What the same-sex marriage movement is really doing to marriage

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Demiurge San Diego, CA
    April 13, 2014 6:50 p.m.

    It does take a village to raise a child: schools, libraries, playgrounds, etc.

  • Dugger Clearfield, UT
    April 13, 2014 10:21 a.m.

    This is a sobering article that lays bare the real, evil intents of conspiring individuals. Every God-fearing family and person needs to read this and realize what we are facing.

    From the time that Hillary Clinton said that "it takes a village to raise a child", we have seen an attack on the traditional family. We are already reaping the sad consequences of not holding firm to the values of a marriage between a man and a woman who honor their marital vows with complete fidelity and, who do not teach their children moral truth, such as respecting others and the property of others and resisting the urge to live a hedonistic life. If you have ever visited Detroit or Chicago, you can begin to see where we as a country, and world, are headed.

  • Rikitikitavi Cardston, Alberta
    April 12, 2014 1:23 p.m.

    @ sneaky
    Abstain is the answer to your query. Just as an alcoholic, a pedophile, a smoker, a klepto...you get it by now. Behavioral scientists can tell you many with ssa can abstain, and many can be happy in hetero unions. I'm not saying it is easy.....just being truthful.

  • Rikitikitavi Cardston, Alberta
    April 12, 2014 10:48 a.m.

    I wonder where God is in this whole debate. Wait...thank goodness I have President Monson to look to for inspired guidance. In total, fifteen men whom I trust for inspired guidance.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 11, 2014 3:04 p.m.

    "I think that position requires some serious soul searching, as it is normal and healthy to love a lot of people regardless of their gender or sexual orientation. Love is not the same as sexual attraction"

    That's a very disingenuous pair of statements there because they can easily be flipped on you since I'm sure you wouldn't conceive of marrying someone of the same gender. There's no assertion at all that they can't love someone of a different gender or sexual orientation, nor any assertion that love is the same as sexual attraction. You know very well that there's a different kind of love involved in who you want to marry compared to siblings or friends.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    April 11, 2014 12:35 p.m.

    Candied Ginger describes the "homosexual lifestyle". Two moms with two children. One mom works and one stays home with the kids. They have two cars and are looking for a house to buy.

    Oh, the horror of it all!

    April 11, 2014 9:54 a.m.

    Sneaky Jimmy,

    The first rule is to obey the law of chastity, which means no sexual relations outside of marriage. Violations of the law of chastity, will, in the long run, bring sorrow to those involved as well as to those who love them.

    Second, If one is interested in family life and marriage, I suggest finding someone of the opposite sex who is amenable to it, getting married, having children, and teaching and loving them all. If a homosexual person can't stand the thought of sexual relations with a member of the opposite sex, there's artificial insemination - the children will have the benefit of knowing and being raised by their biological parents.

    Some gay people are opposed to the idea of marrying a member of the opposite sex, some even going so far as to say they couldn't love such a spouse. I think that position requires some serious soul searching, as it is normal and healthy to love a lot of people regardless of their gender or sexual orientation. Love is not the same as sexual attraction.

  • OneWifeOnly San Diego, CA
    April 11, 2014 9:39 a.m.

    Sounds good to me. I don't care what words anyone chooses to use to describe the public ceremonial act of creating a life-long commitment between two people. What I care about is that everyone, gay or straight, has equality under the law. The judge who performed our ceremony told us that a wedding is not a marriage. It takes work and love and commitment to make a marriage. 20 years and counting for us. I want that for everyone.

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    April 11, 2014 9:07 a.m.

    Reading some of the posts here is great entertainment. Tiago asks a great question: What do you want Gay people to do? Could one of you arm chair prophets please outline the "plan of life" for a gay man - from cradle to grave. I would love to hear how you would teach a gay man to live his life.

  • Cognoscente Provo, UT
    April 11, 2014 2:29 a.m.

    Jamescmeyer: "It's not a real secret; there are a notable number of people active in trying to change marriage who openly acknowledge that their goal is to remove marriage and the family altogether, and that this is the way to do it."

    Really? Name them.

    Or did you mean "zero" as your notable number?

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    April 10, 2014 11:35 p.m.

    I am completely against redefining marriage for Constitutional reasons, economic reasons, moral reasons, and logical reasons, however, I thought this article went way too far and is very derogatory and not very nice.
    Gay people are completely wrong about redefining marriage, but they still are mostly good loving people.

  • brokenclay Tempe, AZ
    April 10, 2014 9:02 p.m.

    1. "Two" -- from a secular perspective, this criterion is just as arbitrary as limiting a contract to a man and woman. Different forms of polyamory are extremely common in the world today. Why do these relationships not get the protection of the law?

