OR
The SC ruled today that prayer, even Christian prayer, is allowed to be held in
town council meetings. This is all the evidence you need to understand that
individual States and communities can have differing laws, based upon the
MAJORITY of its citizens desires.This can be applied to prayer in
school and marriage laws in individual States. Under the Constitution, State
majorities have the right to define laws for its own people. Equal Protection
does not undermine this one bit.If the courts are consistent with
today's ruling, they will side with the Constitution and the 10th Amendment
in allowing Utah to continue its own definition of marriage.
1 Voice said: "My opinion stems from my beliefs in God"And why should your belief in god trump the civil rights of others? "It isn't about ones right to redefine marriage as many try to
twist the debate, it is about what is best for society."41% of
1st marriages end in divorce (60% for second marriages); number of people
choosing to marry is at an all time low; and, 40.7% of all births to single
mothers. Looks like "between one man and one woman" is doing a bang-up
job."Any legal relationship concerns for these and other people
who wish to live together for what every reason can easily be managed through
common law relationship laws."We already have the legal
mechanism in place to meet these needs. It's called state licensed
marriage.dave4197 said: "Marriage is a religious institution and
its definition is best left to people of religion"Marriage is a
civil function of the state. Churches are granted permission to represent the
state in performing marriages; not the other way around.
Many of those who wish to legalize same-sex marriage need to listen to an
Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ and what he had to say last night. As he
stated and what was stated a few months ago. Courts may legalize same-sex
marriage but they can't change the moral law. The Law of Chasity states
that sexual relations is only authorized between those that are legally married
in the definition the Lord has given to the WORLD through the Family
Proclamation. As I stated the world so that applies to everyone that lives on
earth, has lived on earth or will live on Earth. Failure to do so will bring
the magnitude of punishment from our Heavenly Father as seen in the Book of
Mormon and the Flood. If you are willing to give into the deceivings of Satan
and become part of his cohorts then that is your choice. It is your choice to
act upon your attractions and that was made perfectly clear by Elder Ballard.
Whether you recognize him or not is not the question. The fact is the he is an
Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ.
"...States rights are the future...".Back...to the
future...Slavery and anti-miscegenation laws will be the future?
@illuminated;1) You are incorrect. The states are PROHIBITED from
violating the US Constitutional rights of citizens (go re-read 10th the
amendment).The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor PROHIBITED by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people. (i.e. states are prohibited from violating the
other sections of the US Constitution).2) Your bathroom analogy is
ridiculous - in your home, the males/females share a bathroom right?3) It is absolutely the role of judges to rule on the constitutionality of
laws - especially when they disenfranchise a minority.@bj-hp;You only have the word of your "apostle of the Lord" that he
really is one. I don't believe he is so whatever he has to say is, imo,
not the truth.
@bj-hp, you must have and old copy of the Proclamation. The new update can be
found here:2014 Proclamation from the National Cathedral"LGBT men and young women will continue to be vulnerable to the sins of
homophobia and heterosexism, to the violence of hate and fear until we in the
church can say to homosexuals now what it has said to heterosexuals for 2,000
years. Your sexuality is good. The church not only accepts it. The church
celebrates it and rejoices in it. God loves you as you are, and the church can
do no less." Rev Jerry hall
Dear Editors: If somebody wrote “The pope is the only true earthly
representative of Jesus Christ”, it would be flagged as disruptive. As it
should be, no matter how fervently the writer believes it. Please, then, tell
me why you allow comments such as “Whether you recognize him or not is not
the question. The fact is the he is an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ” .
This discussion is not, and shouldn’t be of whose religion is the
“true” one, let alone making announcements about hell as a
destination for anybody who doesn’t follow your religion.
Ranch:The bathrooms in my home and the ones in pucblic are very
different. "Separate but equal" exists throughout our society and is
perfectly fair and logical. In CA, same-sex couples had every right they could
ask for, but still went to court to use the word "marriage". There was
nothing to gain but to damage and destroy the institution of marriage. But then,
that is the plan for the LGBT....
@RedWings;Sorry but you didn't do your homework. Civil unions
in CA did NOT provide all the legal protections and benefits of marriage, only
the local ones.The only ones who can "destroy the institution of
marriage" are those who are married and are not doing a very good job at it.
