If we call the tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?This
controversy seems more about insisting on the declaration of equivalence than
about equality. A common misperception based on the premise that forcing us to
name something with a term that we believe carries the inference of equivalence
will somehow endow us with equality for ever more.And thence we will
all live happily ever after.
Just an observation, but... I keep seeing responses from LDS writers who go on
at length about how those who want anything except for "one man, one
woman" to be recognized as a marriage are perverting the definition of
marriage that God gave us. In doing so, it may not have occurred to them that
they are, in effect, calling Joseph Smith and Brigham Young "perverts",
along with all the other pioneers who had multiple wives. The reality is that
throughout the ages the rules about who may marry and what constitutes a valid
marriage have been about as solid and consistent as sandstorm, and history is
not a Norman Rockwell painting where everything was just the way we'd like
to remember it.
@ Mike Richards:I can appreciate that you feel very strongly about
your beliefs. But not everyone shares your beliefs. Your God is not the
worldwide, universally accepted God. Your prophet does not speak to everyone.
While I believe you should have every right to live your life as you see fit, I
don't believe you should have the right to legislate your religious beliefs
onto others when there you will suffer no harm by allowing same sex marriage.
Homosexuals are not trying to force you to live as they live. They are not and
will never try to force you to have a same sex marriage. Them having same sex
marriages will not negatively affect your own marriage nor your own life. You
list no public nor personal harm from same sex marriage. Self-righteousness is
not a sufficient basis for legislation.
Why could they not have been satisfied with a category of secular union that
would have offered them the secular benefits they sought?Because
amendment 3 banned all gay unions. Part of the amendment didn't allow gay
people into anything that had the same benefits as marriage.
jimbo said:"I would hope that the religious zealots in our state
would practice what they preach and truly 'hate the sin but love the
sinner'..."I agree with you here that these lifestyles are
sinful. I also agree with you that those entrapped in the LGBT lifestyles should
never be hated. That being said, these types of lifestyles should not be
celebrated and deemed "normal" as many in this community are trying to
do so vigorously."When will people like you finally understand
that being LGBT is not a choice. Even the LDS church leaders acknowledge
that."First, I could care less what LDS church leaders
acknowledge. Secondly, if God calls these perversions sin, then the individual
does indeed have a choice. Just because a person desires something, does not
mean that they have no choice. A person who wants to cheat on their spouse has
a choice. A person who wants to cheat on their taxes has a choice. A man who
decides to have unnatural relations with another man has a choice.Saying they don’t have a choice, is simply an excuse to continue
engaging in this behavior.
@ The Deuce: Many others have posited your experiment - and many seem to think
it a valid reason to deny marriage. However, a few additional experiments show
the flaw of the argument. If the homosexual group is replaced by
infertile individuals, by individuals too old to have children, by individuals
who choose not to have children - the results are the same, yet society allows
marriage for these other groups. The reality is that many less than
ideal couples get married every year, reproductive technologies do exist, some
people are gay, some people are going to have children and other people are not,
and the legalization or prohibition of same-sex marriage is not going to
drastically change how many people are gay or how many children are born every
year. All legalization of same-sex marriage is going to do is make
sure all families have access to the same benefits, protections, and
responsibilities as all other families.
None of us have imposed any such thing on others! It takes nerve to say
something like that. It takes a lot of arrogance also. Why is it that some
people feel a need to impose some other word upon our unions, besides the word
" marriage " Who says that the term marriage belongs only to
heterosexuals. Well, the people that believe this are the very people that
discriminate! They set themselves up as being superior human beings and expect
us to live with the crumbs that they drop on the floor. We over extend
ourselves? Who are you to tell us how far we can extend? Who are any of you to
tell us we have to accept being somehow inferior to rest of you? What arrogant
people! You wonder why others get sick of living in this state! Marriage
isn't a word that belongs to one group of people and if we choose to use
it, we will, with or without your permission. We certainly don't have to
bow down to somebody's degrading beliefs about us. Get off your HIGH HORSE!
The underlying problem is not equality and it has nothing to do with marriage.
Equality and Marriage are just the surface elements that galvanize people. The
underlying problem is whether man is the most intelligent "being" in the
universe or whether there is a God who directs all things, including our very
lives. Those who believe that we crawled from a swamp or swung down
from a tree to find a banquet laid out for us with everything provided, water to
drink, warmth from a star, fruits, flowers, animals and vegetables, find it hard
to be thankful when they claim to be the highest intelligence that exists.
