To "Kevin J. Kirkham" you are sidestepping the issue, which FYI
isn't gay marriage specifically.FYI, the LDS web site only
states that Brigham Young announced that blacks could not hold the priesthood,
they never say why. Your reasoning falls under the unsubstantiated theories to
explain this, meaning it is just somebody's idea and not the truth. The
truth of the matter is that we don't know.The issue is that
once the LDS leaders have been inspired to declare something and you choose to
not follow their advice are you going against God's desires?Again, do we listen to the Prophet as he is inspired or do we ignore the
teachings that we don't agree with?
Procreation is a big deal, whether it happens or not. Should it happen, in
heterosexual, natural marriage, the biological parent should be the same as the
parent raising a child. With adoption, there is an assignment that should be
permanent. The result should be stability, security, and an environment for
possible children to establish identity.Consider a lesbian who
married another woman in one state where SS marriage was legal. The marriage
lasted only two years, and there was a child created by a sperm donor. Now the
woman has moved on and has a lover who has born two children with the
woman's brother as sperm donor. That's three children, two mothers,
two sperm donors with no involvement in their lives and utter confusion.
It's chaos we're trying to avoid. I know that things can get
complicated in the heterosexual world, too, with ex husbands and lovers and kids
with no secure home, but that's why moral conservatives are also against
cohabitation and easy divorce.
Redshirt1701You are saying that the current Prophet is wrong and that he
is leading the church to go against the scriptures. …Do we listen to the
Prophet as he is inspired or do we ignore the teachings that we don't agree
with?KJKThe referenced verses condemn using subjective morality to
justify infringing upon the rights of others. In the case of Prop.8, the gays
DID have a right to marry in CA prior to 8 and thousands did. Our religious
opinions were used to justify infringing upon that right. Please explain to me
how that DOESN’T violate those scriptures. 2 Stake Presidents (1 is now a
temple president) couldn’t tell me. Both signed my recommends when we
were through discussing it. Recent postings on the Church's media site
admit that the priesthood ban was due to Brigham Young's own personal
beliefs and not revelation, so we know that prophets can and have promoted ideas
as doctrinal without any scriptural or revelatory backing.Since we
let drug dealers, pornographers and child molesters marry and raise kids, we
surely can let loving homosexual couples do likewise. There is no objective
reason to deny it.
To "Kevin J. Kirkham" so waht you are saying is that you are going to
use an unrelated scripture to support your desire to NOT do as the LDS church
leaders ask.So tell us, who is right? The current head of the LDS
church has said to support laws that uphold the definition of marriage as being
between a man and a woman. You are saying that the current Prophet is wrong and
that he is leading the church to go against the scriptures. Is that what you
are really intending to say?You have not answered the question that
I proposed. Do we listen to the Prophet as he is inspired or do we ignore the
teachings that we don't agree with?Again, do you know something
that the LDS Church leaders don't?
Redshirt1701The ("Church Statement on Definition of Marriage")
makes it quite clear that the LDS church desires laws that define marriage as
between a man and a woman. Since, within the US we are all entrusted with the
public good, we should all support laws that maintain the definition of
marriage.Or do you know something that the LDS Church leaders
don't?KJKI know that D&C 134:4 and 1 Cor. 10:29
denounce those who let their religious beliefs prompt them to infringe upon the
rights and liberties of others. I think we should "liken the scriptures
unto ourselves" regarding this issue. Harold B. Lee and Joseph Fielding
Smith both stated that if they say anything contrary to scripture, that we are
to cling to scripture and ignore their own teaching. I think we should liken
this counsel unto this situation and the aforementioned statement.
Completely irrelevant. I fear we're speaking two different languages. The
issue at hand is public policy, which affects more than just Mormons, so falling
back on scripture or proclomations, or LDS Church statements or policy is
meaningless. As long as the laws on the books don't prohibit you from
practicing your religion or defining marriage any way you choose, it's not
your business to tell other adult citizens how they should define theirs.Allusions to "far far ranging impact for religious freedom" are
designed to stoke irrational fear of imagnary bogeymen, which encourages
compliance. The future impact of allowing SSM to take place is completely
unpredictable, but I believe it would simply turn out to be another Y2K . .
people flipping out over end-of-civilization fantasies, followed by . . nothing
much. The world will continue spinning, the sacrament will still be passed, and
you will still be able to attend temple sessions. Or maybe everyone will turn
gay.Of course, to anyone who is always just going to fall back on
"Well, the Brethren said X, Y, or Z" or "The Lord says your'e
wrong," there really is no point to any of these debates.