@ RanchYour arguments make the case against SSM very well. It is fair that
everyone has the same rights under the constitution to marry one person of the
opposite sex. Everyone is treated the same and that would be fair.Polygamous marriage is banned by law and you seem to be OK with restricting
marriage in that way. Logically you should then be OK with restricting marriages
between people of the same sex. Marriage is not a constitutional
right only that we treat people equal under the law. Supporting traditional
marriage, even with all its flaws, is what is best for society and should be
law. Everyone is then treated equal under the law which allows marriage only
between two adults of the opposite sex. As you say, that would be fair.
To "Really???" that is a nice emotional response, but lets look at the
grand plan. God loves everybody. From Hitler to Mother Teresa, they are all
loved by God. I know that there are people who's heads are going to
explode thinking about that, but it is true. God loves all his children.The question is do you love God enough to do the things that he has
asked? I don't question God's love for all his children, even the
murderous ones. I do question the love that God's children have for God
when they rebel against His commandments.To the Gay Marriage
supporters. Why do you insist on declaring gay marriage the same as hetersexual
marriage? They are not the same. Before you respond, lets do an experiment.
If you take 100 heterosexual couples and put them on an island and give them the
things needed for survival and wait 150 years. Now do the same with 100 gay
couples. If the couples are 100% faithful, which island will have people on it
after 150 years?If you want to think about the children, explain how
a gay household can provide their children with a mother and father.
@Laura Bilington...Mam, my I say what an excellent post your wrote to The D.N.
Editors referencing the religious card. Now. Try living in Salt Lake City!
Hi, dave4197"Marriage is a religious institution and its
definition is best left to people of religion."Ok, the religions
can have marriage. But that means marriage has no civil and legal meaning.
None.Your wife wants your last name after your religious marriage?
Get lawyer and file. You want mutual power of attorney for medical
care? Get a lawyer.You want to file taxes as a couple... sorry,
"marriage" a religious rite and not recognized by the IRS. You want to inherit without tax penalty? Sorry, you are married and that does
not help with taxes. And your kids? Your church may see them as
yours, but the law says they are illegitimate because marriage is only a
religious thing. Breaking up? Fight over the property as you see
fit... your marriage is a religious thing, there are no legal protections. Sounds like a plan to me. The church can define marriage any way it
wants and the state has no involvement at all. Oh. By the way. I am
a Unitarian. My church, along with about 70 others, recognize and affirm
@1 Voice"It is fair that everyone has the same rights under the
constitution to marry one person of the opposite sex. Everyone is treated the
same and that would be fair."How about we really level the
playing field? Here's my suggestion: you (if you are married) divorce your
current spouse. Next, find someone of the opposite sex who you really have no
desire to spend the rest of your life with and marry them. Don't like that
idea? Tough, it is EXACTLY what you are suggesting as the equitable solution for
the LGBT community and I think it should apply equally to you as well.
@ RanchYou are mistaken in your claim of unconditional equal rights
for all. Surely you are aware that equal rights are qualified under law.
Violate the conditions of your rights to drive, own property, etc. and see what
happens.And laws vary according to circumstances. By law the rights
of children differ from those of adults; the rights and obligations of divorced
parents vary according to their circumstances, and on and on. So while there
are similarities in heterosexual and homosexual unions, by no stretch of the
imagination are their circumstances and conditions identical. To pretend
otherwise is short-sighted and limiting to both.
"To the Gay Marriage supporters. Why do you insist on declaring gay marriage
the same as hetersexual marriage? They are not the same. Before you respond,
lets do an experiment. If you take 100 heterosexual couples and put them on an
island and give them the things needed for survival and wait 150 years. Now do
the same with 100 gay couples. If the couples are 100% faithful, which island
will have people on it ?"------------------Both.