They think that they can make the rules, whether those rules perpetuate the
species or destroy the species. Since they are the "top dog", they
demand that all accept their "wisdom".Then there are those
who are thankful to their Creator for having been invited to participate in the
banquet of life, who acknowledge His bounteous blessings, who realize that
nothing that they can do, except to show obedience to Him, can ever repay His
To: jimbo, American Fork, UT - First, you have changed the scenario. My original
experiment had no external support from modern medicine. Given your suggestion,
yes, both groups would have a good chance of survival and growth beyond the
original group. Second, I also agree with your suggestion for a practical
experiment. The point of my original experiment was to help others understand
the point of view held by many regarding the "marriage issue' we have.
While I am taking no particular side here, it is important to understand the
underlying issues and why many feel so compelled. If you look at
"marriage" simply as a contract, this opens the door for just about any
combination that people agree to. Equality does not excuse any of us from
responsibility and consequences in the long term. We seem to forget this as we
discuss numerous issues.
@The Deuce: If in your experiment, you're suggesting that success is based
on the ability to produce offspring and grow numerically; I'm sure, with
ingenuity and modern medicine, the gay and lesbian group could figure out a way
to have as many children as the heterosexual group. But I would suggest a more
practical experiment. Let's have a large group of heterosexual married
couples live in the same communities with a significant but smaller number of
gay married couples and see how they get a long and thrive. Oh wait, that has
already been done in the numerous states that allow gay marriage and guess what,
there haven't been any problems!
@ Sven: When will people like you finally understand that being LGBT is not a
choice. Even the LDS church leaders acknowledge that. Why would someone choose a
lifestyle that leads to ridicule, being beaten up and persecuted to the point of
suicide. I'm sure virtually all gay people could care less about
"pushing this mess on our kids". They just want equal rights which
should be guaranteed to them under the law and live out their lives in peace and
happiness like the rest of us. I know of several gay LDS young men who served
honorable, successful missions for their church with the idea that if they were
diligent and obedient, God would take the homosexuality away from them; all to
no avail. Many then feel they have no choice but to leave the church. I would
hope that the religious zealots in our state would practice what they preach
and truly "hate the sin but love the sinner" and remember that tolerate
does not equal love.
Ok, let's try a simple experiement. Let's take a community of either
Gay or Lesbian couples and a community of man/woman couples. With nothing else
provided, which community has the greatest chance of success to grow beyond the
@2bitsFor much of history marriage was typically between family
members (i.e. cousins) to preserve family wealth and property rights the notion
of marrying for a purpose other then to maintain family lineage and therefore
wealth did not take hold until much later in history and nether the state or
religion took much interest in recording (in the mid 1400's as noted above)
let alone try to control who could marry. At no time in history has your
definition of marriage been universal.
@2bitsYes marriage does date back further then that what does not date
back to anytime is history is your definition of marriage as being only between
a man and a women. It has no historical basis, not sure how to be any more clear
Sorry Charlie!Even if it only goes back to the mid 1400's...
that's NOT recent.And that's just when churches started
recording them.I'm pretty sure people were "marrying"
before that.But no matter how you look at it... it's NOT a
2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTI mean even if you throw out all
religious history... it even goes back to cave men/women.========
That wasn't "marriage", that was called
mating.And I reckon the same 97% vs. 3% rule still applied -- even
@ 2bits: The default marital status throughout history has been polygamy - not
one man one woman. And many cultures have recognized homosexual relationships
to some extent, including some that have recognized them on the same level as
@2bitsActually neither the government or religion took any part in
marriage until the mid 1400's and at that point they merely started
officially registering them. Prior to that point if people showed up and
declared they had married the government and religion simply took it as fact.
the definition you present has never been a universal one by religions or
I am not sure if you don't know history or just confuse your religious
beliefs (Adam and Eve) for historical fact but marriage being defined as between
a man and a women does not date back much more then a hundred years in Utah or
American culture let alone the world were it has never been a universal truth.
Sorry Charlie,Are you serious? You think marriage being between a man
and a woman has only been in our culture for a relatively short period of
time??I'm pretty sure this definition goes clear back to Adam
and Eve. That's pretty far back. About as far back as I can think of.Even if you think Adam and Eve is a myth.... it goes pretty far back.