To "SlopJ30" read the statement from the LDS Newsroom. From the LDS web
site, and their news releast titled "Church Statement on Definition of
Marriage" the church has publically declared " we encourage all people
of goodwill to protect marriage as the union between one man and one woman, and
to consider carefully the far ranging impact for religious freedom if marriage
is redefined. We especially urge those entrusted with the public good to support
laws that uphold the timehonoured definition of marriage."That
statement alone makes it quite clear that the LDS church desires laws that
define marriage as between a man and a woman. Since, within the US we are all
entrusted with the public good, we should all support laws that maintain the
definition of marriage.Or do you know something that the LDS Church
The Constitutionality debate just muddies the waters. Simply put, it's
wrong, wrong, wrong to insist that others conduct their private lives in
accordance with my religious views, or to design PUBLIC POLICY specifically to
fit my church's doctrine. How is this confusing to so many LDS? Mental
gymnastics and fallacious "slippery slope" arguments inevitably proceed
until the debate has melted into a circular, yet somehow still shapeless mass of
nonsense.Regardless of how you read the Constitution, the idea that
citizens should be prohibited from engaging in behaviors that do not infringe
upon the rights of others or cause demonstrable harm to others should be
objectionable to anyone who values a free America. To be clear, the idea of two
men getting married may be gross to you, but it in NO WAY infringes on your
right to define YOUR OWN MARRIAGE. Questionable "studies" and
"expert opinions" from either camp aside, if two adults want to marry,
who am I to object? My "view" about someone else's marriage is
irrelevant, unless you'd be OK with the government outlawing your marriage
for whatever reason, as long as "the people" support the decision.
To "Esquire" how does it subvert the concept of "freedom of
religion"? Where in the constitution does it say that there has to be a
separation of church and state?The constitution states "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof;" Where is the limit on religion?Unless
you are anti-religious (which can be defined as a religion), what is wrong with
a religion stating that they encourage their members to support laws that define
marriage as being between a man and a woman only?
@ RedShirt, to say "when it comes to laws, you should follow the prophets
who have said that we should support laws that define marriage as between a man
and a woman" seems to totally confuse the separation of church and state.
I'll not pontificate, but the comment reveals the problem with the issue,
and the attitude subverts the concept of freedom of religion.
@SlopJ30Thanks for your answer. It all reminds me of Henry
Ford's line when he was first manufacturing cars: (a paraphrase, but
accurate) "The customer can have a Ford car in any color he wants, as long
as it's black."
To "SlopJ30" you got a great response for what you should do about the
couple down the street. However, when it comes to laws, you should follow the
prophets who have said that we should support laws that define marriage as
between a man and a woman.
Free Agency:That has never happened in the history of the Church and
will never, ever happen.But seriously, I've asked variations on
that question from time to time as I've navigated my way through a lifetime
of church membership and callings. As an Elder's Quorum instructor, I once
asked if, in a completely non-religious setting, it was possible to have a
deeply emotional experience (with non-Mormons) that felt exactly as the same as
the HG's much-relied-upon "burning in the bosom." After much
harrumphing, the answer was "yes."So how does one know if a
strong feeling is just emotion and wishful thinking talking or an actual
communicae from deity? The best the people in the class (a pretty stalwart bunch
of LDS men) could come up with was "Well, if you were discussing religious
topics, it was the Holy Ghost. If you were not, it was emotion." Oh. Allll
righty then.To answer your specific question, the individual
involved would ostensibly feel God was on their side, while other members aware
of the situation would silently (or otherwise) judge them for being disobdient
apostates and "pray for them."
@SlopJ30Loved your posting.As a non-Mormon, I've
always wondered: when a Mormon has a dilemma and does what his/her church
instructs--fasts and prays for divine inspiration, etc.--and then gets an
answer, clear as a bell, but the answer differs from church doctrine, how does
the church see that?I know that when I ask a question of someone
(human or divine), I don't have any pre-expectation of what the answer will
be. So again, how does the church treat the answer someone gets when it's
different from the church's own position?
I prayed and fasted for divine inspiration as to how I should deal with the gay
couple down the street who wanted to get married. That still small voice, that
burning in the bosom, The Comfortor, The Holy Ghost whispered to me "Thou
shalt mind thine own business, champ. Seriously, this hath nothing to doeth with
thee. Dost thou have any legit questions about thine own conduct or
circumstances or that of your family? If not, I must bounceth . . people with
real problems needeth me."