    2. "adults" -- teenage sexuality is to be encouraged, but not commitment? Is the cutoff for adulthood whatever the state decides it should be? 18? 17? 16? Also, are we talking adult humans here, or would we include the guy who wants benefits for his pet as well?

    3. "lifelong commitment" -- again, an arbitrary criterion. Why does a contract that conveys benefits have to be permanent?

    4. "aren't blood-related" -- what if an adult father-daughter couple agrees to undergo some form of permanent birth control? According to your definition, procreation/family building is not a generally intended end of marriage, so why limit it in this area? Examples could be multiplied here.

    I'd further point out that these criteria could well serve for any secular contractual agreement-- business, friendship, roommates, etc., not just a romantic-type relationship. There is nothing here that uniquely identifies marriage.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2014 6:18 p.m.

    "Give me a comprehensive list of what makes marriage marriage from the revisionist camp's perspective."

    Two adults who want to make a lifelong commitment to each other that may be religious or secular in nature.

    (And aren't blood-related).

    What'd you expect for an answer? It's the same thing as a heterosexual marriage except replacing "A man and a woman" with "Two adults".

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    April 10, 2014 5:28 p.m.


    How about "marriage," which takes place at the courthouse and consists of buying the license, signing, and paying the fees. It is legal and recognized by the government.

    And "ceremony" which is social, takes place in a church/temple/synagogue or woods or rented hall and is for friends and family and may include religious rituals/blessings or whatever.

    Marriage is legal, unless you want to have every law and regulation concerning marriage to have to be annotated to say civil union.

  • OneWifeOnly San Diego, CA
    April 10, 2014 4:19 p.m.

    We should go to a system in this country that Mormons are already very familiar with: Civil Unions and Church Marriage. Civil Union licenses would be issued by the government for the purposes of affording any two people who want to join together the legal benefits currently accorded to married couples. Church Marriage would be performed by the couples religion of choice according to that religion's teaching (i.e., Mormon Temple Weddings). Those who need a Church Marriage to be saved (or need their church to define Marriage as between one man and one woman) could create their partnership under this method. Those who want a Civil Union to take advantage of financial benefits could create their partnership under this method. Those who want both religious and financial benefits (assuming they practice a religion that endorses their partner of choice) could create their partnership under both methods.

  • Candied Ginger Brooklyn, OH
    April 10, 2014 2:56 p.m.

    Here is why we want to get married. We have been together for over five years. Living together, dated for a year before that. We adopted a child and are adopting another. (Gay couples can do that in Ohio. Not everywhere.) We are looking for a house to buy. We have two cars and all the stuff a family has.

    She works full-time, I am a stay-at-home-mom and work a very flexible part-time schedule. We have done everything we can to protect the kids if something happens to both of us. But her family has said if something happens to her they will take me to court and try to get everything that has been set up to protect the kids.

    She was offered a transfer to a state that does not have gay marriage, so far we have not been able to find a job for either of us in a state that would let us marry. We are a family, and we need the protection that comes from being married.

    There is more to this, but that is the important parts.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    April 10, 2014 2:21 p.m.

    @Let It Go

    Let me see if I understand this. You are wondering what would happen if every single human being on the planet decided to be in a dedicated homosexual relationship. Well if that happened then yes, there would be some issues regarding reproduction. However, that hinges on an the event that every single person on the planet would actually do that. There is no way that would happen. When was the last time all of humanity agreed on anything? What would it take for you to enter into a homosexual relationship? I know I'm not going to. In fact, only people who are homosexual will, and that will be about 2-5% of the population. So no, humanity won't have trouble reproducing.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    April 10, 2014 2:16 p.m.

    That was some article. Do people actually believe this stuff? Essentially the article said if same sex marriage is legalized then America will become a totalitarian state. That is a perfect example of the slippery slope argument.

    If people want to know what will happen to a society where same sex marriage is legal it's not that hard to find. In many countries it has been legal for the better part of a decade. What has happened in those countries? Have any of them fallen into horrible totalitarian regimes of suppression and genocide? Nope, it turns out that life and society just go along as they had before. That's all that will happen here in America. The country won't fall apart, no one will be tearing up the constitution, you'll get up and go to work just like you did before, you'll com home and have the same family, the sky won't fall.

  • Let it Go! Omaha, NE
    April 10, 2014 1:43 p.m.

    If this is the window to the future, then we are in BIG trouble.

    Also, I have a question for the concept of gay marriage. If everyone else decides to do it, how is the human civilization going to reproduce? Are you guys going to support births out of wedlock or sexual relationships with someone not your spouse? Or both?