And I don't mean as far back as the founding of our country. I mean WAY
back. Wasn't marriage traditionally between a man and a woman
back in Germania? ancient England. ancient Greece? Crete? Even Africa,
Mongolia and ancient China. I mean it goes back in history as far as recorded
history goes?I mean even if you throw out all religious history...
it even goes back to cave men/women. I mean they were probably pairing up as
men and women even way back then (or how would the species have succeeded)?I'm pretty sure this pairing up as man & woman thing goes WAY
back... whether you believe the religious aspect of it or not.
what I find most humorous is this author accuses gay people of altering the
definition of marriage then turns around and makes false claims about the
history of marriage which has only been defined between a man and a women (by
some) within our culture for a relatively short period of time and never been a
@Stephen Daedalus:Perfectly stated. Even if one could simply
[Ctrl-F] "marriage" and replace all with "civil union," you
would have to do it to the entire US Code, the Code of Federal Regulations,
fifty state codes and constitutions, and you would still have ripple effects
throughout private documents (e.g. employment benefit packages) and elsewhere.
It would take multiple acts of federal and state legislatures to accomplish,
even if it were feasible.To be fair, civil unions would have to be
the standard for all marriages, not just the "separate but equal" second
class option for same sex couples. Sectarian marriage would be the alternative
special case or supplement to the civil case.Society probably should
have differentiated between civil and religious marriage a long time ago. That
would have prevented the current fuss. But that horse has already left the
barn. It's far too late to try to close the door with civil unions.
Why won't 'They' settle for a different word? Because our gay
brothers and sisters want to be treated equally. What's wrong with that?
Rather than always arguing semantics, why not demonstrate how your marriage
would suffer if the gay couple across the street is legally married. It's
going to happen and you won't notice a thing.
The LGBT types have a very heavy burden they must face, and quite frankly, a
very sad one. They know all too well that their lifestyles are not normal, and
go against the laws of nature. While their stated desire is to gain
acceptance/approval from society on the basis of equality (e.g. admission into
the BSA, Gay Marriage, benefits, etc.), there is another reason the LGBT
community is trying so desperately to have their lifestyle considered
"normal." They are attempting to deny reality to sooth their own
consciences. Their thought is: "Hey, if society considers this healthy and
normal...well, it must be!" No, it's not, and the LGBT types know
it's not. Ever wonder why there’s a need for Gay Pride parades and
celebrations? These are not the actions of people who are comfortable with
their lifestyles, but rather people who are trying to convince themselves that
it is normal. Sadly, now the LGBT crowd is trying to push this mess
on our kids as an “alternative lifestyle” choice. Just one more peg
in trying to normalize these abnormal lifestyle choices.
Great point! See the straw-man arguments roll forth.
"Why could they not have been satisfied with a category of secular union
that would have offered them the secular benefits they sought?"I
think the key word in every argument against marriage equality or
anti-discrimination laws is the word THEY. It is a word that separates us
instead of bringing us together as a community. It keeps those of us who are the
THEY at arms length. You are really telling us that we aren't as good as
the rest of you; that you don't want to get to know us.The real
reason for the fight is about inclusion. We want to be a part of your
communities. We want to be invited to the neighborhood barbecues. We want you to
realize that we have the same dreams and aspirations as the rest of you. We
would like your acceptance, but we will survive without it.
In addition to points made by the prior comments, there is a very practical
issue that is not often discussed. Even if 'civil unions' (or
comparable term other than word 'marriage') were to be offered to
same-sex couples, with the idea that it would be roughly identical in terms of
rights/obligations to marriage, it is not simply a matter of doing a
word-processing 'search-and-replace' throughout the text of
state/federal statutes. The secular concept of 'marriage'
is marbled throughout both statutes and case law, and can't easily be
swapped out with a phrase such as 'marriage or civil unions'. Even
amending all statutes where marriage is mentioned would tie up state
legislatures and Congress more so than amending the U.S. Constitution, given how
difficult it is to pass the least controversial bills.This same
problem applies to the other idea of 'getting government out of the
marriage business' by simply referring to all secular 2-person
state-recognized bonds as something other than 'marriage'. I agree
that would sort of avoid the current controversy, but there are insurmountable
practical hurdles to overcome, so its more of a theory than anything that could
I'm not LDS, but on this issue I stand with Mormon prophet Monson, who
according to Mormons speaks for God. Nice to know I'm with him on this!
He has stated only a man and woman should be able to marry.
I don't see a need to bury it in semantics. Every marriage is a civil
union; the sacred or religious component is just a veneer some couples put on
liberal larrysalt lake City, utahYa -- I suppose
Utah can then deal with Gay marriages like they have with Plural marriages...They can pass all the laws they want to banning it, and then
NOTHING about enforcing any of them.