"1. The role of procreation and reproduction, replenishing the
population."I suppose once you stop procreation and reporduction
from happening outside of marriage, you can make this argument. In the end, it
is just your preference, but it does not reflect reality. Never has in
history."2. The role of precedent and example for the next
generation. Boys need a role model for being a dad, and girls need a role model
for being a mom."Again, a stated preference. But I'm not
convinced that reality reflects this. There are many heterosexuals who were
raised in gay households who do just fine. What is the ideal male or female
role model? I think we can all do better than the role models of the 1950s.As for the rest of the points, I agree with the writers that it can
easily be argued that they can apply to SSM situations.
Everything said in this article is absolutely true--for Mormons.But
it isn't the One and Only Truth for everyone. I recall a news story about
a gay male who was in (and still is in) a deeply loving relationship with
another man. One night he found an abandoned baby in a subway station. A New
York City judge encouraged him and his partner to adopt the boy.Today that boy is a happy, healthy (and straight) young man. He apparently
didn't need a "mother" and a "father." He needed one or
two people in his life who gave him the qualities of mothering and fathering.There are many similar stories.It would be nice if the
argument were no longer made that "society would fall apart" if gays
were allowed to marry and have children. Gays are a small percentage of
society--and when they choose to marry and have children, their goals are the
very same as with straight couples: devotional love and family.Utah
is an American state, not a Mormon state. Thus the Eyres' points have no
authority to determine the rights of non-Mormon Americans who live in Utah.
@ El Chango SupremoMarriage is a legal contract that offers many
benefits and privileges. This is about a group of people who just want equality.
I can promise you that nobody from the LGBT community gives a wooden nickel if
you approve of their lifestyle or not.
MJ Annie,You are a female. It took a male to procreate with you. You
can't procreate with your female partner. It's not bigotry that's
the problem, it's biology!
Marriage is a religious institution that years ago was adopted & recognized
by the government. It's not the government's place to change it! Gay marriage isn't about rights or taxes or anything else we
commonly hear about. It's about the desire of homosexual couples to have
their relationships/lifestyle be declared moral.
The issue is two - fold.First, legally, gay couples that choose to
live as a married couple should have the same rights, and privilages of straight
couples with regard to property, death benefits, etc... And if they want to
divorce, why should they not be subject to the same lengthy miserable process
that straight people have to endure?Second is religious. How long
until the govt. rulings ignore the seperation of church and state, and require
churches that don't belive in gay unions to perfrom such unions or else.
Further more, the precedent this is setting is that a single judge can overturn
a law that the people of this state voted on in an election. Fair, or not, is it
right that a court can intervene on any law of their choosing, and overlook the
wishes of the people of this state as expresed in a government election?
PopsThe real question is whether the state should provide marriage
benefits to gay couples that are not likely to reciprocate by taking on the
obligations by providing the six "services" or benefits to the state so
aptly enumerated by Richard and Linda Eyre. When the state doesn't issue a
marriage license to a same-sex couple, it is because it has no reasonable
expectation to receive anything in return.KJKHeterosexuals over 50
marrying provide no more "services" or benefits to the state than
same-sex couples would.RedShirtKids raised by same sex couples
are more likely to think of themselves as gay, more likely to engage in
homosexual behavior, and are more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors.KJKIf so, it might be because that if they really are gay, they feel
safer to "come out" as gay rather than try to stay in the closet and be
straight. They are also more likely to be raised outside of a religion which
condemns homosexuality and therefore if the kid IS gay, they may feel safer
coming out than would a kid whose family is active LDS.
1.96 Standard DeviationsIt seems to me that you, and Hinkley for
that matter, are ignoring Doctrine and Covenants 134:9"We do not
believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government"
Fact: Homosexual couples currently cohabitate and have children.So,
unless you propose removing those children from their families and homes,
wouldn't they benefit from their parents being married, with all of the
psychological, legal, and social benefits that are associated with the
institution of marriage? Seriously?
To "Pops" if you want to go strictly by what is best for the state, then
it should outlaw gay marriage. The DOJ has a study out there where they found
that just the act of 2 gay people cohabitating there is a significant increase
in the likelyhood of violence for them. When that violence occurs, it costs the
state and local communities money to deal with the increase in crime.You also have the fact that if gays are allowed to adopt or rais children as a
couple that their children are more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior.
That risky behavior can lead to an incrase in teen pregnancies. Teen
pregnancies lead to increases in poverty and dependance on state and federal
resourcces.So, the best solution for the state is to deny gays not
only marriage, but custody of children.
@ PopsShould the state deny infertile couples the right to obtain a
'Not naturally (unusual measures are required)….'
Octo-mom. Eight children created through invitro fertilization. Single
mother. John and Kate plus 8. Eight children, created for a married
couple, also though invitro fertilization. Now, a divorced couple.