There are other ways of having children besides being unfaithful. Thank science
and ingenuity. ______________Now take older, infertile
heterosexual couples and put them on an island. Would they have people on it in
150 years? Why do we allow older, infertile couples to marry? With your logic,
we shouldn't. Give gays the same marriage that you give older,
infertile couples. Keep your other marriage for those who are going to have
children.What? There is only one kind of marriage? Let's pass
a law to keep gays from marrying since they are not worthy of that privilege in
our beliefs...they are sinners and will bring the distruction of our civilation
(and just forget that we are treating them differently than other simularily
too bad the ballot that was passed by the people means nothing, when 3 people
Hi, RedShirtUofUAbout your experiment. My wife and I
adopted two kids, but before that we looked into artificial insemination. We
know several lesbian couples who have children through this means. No cheating,
a medical procedure. We also know of two gay male couples who have children
through a surrogate, via artificial insemination from one of the fathers.But what is your point? If you put 100 infertile hetero couples on an
island they wont be able to have children without medical help. Or a hundred
couples where the woman is post-menopause. But your experiment is
flawed from the start, because the parameters are meaningless. We are raising
two kids who were stuck in the system because they are special needs. Several
couples we know have adopted special needs kids. Gays and lesbians
who don't have children also help with the children of relatives and
friends - one of my best friends says she will never, ever have children but she
is my most trusted baby sitter. Oh, and she is straight and intends to never
marry. About your island? To quote Dr. Ian Malcolm, "Life finds
Ajax: Read all about "simularly situated" and how it applies to equal
protection of the law. Is there any heterosexuals who are allowed to marry who
are simularly situated as gay couples? Hint: infertile couples and older
post-menopausal couples.Why are they allowed to marry and not
gays?Why are murderers allowed to marry? How about child molesters?
Again, allowed to marry and have children!Yet you want to fight
against two loving, same-sex partners committing their lives to each other?Why are you wasting your time on such a small portion of the
populations? Why not work to better society by teaching marriage to the
children of the US? Teach them how to abstain until marriage or use safe sex.
Over 40% of children today are born to unwed mothers. That is where the problem
lies! Not in the small 1.25% of the population that might want a same sex
marriage.Why the obsession with keeping them from the same rights
and privileges that others who are simularly situated enjoy? That is why
"equality under the law" or the 14th amendment will rule in this case.
Not beliefs or tradition - but our constitution.
@ my_two_cents_worthYou missed the point. Read Ranch's post
regarding why he thinks its OK to restrict polygamous marriage but not SSM. If this issue were truly about a constitutional right to marry then
states could not restrict marriage in anyway as that would be discriminatory in
some way to some group who wants to define marriage according to what would
benefit them. We define and restrict marriage as traditional
marriage, with all its flaws, because that is what is best for society. We do
not based marriage on how individuals wish it to be defined. Those in SS
relationship are still free exercise their constitutional right to pursue
happiness as they choose. They are treated equally under the law.
To "Lane Myer" so then you agree that gay marriage is not the same as
hetersexual marriage based on the simple fact that the gays require scientific
means to reproduce and hetersexual couples don't.If the gays
want something similar to marriage, let them have it, but don't say that it
is equal to marriage between a man and a woman because (as you helped point out)
they are not the same. If they gays want to be unionized or joined or
partnered, or whatver they want, let them, as long as they don't call it
marriage. Had they gone that route they would most likely have laws in every
state that would grant legal recognition of their unions that mirrors marriage
for hetersexual couples.
@ RedShirtUofUBeing able to have children has never been a
requirement for marriage. Infertile couples, elderly couples, and heterosexual
couples who have no intention of having children get married all the time.
Conversely, there are thousands of same-sex couples who have, and are raising
children. Also, single people can adopt in this state, leaving children without
a mother and a father. Why aren't you upset about that? Are you equally
appalled by divorce as you are by SSM?
mrjj69"too bad the ballot that was passed by the people means
nothing, when 3 people override it."I think George Wallace said
almost exactly the same thing when he was standing in the school house door.RedShirtUofU"Had they gone that route they would most
likely have laws in every state that would grant legal recognition of their
unions that mirrors marriage for hetersexual couples."Not in
Utah. Amendment 3 specifically said gays and lesbians could not have any
recognition of their relationships at all in any way. In fact, most
of the amendments had language like that. So instead of agreeing to
something separate but possibly equal, you voted to deny us any possibility of
any rights at all. Sorry, that ship sailed and it was not by our
choice. In Utah it was 66% of the voters who made the decision that lead
directly to where we are today.
