Linda & Richard Eyre: Why marriage matters

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • John20000 Cedar Hills, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 9:40 a.m.

    @Hutterite: It sounds like what you are saying is we should wake up and want to be instinct-driven animals. That is not for me. The "natural" human is not something to aspire to be. Selfishness hasn't ever brought me real happiness. Quite the opposite.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Feb. 4, 2013 10:38 a.m.

    Your half right the research does show that a household with two parents produces the best results but the research does not support your claim that they must be heterosexual.

    So basically if they agree with you they are lucid and loving but if not then they are not, no need to elaberate? I am convinced?

  • dr.bridell mclean, VA
    Feb. 2, 2013 10:20 p.m.

    I love reading through these comments and this interesting division.
    To me one side sounds so lucid and loving and the other so sad and selfish.
    Of course individuals are important, but individuals reach their highest and happiest potential when they commit and sacrifice to those they love more than themselves, their spouses and families.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 4:17 p.m.

    Dear Kishkumen: many DN readers will take issue with you that these articles are flawed. I do not view this article as flawed at all. You think it is flawed because the concepts in the article evidently run against your personal beliefs. There are plenty of well conducted studies that demonstrate that traditional heterosexual marrige continues to present the best opportunity for successful child rearing with better societal outcomes. Most single parents I know did not want their marriages to fail, but once it did they are making the best of it. Two + two still equals four whether or not you want it to or not.

  • Rikitikitavi Cardston, Alberta
    Feb. 2, 2013 9:56 a.m.

    RE: same sex unions: sin is still sin no matter how nicely you wrap it. For that matter, the same goes for having (hetero) sex outside of marriage. Did I mention sin is still sin?

  • Rikitikitavi Cardston, Alberta
    Feb. 2, 2013 9:50 a.m.

    @ kishku: why waist your time reading DN?

  • George Bronx, NY
    Feb. 1, 2013 9:49 p.m.

    It s true that we need to continue to work to prevent the spread of desease but the idea are just out having wanten sex just does not square with the data coming out of the CDC.

  • Monsieur le prof Sandy, UT
    Feb. 1, 2013 8:59 p.m.

    The sad part is tht the lack of commitment by those who cohabit ends up in an increased rate of separation and abuse. Not only do the single-mother families end up in poverty, but their children end up abusing drugs and going to prison at a astoundingly higher rate than those children raised in two-parent families.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Feb. 1, 2013 3:51 p.m.

    Anyone who engages in sex outside of marriage is completely selfish. And completely normal. Sex is natural, marriage is not. If we had healthier attitudes towards sex, and especially birth/disease control, as well as maybe if we just grew up a bit in general. we could deal with some of the associated problems.

  • Pete1215 Lafayette, IN
    Feb. 1, 2013 10:31 a.m.

    The obvious point of not getting married is that it keeps one's options open (no public statement of intent). That women settle for this is a puzzle to me. That we are willing to raise children in such an unstable situation is immoral.

  • summit_heights USA, UT
    Jan. 30, 2013 2:18 p.m.

    To kishkumen:

    An individual adult can survive and contribute well to society as an individual, yes. And I would never want to discredit tremendous single parents that do very difficult work, but we don't just wake up one day into existence as an independent, functioning adult.

    Who brought that doctor into existence in the first place? Who worked to provide the resources necessary to feed that child? Who actually took care of that person's needs as an infant, toddler, child, teenager, etc? Who taught them to read, to study hard, to keep fighting when things are difficult?

    The evidence is pretty stark: the vast majority of children in poverty in our country today live in one-parent homes. Crime and other societal ills follow this trend as well. Conversely, the numbers support the premise that loving, 2-parent households provide the highest likelihood of a successful, happy life into adulthood.

    "Society" is more than mere existence. For mere existence, we could conceivably go the near-petry dish route starting with conception, perhaps even feed children by machine, etc. until adulthood... but could you tell me, then, what would be the resultant "society?"

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 30, 2013 7:09 a.m.

    The fact that Gays are trying to get the right to marry, while larger society is not taking advantage of marriage in the numbers we used to was brought up in this article.

    It is sometimes said that allowing gays to marry somehow will harm marriage in general. Though I don't see that logic, I will share an argument here that seems to indicate, at least im some small part just the opposite.

    It used to be fairly common that gay people would marry a person of the opposite sex, because of social pressure. This hurt their spouses by putting them in marriages that had no chance of being whole and complete.

    Therefore gays coming out of the closet has, at least for the potential spouses of gays is a help to traditional marriage. Little doubt there are some at the fringes of gay society, i.e. from a conservative religious families or communities, who still marry those of the opposite sex because of societal pressure. Were we to remove this societal pressure completely, this would in the manner just described help traditional marriage.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 30, 2013 1:05 a.m.

    Somehow homosexuals see the importance of marriage while heterosexuals continue to watch it devolve.


  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 29, 2013 5:45 p.m.

    "If we need still another perspective from which to appreciate the value of marriage, consider the gay rights movement, which recognizes the importance of the marriage commitment and is thus willing to fight for it. Meanwhile, our broader society is devaluing marriage."

    Mr. & Mrs. Eyre, Thank you for the acknowledgment!

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    Jan. 29, 2013 5:05 p.m.

    This is a sad, but true commentary. The young people of today are treating sex as a purely recreational activity with no consequences whatsoever. Thus, they see no reason to make any commitments.

    The point is that society does suffer when a large segment of the population engages in wanton and uncontrolled sexuality. Society gets flooded with fatherless children and disease runs rampant. This places a huge burden on law enforcement and social services.

    Let us be clear. Anyone who engages in sexual acts outside of marriage is completely selfish. The needs of society are more important than the opportunity to perpetually act no better than an excited rabbit on a Spring day.

  • Obama10 SYRACUSE, UT
    Jan. 29, 2013 4:31 p.m.

    I find it interesting that only homosexuals are clammoring for the right of marriage while heterosexuals continue the practice of living together. You rarely hear of heterosexuals defending marriage and the importance it brings in society, except when homosexual marriage is involved. Somehow homosexuals see the importance of marriage while heterosexuals continue to watch it devolve.

  • kishkumen American Fork, UT
    Jan. 29, 2013 4:06 p.m.

    Actually, the basic unit of a society is an individual person. Your doctor is never a married couple, Einstein didn't need a wife to make the contributions he made, and the majority of people do their jobs at work without a spouse at their side. Also, we all know amazing single parents. Now, having a committed companion at your side definitely doesn't hurt, but there are definitely a lot of flaws in these type of editorials the Deseret News keeps pumping out.