The 'traditional family' supporters did….
nothing. As they did nothing to prevent these 'unnatural'
families, we can take it that they are being selective about which
'traditional' families they do, and do not support.
Traditional. What does that word even mean? We should
prevent women from voting? Or practice human slavery? Time to move
forward ladies and gentlemen. Unless you want to claim that you walk
Lagomorph wrote: "Then the state is going about it all wrong, because gay
couples DO have children..."Not naturally (unusual measures are
required), and not anywhere near the degree that heterosexual couples do. Then
there's the issue of raising children without the benefit of gender roles -
the state should exercise extreme caution on this aspect.Redshirt
wrote: "To 'Pops' and 'LDS Liberal' actually it
isn't 'all about the children'. In the religious world,
..."Well, there you go. We're debating the state's
involvement in marriage, which is strictly a quid pro quo. Religious reasons for
marrying are wonderful (and I subscribe to them), but the state needs to have
blinders on and do what's best for the state. Which, in my opinion, is to
NOT grant marriage licenses to gay couples for the the reason I've
previously stated but will, for some inexplicable reason, now repeat: The state
has no interest in extending marriage benefits to gay couples because, on
average, the state stands to receive nothing in return from the gay couple,
whereas, on average, it receives significant and long-lasting benefit from the
marriage contract with heterosexual couples.
Daniel L - I'm a lesbian with 4 biological children. Our kind actually do
procreate. :-) Think outside the box, brother.
I don't understand why the homosexual community cant understand these
simple 6 simple rules? If only they would give up the lifestyle that leads to
happiness and instead embrace these six simple rules they would be so much
happier. happiness in this life is to be achieved when in a family with a mother
and a father.
I appreciate those who have shared comments and views civilly and respectfully.
Families are the backbone of society. Families - not schools, not YMCAs, not
government programs, not churches, have and always will be where the next
generation is reared. It's silly to remove children from the argument
under the premise that there are exceptions. Of course there are exceptions.
It doesn't change the fact that society's best hope for a prosperous
future is with families with a mother and father raising children as equal
partners.I do disagree with the Eyre's on one point: Function
#2. I'm a father of three daughters, no boys, and Function #2 suggests
that mothers are there for the daughters and fathers are there for the sons. I
think children of both genders learn valuable lessons and traits from both
parents. In fact, I've read that mothers often have a greater influence on
sons, and fathers on daughters than vice versa. I can see this influence in my
own life. Men and women are different and children benefit from that, which is
one reason why complimentary genders is so crucial to family life. Thank you!
To "Pops" and "LDS Liberal" actually it isn't "all
about the children". In the religious world, marriage is an ordinance that
joins a man and a woman in a sacred way according to their beliefs.In the LDS religion marriage, specifically temple marriage, is about receiving
a priesthood ordinance that allows a man and a woman to receive the greatest
glory and exaltation in the Kingdom of God. Marriage is about 2 opposites
coming together and learning from eachother and learning to work together as a
single unit. If they have kids, it just adds to the challenges that they will
meet. Children are not a requirement within religion for marriage, they are
just an added bonus.If you want to see how marriage benefits
society, just look at successful marriages that may or may not have kids. The
couples that have learned to look beyond their selfish desires help those in
their neighborhoods and often act as caring rolemodels to their neighbor's
children by serving the community.
The real problem is that the federal government has challenged the rights of
states once again and perhaps once too often; and this one could be the final
defense of liberty or the last straw. We're supposed to be a union of
states, not a centralized super state. Now the Superstate wants to
"liberalize" the very definition of marriage and stuff it down our
throats and make us obey their agenda. If we accept this we prove ourselves
slaves as much as the Superstate proves itself a consummate and unrepentant
I very much appreciate the point the authors make, one that is apparently lost
on some. Before attempting to define marriage, it's in our best interest
to look at what marriage accomplishes for society. What good things come of it
that we should promote it? Without first acknowledging those good things, we
expose ourselves to greater risk of unintended consequences in accidentally
negating the good things marriage does. The majority of children in
the US are born to married women, and statistically those children have the best
outcomes. Unfortunately, fewer children each year are born to married couples.
If marriage is benefiting children, why not acknowledge that fact and do what we
can to preserve that function no matter how marriage is defined in the future?
Not all marriages produce children, and not all children are born to married
couples, but we cannot exclude children from a discussion of marriage without
ignoring (potentially to our peril) an important function of the institution. To
do so would be cutting off our noses to spite our faces.