To "Two For Flinching" I never said that being able to have children was
a requirement for marriage. I am saying that the fact that in general
heterosexual couples can have children makes their marriage different than the
union of 2 gays.I don't think that single people should adopt,
that isn't good for children either. Yes, I think the divorce rate is much
to high and the no-fault divorces should be done away with. Just because I
don't list out all marriage related issues that bother me does not mean
that I don't care. What about abuse within marriage, are you ok with that
or should we spend more time combating abusive relationships?To
"Candied Ginger" what do you think would be easier for people to accept.
Gays telling them that marriage is whatever the gays decide it will be, or the
gays asking to have their unions granted the same rights as marriage without
calling it marriage?
I claimed that homosexuals had no gene that caused them to be homosexual.
Several posters stated that "studies" showed that homosexuals were
different. Okay. What GENE can be found in homosexuals that defines them as
homosexual? What chromosome exists in homosexuals that does not exist in
heterosexuals? What physical evidence could be used in court under oath to prove
that a male is really a female in a male body? Without physical
evidence to the contrary, there is no discrimination. "Feelings" are
not a legal basis for discrimination. If feelings were allowed as an excuse, no
bank robber could ever be convicted. All he would need to say us that he
"felt" the need to be rich. Under the "equality" clause of the
14th Amendment, he would prevail.
@ Lane MyerI 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.
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
"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
@ Candied Ginger & Lane MyerTrue, 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.
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.
@ Laura BilingtonWith 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.
@RedShirtUofUWe 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 RichardsI 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.
@1 VoiceNo, 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.
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.
@Candied GingerWhile 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)
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?
@ TiagoI 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
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
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.
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.
@hockeymomNowadays, 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
RedShirtI did the experiment. You didn't like the results so
you changed the rules. I played again, and again you object to the simple
conclusion. According to over 50 courts, starting with the
Massachusetts Supreme Court a decade ago and now the US Supreme Court and
several dozen federal district courts there is no legal difference between Same
Sex and Opposite Sex couples. This has been proven in court case after court
case across the country. My wife and I are a couple. We have a home,
pay bills, are raising our kids. We go to church, I volunteer at the school and
help with Girl Scouts. We have 2 cars and worry about retirement as we save to
buy a house. We have friends and family and are part of the community. We adopted our kids instead of creating them together, biologically. That is
the only difference between us and the couple next door - a hetero couple who
have 2 kids. Prove we are different. Not with a bogus "thought
experiment" - actually prove that our relationship is not equal. Some fine
legal minds have tried and failed. Good luck.
@GingerAleYou don't need to reply RedShirt series' sophist
posts. His logic is totally deceiving: same sex couples are not the same as
hereto couples; therefore, they should not be equal. Base on his
so-called "logic", men and women are not the same, they should be
treated equally under the law either. I mean, if his argument or
"experiment" is so compelling, why Mr. Schaerr did not use it in court?
Is it because his argument is irrational? Or is it because his experiment is
To "GingerAle" if I read your responses correctly, you agree that a gay
union is not the same as marriage between a man and a woman.Through
your examples, you have left out the fact that on the island with the gays that
the rates for physical and emotional abuse are much higher. Then, according to
the census only 27% of lesbians and 14% of gay men had children. That means
that the longer you carry out the experiment, you would run out of kids or else
end up with too much inbreeding to carry on.First, from a biological
sense where there is not a natural way for a gay couple to conceive a child.
Which leads to the fact that 2 women or 2 men are not the same as a man and a
woman.We can also go into the differences that exist when a man and
woman marry that are different than when a gay couple is united.Try
as you might, you can never prove that a gay couple is equal to a hetersexual
couple.To "USU-Logan" FYI men and women are not treated
equally under the law. Talk to any divorced man.
@RedShirt1701Your so-called "logic" is like 100 years ago,
someone argued: since men can vote, but women can not, they are not equal,
therefore, men and women SHOULD NOT be treated equally under the law.Fortunately, Mr. Schaerr is smart enough not to bring such argument to the
court, because he knew it would only fail miserably.And BTW, I
don't know how many RedShirt ID you have, RedShirt, RedShirt1701,
RedShirtMIT, RedShirtUofU, RedShirtCaltech..., you can keep on posting your
comments as many as you like. but I don't have time to debate on your
"logical" argument. This is my 4th and the last comment on this article.