I can't figure out the strong reaction against gay marriage in Utah. When
we first moved here we lived next to a group of polygamists who exercised an
ancient form of "traditional marriage" and guess what? It didn't
have any effect on our more modern form of marriage. Even though
these types had been living in our midst for over 100 years no one seemed to
care! It seemed like a classic "live and let live" situation.I think it is getting harder to find reasonable arguments as to why gay
marriages are detrimental to society, and the explanations are becoming more
convoluted and legalistic, and harder to take seriously.
Those who tell us that God made a mistake have made a grave error. They think
that people listen to their malarkey. They think that they, who cannot raise
even a blade of grass from the dead, can instruct their creator on what
constitutes the most fundamental unit of society. What arrogance! What
pretentious, vainglorious, pomposity!Where are the worlds that they
created? Which stars have they lit to shine for eons? Which planets have they
set in orbit? What life forms have they placed on those planets? When did they
breathe the breath of life into those life forms? Yet they lecture us on the
structure of a family. What is the eventual result of their chosen
lifestyle, if they convince foolish people to follow them? It is the extinction
of the human race - yet they tell us that their lifestyle harms no one! They
have made the most grave error. They have rejected light and truth and replaced
it with arrogance. That was tried before. It failed then. It will always fail.
mcbillayWest Jordan, UT12:14 a.m. Jan. 27, 2014======== Agreed!(wish I had 10 stars to give you)That is precisely why Amendment 3 was struck down.Had Civil Unions or
Domestic Partnerships been allowed - traditional Marriage COULD have ben
salvaged.But in their over zealous over reach, they stomped
and trampled ANY allowance of access to equal rights.
The best way to handle this is to have ALL civil relationships (one active
partnership per person consistent with age and sanginuity requirements) be
called something other than marriage -- civil unions or civil partnerships
perhaps -- and, after a couple has registered their civil union/partnership with
the state, they can go to an entity of their choice to participate in a marriage
ceremony if they wish. The "marriage" would have no legal force or
effect -- that would be the purview of the civil partnership, which would convey
all the legal rights and responsibilities now embodied in marriage. People
could accept or reject the "marriage" as they chose as long as they
recognize the legal civil union/partnership exists. Problem solved.
"Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!"
"they have tended to overreach."How dare those people want
to be treated just like me.
"Why could they not have been satisfied with a category of secular union
that would have offered them the secular benefits they sought? "A marriage is a a marriage is a marriage is a marriage is a marriage....Separate but equal is NOT EQUAL.
Two serious problems with Mr. Strong's argument:First,
Utah's Amendment 3 prohibits state recognition of anything that would grant
secular benefits to same sex couples the way that state-recognized marriage
does.Second, and most significantly, multiple federal courts have
concluded that, like the south's Jim Crow laws of a century ago,
"separate but equal" is in fact _not_ equal, and a violation of the
constitution's Equal Protection language.Antipathy towards
homosexuals is both irrational and harmful, and state-sanctioned antipathy
towards same sex couples fails in court when subjected to legal scrutiny.
It's long-past time for the state of Utah to release its homophobia.
Mr. Strong,I don't know if you are familiar with Amendment 3
which prevented LGBT from obtaining Civil Unions or SSM. Your letter displays a
lack of knowledge at best or is disingenuous at worst.In my personal
opinion, all the arguments pro and against Same Sex Marriage have been
presented. Now, is the time to wait for the SCOTUS to emit a ruling.The tendency of most developed countries and societies is to move toward
acceptance and equality. Countries with a strong tradition of tribal and
religious rivalries such as Uganda are becoming more antagonistic toward
homosexuality. They seem to need somebody to blame for their self-inflicted
maladies.Mr. Strong, I invite you to wait for the SCOTUS and the
evolution that is taking place across this beautiful land of ours.God Bless!!
"It seems reasonable to suppose that a same-sex union is of a different
nature than a traditional marriage,"Actually, to the people
involved, there is NO difference at all. A few hurches are based on marriage and
procreation (lds and catholic, for instance)so some of their members see a
marriage that is not for the purpose of procreation as different. That is not
the business of civil laws, and will never win a court case.People
want to be "married", not spend their lives explaining differences.
Children want parents who are married. Gay siblings deserve to marry their
partner the way straight siblings do. Imagine telling one of your kids he is
unfortunately left out.The entire reason this issue is not a done
deal is that the procreation-based churches created opposition, hurting all Gay
people, because they did not want their own Gay kids to want the marriage that
God put into their hearts.
This letter provides some good language for the courts to use in their orders -
with a little tweaking: "Expanding the time-honored definition of marriage
to include same-sex unions will do no harm to other unions. No evidence shows
that same-sex unions are different, so both types of unions should enjoy the
same secular benefits."