Pops: "Marriage IS all about children. That's why the state is
involved in the marriage business."Then the state is going about
it all wrong, because gay couples DO have children (as I noted previously) who
do not receive any of the benefits of the state contract, while married straight
couples do. It's a very inefficient way to allocate benefits and achieve a
policy goal.Demiurge: "Lagomorph, you left out probably the
number one way same sex couples can work around the impediment."OK, I'll bite. What is it (if you can be discrete enough to get past the
moderator)? I can't believe I used up my last comment for this.I appreciate the fact that most commenters on this thread have accepted my
challenge and kept the discussion in the civil realm without digressing into
immaterial religious arguments. Keep it up.
To "Kevin J. Kirkham" the kids with same sex parents have more than just
marital status as a potential risk factor.Kids raised by same sex
couples are more likely to think of themselves as gay, more likely to engage in
homosexual behavior, and are more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors.
Tell me, which of those is good for a developing child?
Cats says:"The article is very well and wisely stated."And then: "I can't believe the contortions people
go through in order to try and justify something that is completely illogical
and without merit."Oh, sweetie, the irony. The sweet, sweet
Most of the comments have been focused on Same Sex Marriage as a right, and
accuse the authors of denying them that right. The authors merely stated the
positive outcomes of an ideal family, and stated the salient truth that society
cannot survive if too few families meet all six outcomes. There are
lots of less than ideal families, and we've learned to accept the eventual
negative outcomes: divorce, family violence, emotional abuse, etc. This
acceptance cannot change the reality that fewer and fewer families are ideal,
and the world is catipulting itsself into a dysfunctional society.
LDS Liberal hit the nail squarely on the head. Marriage IS all about children.
That's why the state is involved in the marriage business.The
debate shouldn't be about love, or sexual attraction, or equality, because
those are all smokescreens. The real question is whether the state should
provide marriage benefits to gay couples that are not likely to reciprocate by
taking on the obligations by providing the six "services" or benefits to
the state so aptly enumerated by Richard and Linda Eyre.When the
state doesn't issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple, it is because
it has no reasonable expectation to receive anything in return. It isn't a
slap in the face of the same-sex couple nor does it relegate them to
second-class status any more than denying a driver's license to a blind
person relegates that person to second-class status. It is simply the state
saying, "I choose not to enter into this contract because what you offer is
not what the state is seeking."
These are the same old trite "traditional" arguments. In order to buy
into them, one must also buy into the 50's sitcom family, where dad goes
off to work, and mom stays home chatting on the phone and baking cookies all day
in her sun dress. Mom then has dinner on the table by 5, and brings dad his
slippers, a pipe, the evening paper and a martini. Women should be obedient to
their husband always, and let the man handle the money and be given an
allowance...if one wants to be "traditional". Infertile couples should
be denied marriage licenses as well as those who have no intention to
pro-create. A man should be able to annul his marriage once the kids are grown
and the wife has gone through menopause, if marriage's primary purpose is
procreation. Divorce should never be allowed until after menopause and all
children have reached 18, right? No divorce for extramarital affairs, or
irreconcilable differences, or physical or emotional abuse, because having a
mother and father are all important regardless of their character.
Lagomorph, you left out probably the number one way same sex couples can work
around the impediment.
The authors of this editorial were as usual messed up.Marriage is
about one thing from the perspective of the state: a standard contract that
regularizes rights of ownership of goods, inheritance, and survivorship for the
two people entering the contract. In the old days it was also about cementing
family alliances. When children are involved it includes custody rights. The
state has also added in a bunch of benefits/rights such as hospital visiting,
EofL decision making, and taxes to what the marriage contract will cover.
That's it.It has nothing to do with who can make children or
how those children are brought up. Children are the constant red herring in this
debate, but SSM has nothing to with the children at all.
@Cats" I can't believe the contortions people go through in order
to try and justify something that is completely illogical and without
merit."That's exactly what I'm thinking... except
I'm thinking it when I read these things about how supposedly children
deserving a mother and a father (in a state where single people can adopt) or
how marriage is about having kids out (except that's not marriage,
that's a honeymoon, and besides, infertile and old people can marry, and
there's no requirement to have children).
-- "Utah would become the 18th state to allow gay marriage..." --When did Utah "allow" this?
Daniel L.: "Very strange and odd comments made. My favorite
'Furthermore, gay couples DO procreate.' One has to wonder if anyone
actually payed attention in human biology class."I paid
attention, even have a graduate degree in biology. Gay couples produce children
in the same ways that straight couples do. Many have children from previous
heterosexual marriages that they were in prior to coming out (perhaps due to
social pressures to conform or due to thinking marriage would "cure"
them). Others have children using the same techniques that infertile straight
couples use: artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, surrogacy, etc.