@RedShirtUofUAre you comparing me more to Mother Teresa or Hitler? I
find it interesting that you would insinuate that I am rebelling against God. I
don't think you know who I am, nor do you understand my heart. This, you
see, is the true problem that we are facing with this issue.I have
prayed about who I am for years, and I did not receive the answers I wanted for
far too many of them. It wasn't until I asked God if he accepted me the way
that I am that I finally found the internal peace that was missing for too long.
You see, I received inspiration how to live MY life the best way I can with the
cards I have been dealt. God's not going to inspire my neighbor or some
stranger who reads the same newspaper about how I should live my life.
@GingerAle--Two Thumbs Up! @Redshirt--I Love the desert island thought
GingerAle -- I enjoyed reading about the island and how it turned out. It sounds
like a nice place. Really??? -- I appreciate your testimony. I hope
the people who do know you are more supportive than people on these comments who
don't.For anyone interested in better understanding and having
empathy for the complex reality of same-sex attraction, I encourage you to check
out a new series on youtube you can find if you search for
"ldswalkwithyou." They are stories of faithful LDS families dealing
lovingly with LGBT family members.
RedShirtYou keep changing the subject, your name, and the rules of
your thought "experiment." Straight and gay relationships
include love, trust, mutual attraction, partnership, companionship, and desire
for happiness. You seem to focus on "parenting," which has
nothing to do with being a couple. Even Utah marriage law is separate from Utah
family law. Creating a child is a biological act, nothing more.
Teenagers, drunks, drug addicts, murderers, strangers sharing a physical moment,
even a couple on the brink of divorce. All can make a baby. Parenting - actually raising a child to be a successful and happy human -
requires time, attention, love, consistency and commitment. It can be done by a
single parent, but works best if shared by two parents and the gender of the
parents does not matter. Same-sex relationships are equal and
equivalent to opposite-sex relationships. Same-sex parenting has one minor
difference, which on the whole is the least important part of parenting. Again, your thought exercise is not an experiment. It starts with your
conclusion and goes in a circle while ignoring reality. It proves nothing.
@Redshirt: You're asking the wrong question. First of all, no marriage is
equal to any other marriage. A marriage is whatever two people make it.
Everyone is different, so every marriage is both the sum and the product of that
difference.Zsa Zsa Gabor, Lana Turner, Jennifer O'Neill, Larry
King, Liz Taylor and Mickey Rooney were married a total of 50 times, each of
them 8 or 9 times. None of those marriages were the equivalent of my one
marriage of 30-something years so far, and counting.The correct
question is, can we tell people whose only possible romantic affinity is to
someone of the same sex that they shouldn't be able to marry their
sweetheart? Marriage is much more than sexual activity. (Ask anyone who's
married!) No marriage survives without an abiding love for each other. We
Quakers believe that that love is God's love, the universal source of all
love, and let no man set asunder, etc.What Courts are seeing now is
that once you consider religious doctrine with neutrality, the legal basis is
pretty clear. There's no fundamental legal reason to prohibit same-sex
@RedShirt: "Prove to us that the union of 2 gays is 100% equal to the union
of a man and a woman."Prove it isn't. You make a claim
here, that a gay or lesbian couple is somehow not equal to a hetero couple. You make the claim, then do nothing to actually back it up. You just
make the claim. You also conflate "marriage" with
"parenting," and then confuse the act of parenting with the act of
procreation. The former takes extensive commitment, the later requires genitals
and (fortunate or unfortunate) timing. Please demonstrate, with
something beyond unsupported assertions or religious verbiage, that Same Sex
couples are not the legal, social, and emotional equivalent of Opposite Sex
couples. Then please demonstrate, with something beyond unsupported
assertions or religious verbiage, that Same Sex couples are not able to provide
a healthy, stable, nurturing home to raise children into healthy, balanced,
happy adults. Thank you.
To "TrihsDer" that is easy, just remember I am speaking in general
terms. On a basic level, you have the biological differences. Men are
physically different than women. If you want to go deeper, read the book
"Men are from Mars". The psychological, emotional, and communication
differences between men and women is quite different, and must be overcome to
form a successful marriage. If you have 2 men or 2 women, you don't have
the same challenges. Marriage is about more than children.To "A
Quaker" yes, we should tell gays that they can't be married. They can
have a union that has equal protections, but no, they are not married.To "GingerAle" actually I have not been changing the subject. I have
only been after one thing from you and people like you. I want you to prove
that gay marriage is 100% equal to hetersexual marriage. The experiment was
intended to make you think about the differences and the basis of society. I
can't make you think and respond to something you don't want to.To "Really???" I am comparing you to neither. Being loved by
God is a given. Loving and obeying god isn't.