Some adopt. Other than adoption, these techniques yield children that are
genetically related to at least one of the members of the parent couple. It
fits the definition of procreate. The anatomical noncomplementarity of same sex
couples is not an impediment to procreation. (Well, it's a bit of an
impediment, but there are technological workarounds.)
I just want to be content. In this day and age of advertizing I have to use what
I have the most effective way. I can't afford to make mistakes. I'll
only live once. Life is the most important thing in life to me. I'm content
to be a Dad.
The article is very well and wisely stated. I can't believe the
contortions people go through in order to try and justify something that is
completely illogical and without merit. The family has functioned successfully
for thousands of years and is not in need of legal redefinition.
"In a religious paradigm, society doesn't do the defining — God
does. And if a person follows his or her religion, he or she accepts God’s
definition."Which is fine, inside the context of the particular
church. "1. The role of procreation and reproduction"There is no requirement to procreate attached to marriage and same-sex
couples can still help with continuing the species through in-vitro and
adoption. "2. Boys need a role model for being a dad, and girls
need a role model for being a mom."Kids need role models for
being parents. It's not like we have gender specific roles where a
mom/daughter need to know how to sew and a dad/son need to know how to change
oil in a car.3-6 are arguments for same-sex..."Of course,
advocates of same-sex marriage will argue that same-sex unions can accomplish
the last four. "Yeah... that.
The problems with the idea of using children as an excuse to deny SSM are:* Marriage is allowed for senior citizens who won't be
having/raising kids. BTW, how are straight senior couples sufficiently
different from same-sex senior couples to warrant denying marriage to the
latter?* Marriage is allowed to straight couples who are infertile. BTW,
how are straight infertile couples sufficiently different from same-sex couples
to warrant denying marriage to the latter?* Marriage is allowed to
straight couples who don't want kids. BTW, how are straight couples not
wanting kids sufficiently different from same-sex couples not wanting kids to
warrant denying marriage to the latter?* Marriage is allowed to straight
couples who are infertile, but adopt kids. BTW, how are straight infertile
couples who adopt kids sufficiently different from same-sex couples who adopt
kids to warrant denying marriage to the latter?Those same people
never address the objective harms and risks which the kids in same-sex families
face due to their parents not being married...yet those same people are quick to
tell people how important it is for the kids that their straight parents be
married rather than just living together.
Very strange and odd comments made. My favorite "Furthermore, gay couples DO
procreate." One has to wonder if anyone actually payed attention in human
"God-sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman has been the basis of
civilization for thousands of years. There is no justification to redefine what
marriage is. Such is not our right, and those who try will find themselves
answerable to God.Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex
marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter
of morality. Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our
voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We
believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve
traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional
prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out."President Gordon B. Hinckley, October 1999 General Conference, "Why
We Do Some of the Things We Do"
@LibertyinLawMy point about marriage is:It doesn’t
matter whether they have child, want to have child or not. Procreation is a
possible product of marriage, not a requirement, for those couples who can not
or choose not to have child, procreation is not the purpose of marriage
either.Authors' procreation argument does not stand scrutiny.
All I can say is a HUGE thank you to the countless citizens of UT. who have
worked tirelessly with seemingly endless financial resources to promote
discrimination and relegate members of same sex unions to second class status.
Your actions have directly accelerated the long overdue change needed to give
same sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples. Same sex unions will
be legally recognized sooner rather than later in all 50 states thanks to the
"countless" citizens of UT. Have a great day!
LibertyInLaw: "@Pagan (and others): Defining marriage as an institution that
is protected in part to nurture children does not suggest that individual
marriages must have children. That logic doesn't hold. The debate is over
how we define the institution of marriage, not the quality of any one
relationship."When the Eyres present procreation as their first
function of marriage, it is relevant to observe that procreation is detached
from marriage (some married couples do not have children, some unmarried
couples-- and singles-- do). Marriage is not a prerequisite for procreation,
nor vice versa. As to the definition of marriage as an institution, even the
ultraconservative, pro-traditional family, predominantly LDS Utah legislature
recognized that marriage as an institution is about more than facilitating
procreation when they legalized first cousin marriage in 1996 (but made
infertility a mandatory precondition for such marriages). The arguments then
mirrored those of gay couples today: they are in love and should be recognized,
it is a hardship to make them travel to states where it is legal. As a policy
mechanism, civil marriage can have multiple purposes, including promoting social
harmony by providing state benefits and status to committed couples.
Given that so much of the anti-SSM argument here devolves into invocations of
Sodom and Gomorrah, Leviticus, and the Proclamation on the Family, the Eyres are
to be commended for steering discussion of a civil issue back to the civil
realm. I hope commenters here continue to follow their lead and leave the
religious arguments for some other forum.That said, they readily
concede points 3-6 to gay couples, leaving only the first two as relevant.
These, it turns out, are not supported by Utah family law and fail as compelling
arguments against SSM.#1: Procreation is not the exclusive domain
of married hetero couples in practice or law. Procreation is not required of
married couples-- procreation is even PROHIBITED by law for some couples.
Furthermore, gay couples DO procreate. Anyone present at the County
recorder's office on Dec. 23 would have marveled at all of the children
there watching their parents marry.#2: Utah law apparently does not
see gender role modeling as a significant purpose of marriage. Single people are
allowed to adopt. Divorce is allowed. Single parenthood is allowed. Children
get gender modeling in the larger community, not solely from parents.
@Pagan: RE the American Academy of Pediatrics. Appeal to authority fallacy. This
is a decade-old policy statement, not backed up by any research. ' I would be happy to read your counter-claims… if you had
one. But since you do not, again that's…
"In most ways, the accumulated research shows, children of same-sex parents
are NOT markedly different from those of heterosexual parents." - AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS (AAP)- 'Coparent or Second-Parent
Adoption by Same-Sex Parents' - POLICY STATEMENT - PEDIATRICS Vol. 109 No.
2 February 2002, pp. 339-340 - Pulished: 02/01/10 There, I gave a
Quote, Source, Title, Date, Volume and Page. Redirecting your
opposition to do your research and due diligence is not research.
But, if the Deseret news is going to start allowing web links, I would be happy
to do that as well, to further support my claims. While others fail
to do so, with their own claims.
@devRegnerus admits that the foundation of his study is too weak to draw
the conclusions that many have made:Regnerus’ study was not about
parents who openly identify as gay or lesbian. It was not about same-sex couples
in long-term relationships raising children together. Regnerus even admits
“this is not about saying gay or lesbian parents are inherently
bad,” because he knows has no foundation on which to make such a claim.
This was a study about unstable couples, possibly in sham marriages, who may
have dabbled in same-sex relationships outside of their original marriage at a
time when there was no recognition for same-sex couples anywhere in the country.
In others words, the study’s results have zero implication for
conversations in 2012 about out, committed same-sex couples who are already
raising children.Children are NOT the foundation of a marriage,
unless you want them to be.
When making arguments in favor of your position, avoid reliance on logical
fallacies and tendentious "studies".@Pagan: RE the American
Academy of Pediatrics. Appeal to authority fallacy. This is a decade-old policy
statement, not backed up by any research. It proves nothing more than that a
majority of an AAP committee agreed with this position. Professional
associations are notoriously susceptible to political manipulation. One could
easily cite a contradictory viewpoint by the American College of Pediatrics.
(http://www.acpeds.org. Search for "traditional marriage"). "Zero research shows any factual harm to children raised by LGBT
couples." In fact virtually all of the "research" done that
purportedly shows "no harm" to children of same-sex couples comes from
biased or seriously flawed studies. The first really extensive, methodologically
rigorous study done on the subject was by University of Texas sociologist Mark
Regnerus in 2012. It found that children whose parents had a same-sex romantic
relationship while the child was growing up suffer deficits compared to children
raised by their own married biological mother and father. Yes, association is
not necessarily causation, but at a minimum results show that there is ample
reason for concern in allowing same-sex marriage.
Re-read this carefully.All 6 points targeted "children", and
had little to nothing to do with "MARRIAGE" at all...======
1. The role of procreation and reproduction, replenishing the
population.2. The role of precedent and example for the next
generation. Boys need a role model for being a dad, and girls need a role model
for being a mom.3. The role of nurturing, facilitating the emotional
growth of children and helping children develop into responsible adults.4. The role of providing a lasting identity, something permanent in our
lives as everything else changes — jobs, locations, etc.5. The
role of instilling values. Other institutions may help, but the buck stops with
the family, wherein values are applied as well as taught.6. The role
of offering joy and fulfillment to individuals at a level beyond what is
obtainable elsewhere. Children should receive unconditional love within
families, and parents are refined and completed as people through the selfless
love they give to their children.