@RedShirtCalTech:A glib pop-culture title as a "reference"?
What's next? Dr. Phil?Be that as it may, I read that and found
I identified more with the Venus than Mars, and always have. It gave problems
when I tried to be in OS relationships, and it caused some conflict in my
over-all much happier SS relationships.In real-world relationships -
not thought experiments - the differences exist in both hetero and same-sex
relationships and must be overcome to form a successful partnership. Besides... so what? A successful relationship is successful - it works for the
two people involved. Some never have a cross moment, some spend 50 years
bickering and love each other dearly. Some have every interest in common, some
seem to have no connection to each other. Both can be happy or miserable. @GingerAle answered your thought experiment very carefully and
thoroughly. She just didn't reach the conclusion you were trying to force.
Please demonstrate, with something beyond unsupported assertions or
religious verbiage, that Same Sex couples are not the legal, social, and
emotional equivalent of Opposite Sex couples. So far you have
RedshirtLegally equal:1 man = 1 woman in our laws.So, 1 man + 1 woman = 1 man + 1 man = 1 woman + 1 woman.Simple math.Socially equal:This has passed the over
50% acceptance threshhold and so more people accept their equality than reject
it. Those who still reject it are dying off gradually and it will soon be a
totally acceptable assertion that they are equal.Emotionally
equal:Both same sex couples and opposite sex couples want to commit
to each other legally. The statistics that I read the other day is that 26% of
heterosexuals are married. That is probably about the same % of gays that want
to marry. Emotionally, both fall in love, some want families and some want
companionship. I don't think you can make any comparisons between the two
without giving gays marriage for a while and see if they are not just as good
(or just as bad) as heterosexuals have been.Peace
@RedShirt: You and your church are free to tell people (gay, straight,
conservative, liberal, tea party, other religions, whoever) anything you want.
It's a free country and your right of free speech is protected. As is your
right to exercise your religion. They're both in the First Amendment,
along with freedom of the press.But, so is everyone else's. My
right of free speech is equal to your right. My right of freedom of religion is
equal to yours. It doesn't matter if you consider me a heretic or I
consider you a Philistine. That's also our right.But, when it
comes to deciding the orderly exercise of individual rights, and interpretation
of our Constitution, that's neither of our rights. We can't ban each
other's religions, and we can't petition the government to adopt
either of them. And a good thing that is, too. As for interpreting secular law
and how that applies to Due Process and Equal Protection, that's up to the
Court.May God guide them to a decision that honors God's Light
and Love equally in every person, regardless of their religious affiliation or
@RedShirtA Thought Experiment:The Love Boat runs aground
on Gilligan's Island. Wacky hi-jinks ensue and all radios and lifeboats are
destroyed, leaving no hope of escape or rescue. The Castaways
realize there are 100 straight men and 100 straight women on the island and
begin to couple up and, eventually, have children. Fifteen years
later the oldest children have matured and are starting to pair up. As time goes
by the adults realize that 95% of the children are forming opposite-sex pairs,
but about 5% are in same-sex couples. Do the adults:1.
Punish those children until they conform?2. Kill the
same-sex-attracted children to protect the integrity of the community?3. Deny them food, water, and shelter for the benefit of the 95% who are
obeying the rules?You must decide what these adults should do to
protect the 95% of their offspring who are in traditional relationships.
To "MtnDewer" but 1 man is not equal to 1 woman within the US laws. One
prime example is the Draft. Men are required by law to sign up for it and women
are not. Divorce laws are set up to favor women. Many of the latest
convictions of women who sexually abuse minors have shown us that women
don't receive as harsh of punishments as men for the same crime. Men can
walk around bare chested in public and women can't.There are
many laws that apply to one gender and not the other, so even within the law
they are not the same.To "TrihsDer" I can tell you have not
read the book Men are from Mars. Yes it was popular at one time, but that
doesn't mean that the points it makes are any less valid. It was written
by an expert in relationship counciling. It is as valid as any AGW study.In your experiment, lets imagine what would happen if on that island
they found a herbal remidy that balanced the brain chemistry of those with same
sex attraction and eliminated it all together. Gays are not punished.
@Redshirt1701You didn't follow my rules. You twisted things and
didn't give the answer I wanted... Silly, right? You called it
a thought experiment, when Ginger played you were all offended because she
actually thought and came up with an answer. There are differences
between men and women. But in many parts of the world men and women can go
bare-chested and it is not an issue. In some countries men and women are
drafted, in others women don't serve in the military at all. Many
"gender differences" are cultural, none have to do with SSM. And some
countries officially define marriage as 2 people, regardless of gender. Yes, I read "MAFMWAFV." Spent time studying it because I did
not, in many ways, fit the stereotypes he presented. The latest studies in brain
imaging show that gay men's brains often elicit results closer to that of
women, which may explain my dilemma. I got more from "The
Five Love Languages," and after two decades still find "The Color
Code" a good relationship resource. Both look at personality devoid of
gender stereotypes and I find that much more useful.
"One prime example is the Draft. Men are required by law to sign up for it
and women are not. Divorce laws are set up to favor women."========Haven't been around divorce court very much lately?
They are NOT set up to favor women, but are set up to favor the one who stays
home or has given up their career to take care of the children. That can also
be the man, believe it or not. That is why there is alamony payments, etc. If
both are working and there are no children, it is an even split. Custody cases
are again usually given to those who are taking care of the children the most
and that too can be the man. Right now there is no draft. Men are
still signing up at the draft board, but if, and I hope this never happens
again, that we need the draft, I believe that both men and women will be
drafted. Each will be able to serve where they are best suited. That might
mean that because most men are stronger than women, they will be serving on the
front line. But women have served there too.
@Red Shirt...Continue grasping my friend. Eventually you may come up with
something logical to post rather then spewing your particular religious
ideology. By the way. Religious ideology is irrelevant in a courtroom! Equality
will soon arrive for all rather then a select few.
To "MtnDewer" so, you agree that right now, under the law men and women
are not equal, the Draft is sufficient proof of that. It doesn't matter
what you say you hope for in the future, the fact is that there is inequality in
the draft laws.I noticed that you ignored the decency laws and the
rulings against women that sexually abuse minors.If what you say
about divorce is true, why is it that so many news articles, and law web sites
state that divorce laws favor women? Based on what is available on the
internet, what you say has no basis in reality.To
"Jimmytheliberal" you are the one who needs to keep grasping. Despite
what your ilk claim, gay unions will never be 100% equal to marriage between a
man and a woman.
Redshirt,Find out who goes into poverty the most often when there is
a divorce with children and report back...hint - It's the one who has the
children...That is a fact.
@Redshirt1701 said: "Despite what your ilk claim, gay unions will never be
100% equal to marriage between a man and a woman."To quote a
great Spanish swordsman "“You keep using that word. I do not think it
means what you think it means."To date, you have claimed almost
incessantly that gay unions will never be 100% equal. And, to date, you have not
backed your claim with any facts or information to support your position. You tried to show that "marriage" equals "procreation"
and failed utterly. The rate of single mothers in the country is proof. You tried to show that "marriage" equals "parenting" and
we find that, while Gay and Lesbian couples make fine parents, the state of Utah
separates marriage law and family law and in no place requires married couples
to parent or parents to marry. In fact, the only thing you have done
is demand others answer your question and then ignore their answers. So: Prove that Gay marriage cannot be equal to hetero marriage.
To "Trihs Der TalCech" I don't think you understand what equal
means for something to be 100% equal that means that in every way things are
equal.Gay marriage involves 2 people of the same gender. That is
not equal to 2 people of opposite genders. They are not the same biologically.