Love the article. Thank you.A few thoughts in response to previous
comments:@UTSU: The "definition" you provide is a vow people
take, not a real definition. If marriage is legally just a grouping of people
who care for and are committed to each other how is that different from siblings
who live together or a polyandrous relationship? Marriage as a social
institution has always meant more than that. @Pagan (and others):
Defining marriage as an institution that is protected in part to nurture
children does not suggest that individual marriages must have children. That
logic doesn't hold. The debate is over how we define the institution of
marriage, not the quality of any one relationship. Redefining marriage as an
institution changes it long-term, in terms of law, education, expectations,
etc.As far as the "no harm done yet" argument the same thing
was said about no-fault divorce in the 1970's. After a generation of
children damaged by easy divorce laws those "expert opinions" turned out
to be rubbish. Can we really afford to take a chance on such a radical
re-definition of an institution that has worked, even if imperfectly, for
thousands of years?
1) Prohibiting same sex marriages will NOT result in more live births. 2) Precedent, example for the next generation. LGBT youths need role
models too. Loving committed, MARRIED, LGBT couples can provide that role model
for LGBT youth.3) Nurture. Thosands of LGBT couples already raise,
nurture and provide loving, stable homes for thousands of children in this
country, helping these children develop into responsible adults.4)
Denying LGBT couples marriage, DENIES "something permanent" in the lives
of their children.5) Values? Seriously? Bigotry and discrimination
are not values. LGBT people are every bit as "moral" as the authors of
this article.6) Joy, fulfillment and unconditional love. All things
that LGBT couples can provide their children.Denying marriage to
LGBT couples actually PREVENTS some of what the authors seem to consider
essential to the lives of children.
Even if the authors' six "indispensable functions" are true, gay
marriage does nothing to prevent these functions from occurring each and very
day throughout the world.
Positive fertility test results should be submitted when an application for
marriage license is completed.
ute alumni,Are these "activist judges" the same ones that
the State of Utah made appeal after appeal?At what level are they
not "activist judges?"
The author's argument is that infertile couples, elderly couples, and
same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry since they can't have
kids. Also, divorce need be illegal because kids (the apparent reason marriage
exists) need both a mother and a father. Heaven forbid something should happen
to one of the parents, leaving only one to raise the kids. As a society who
defines marriage by "what it does" I think we can all agree that the
kids should be taken away and re-assigned to a family who still has both a
mother and a father...
Majority of what I got from this letter was the 'think of the
children' defense. That somehow the human race will 1) Stop having children
with marriage equality and 2) We will stop raising them. Counter
points: # 1: Factually 7 billion humans on earth. Up, from 6
billion. If marriage equality was a threat, and LGBT have existed in every facet
of human history, that number should have been zero. 10 years ago,
when marriage equality hit America. Human history, since God created
the 1st LGBT couple. # 2: "In most ways, the
accumulated research shows, children of same-sex parents are NOT markedly
different from those of heterosexual parents." - AMERICAN
ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS (AAP)- 'Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by
Same-Sex Parents' - POLICY STATEMENT - PEDIATRICS Vol. 109 No. 2 February
2002, pp. 339-340 - Pulished: 02/01/10 Zero research shows any
factual harm to children raised by LGBT couples. And until every
child on earth is no longer up for adoption? The claim of 'whats best for
the children' is moot. As LGBT couples do not have
'accidental' babies they put up for adoption. You are
thinking of those who 'traditionally' make babies.
Procreation: False. There is no requirement in marriage
to have children currently. So forcing it as a requirement upon LGBT is a double
standard and is not equal treatment under the law. Examples of the
next Generation: False. Kim Karsashian was married for
x7 weeks with zero outrage from 'traditional marriage' supporters.Nurturing children: False. Gender and
orientation play no effective role in raising a child. As supported by the
American Acadamy of Pediatrics. Identity: Values:
Joy: What does this factually mean? Ideals are great, but this is a
shopping list. You cannot fabricate reasons to be against gay marriage before
the supreme court. There has to be factual reasons, not just opinion supported
by random words you claim to be a factual case. 'The
consequences of not carefully and correctly considering the impact of our
actions…' Once again, we have examples of life after
marriage equality: *'After 5 Years of Legal Gay Marriage,
Massachusetts still has the lowest state divorce rate...' - Bruce Wilson -
AlterNet - 08/24/09 *'TEN YEARS later, 85 Percent of
Massachusetts voters say NO HARM from Marriage Equality' – Alternet -
09/27/13 How truly sad that some continue to fabricate reasons
against marriage equality.
utah did not "gay marriage. it was jammed down Utahans throats by an
To the author,Marriage is that two people take each other as legal
spouse, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in
health, until death do them part.It doesn't matter whether they
have child, want to have child or not. Procreation is a possible product of
marriage, not a requirement, for those couples who choose not to have child,
procreation is not the purpose of marriage either.