Next, you have the psychological differences. Psycholgically a heterosexual
couple is different because typically men look to fix and solve problems, and
women need to release their emotions related to problems. In a marriage between
heterosexuals they must work to overcome the psychological differences. When
you have 2 men or 2 women, you typically don't have that.Again,
prove that gay unions are 100% equal to heterosexual marriage. Why can't
you do that simple thing. I have proved that they are not equal biologically
and psychologically. You just keep insisting that they are equal. PROVE IT.
redshirt: "Gay marriage involves 2 people of the same gender. That is
not equal to 2 people of opposite genders. They are not the same
biologically."----------------Older couple marriage
involves 2 people who are unable to procreate. That is not equal to 2 people
who can procreate. They are not the same biologically.------------------Now put in infertile couples.----------------Gays are only asking for the same marriage
benefits that an older or infertile heterosexual couple has. And if it is the
same as a fertile heterosexual couple - so be it! If a couple is raising
children, whether or not they are heterosexual, they should be able to protect
those children using our marriage laws to provide the most stable environment
with all the benefits that any married couple can afford to those children. Can
you, Redshirt, tell my why those children should not have those things?Why shouldn't a gay married couple have the same benefits and privileges
that an older couple has? What is their difference that makes the heterosexuals
so special? Don't say how they have sex, please...many older couples
don't even worry about that small part of their lives and yet we allow them
to remain married.
@RedShirt: You have "proved" absolutely nothing. But, for the sake of
argument, let's say you were right. So, what?Here, in this
America, we start from the premise that it's a free country, that people
can do what they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone. We all have
that gift of liberty, as well as guaranteed individual rights. The
question is, if you want to criminalize same-sex marriage (and the Utah statutes
pretty much do just that and will jail or fine a clergyman who conducts one),
you have an obligation to show that it victimizes someone.Not long
ago, we had a slew of antisodomy laws on the books. While they're still on
the books in many states, the Supreme Court ruled that private sexual conduct
between non-consanguineous consenting adults was not a matter that could be
criminalized, and they voided all those laws. No victim, no crime.If SCOTUS ruled that sodom-y is a Constitutionally protected personal choice,
why on God's good Earth do you imagine they're going to rule that
To "MtnDewer" but the hetersexual couple that is infertile is
biologically and psychologically the same as the fertile couple. The women were
born with women parts, and the men were born with man parts. They are
indistinguishable.Having children or the ability to have children is
not, nor has it been a requirement for marriage.I have never said
that gays shouldn't have protections. I will say it once again. They can
have their unions, just don't call it marriage because it is not the same
as marriage between a man and a woman.The question is what makes
gays so special? Polygamists are not given the same rights as gays, why punish
them and their children?To "A Quaker" why do you liberals
insist that anybody who opposes gay marriage wants to criminalize it? Give them
rights, just don't call it marriage because it is NOT THE SAME as
"Give them rights, just don't call it marriage because it is NOT THE
SAME as heterosexual marriage."So what it comes down to is using
the word "marriage" in a way that makes you uncomfortable? You'd
"give them rights," presumably meaning that a union would differ from a
marriage only in the orientation of the people involved. So, whether someone
calls it a marriage or a union, if the legal effect is the same, why the petty
clinging to a word?"It's OUR word and THEY can't use
it!" is what I'm hearing. Not much of a legal leg to stand on, I'm
afraid.Men and women have the same legal rights in the 21st Century,
yet no-one would claim that they are the same. A 21-year-old has the same rights
as a septugenarian, yet they are manifestly not the same. Your shrieks of
"gay unions and straight marriages are NOT THE SAME" is true from
certain standpoints, but irrelevant. My marriage isn't the same as my
neighbors' marriage, or even, yes, plural marriages, yet I don't have
a problem with any of them calling their relationship "marriage."
@RedShirtMy first wife had crippling depression, extreme agoraphobia
and charts social anxiety. She is the reason I read "Men are from Mars,
Women are From Venus," "The Five Love Languages," "The Color
Code," "Walking on Eggshells," "Co-Dependent No More,"
"Alcoholics Anonymous," "Man of Steel and Velvet," and a 15 or
20 other similar books.Her mental illness meant she rarely did what
"normal" people do in the pop-psychology relationship books. We dealt with extreme mental illness that had impact on me, my daughter, my
step-son, my wife, our relationship, our roles in the relationship. In other
words, our marriage was not like other marriages. Your demand that
things be "100 percent the same" is as artificial and mistaken as your
Gilligan's Island Thought Exercise that you insisted could only have one
answer. Yes, I have known hetero couples who fit the image you
outline. I have known many who don't fit it at all and who have constructed
a very satisfying relationship that works for them. Opposite-sex
marriages aren't equal to each other. Your criteria fails in the face of