    Am I the only one who can see that?

  • anotherview SLO, CA
    April 10, 2014 11:00 a.m.

    What shlock.

    Next can we expect an article from Pat Buchanan explaining how AIDs is God's revenge on gay people?

    Apparently we've given up all pretense of being a serious newspaper and exercising some editorial discretion? But oh, when to comes to "moderating" comments the bar is ever flucuating and inexplicable.

  • Lilalips Attleboro, MA
    April 10, 2014 10:53 a.m.

    Funny that nobody mentions diversity since ss marriage was introduced. Diversity matters especially in marriage. Without diversity of the sexes you don't have marriage you have something else. You have a union of people that is approved by the state. I know a women who struggled with ss attraction. She left the church, came back to church, and married a man. That was 30 years ago. Many of her friends who never struggled with ss attraction have long since been divorced, some more than once. With God you can do all things in happiness.

  • brokenclay Tempe, AZ
    April 10, 2014 10:30 a.m.

    Humor me, Ranch. Just list them out-- one comprehensive list of the criteria for marriage.

    The reluctance of the revisionist camp to lay out their definition of marriage could lead me to believe that they have something to hide.

    Again, key word: comprehensive.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    April 10, 2014 10:04 a.m.


    All? Well, the VERY SAME THINGS in a heterosexual marriage. That's pretty "comprehensive" for you. No "revision" required.

  • brokenclay Tempe, AZ
    April 10, 2014 9:52 a.m.

    Can an advocate of homosexual marriage lay out for me what ALL of his criteria for marriage are? Give me a comprehensive list of what makes marriage marriage from the revisionist camp's perspective. Key words: ALL; comprehensive.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2014 9:52 a.m.

    @the truth
    "A gay activist gave a speech saying, and I summarize, the Gays didn't really want marriage, but to end the institution of marriage."

    It's foolish to consider the words of one person to be representative of an entire group of people.

  • UT Brit London, England
    April 10, 2014 7:52 a.m.

    Coming from a country with SSM, I can attest that it has not made a single difference to myself, my marriage and my family. It seems SSM is only important in the US, have not heard a peep out of the church leadership about anywhere else.

    To all those who say that all homosexuals want to ban marriage completely because of what one person said, would be well to note that there was someone on these very comment boards saying that homosexuals would be rounded up and gassed like the jews because of them wanting SSM. Crazy people are crazy and thats why I dont let the voice of an individual mark a whole group.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    April 10, 2014 7:21 a.m.

    @fatheroffour for race and economic background recommend to marry someone the same as it is easier to adjust that way, though all marriages can work out. As for religion church leaders have always taught that since people not of the LDS faith cannot go to the temple. Besides being unequally yoked causes problems as few people join the church after marrying someone not of the faith. Even Abraham Isaac and Jacob told there own children that. So if you feel strongly about wanting to worship your way good idea to marry someone that way, and it is church doctrine to marry someone of the faith. You are not shunned if you don't, but interfaith marriages have caused many problems with people hoping to convert there spouse.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    April 10, 2014 6:55 a.m.

    I read Morabito's article in The Federalist. I tried valliantly to find even a morsel of truth in it. Sadly, there was no truth to be found.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    April 10, 2014 6:26 a.m.

    It's all "the gays" fault.

    The fact of the matter is that you heterosexuals are the one's ruining marriage; LGBT couples have barely had the opportunity to marry; you can't blame your failures on us.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    April 10, 2014 6:15 a.m.

    I was always taught that the first one to invoke "Nazi" or to use fear mongering (this article) in an argument is the loser because you don't need to go there if you have a credible argument.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2014 1:50 a.m.

    "Same-sex marriage isn’t really what marriage equality activists are fighting for. It’s really about ending civil marriages altogether, according to Stella Morabito, a writer for The Federalist." I went to "The Federalist" website. The argument is very unconvincing.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    April 9, 2014 11:44 p.m.

    And with this, Deseret News falls into reporting conspiracy theories as fact. What's next Building 7?

    Can Des News go any lower?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 9, 2014 11:25 p.m.

    Same sex marriage isn't doing nearly as much damage, if it can be called that, as traditional marriage is doing to the concept.

  • Wastintime Los Angeles, CA
    April 9, 2014 11:11 p.m.

    Well, I'm just wondering what the state of the family is in MA, where same-sex marriage has been legal for 10 yrs.?

    What utter nonsense.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    April 9, 2014 10:58 p.m.

    Despite what some may want to read into scripture or quote religious leaders from throughout the world. In Christianity "A plain reading of Scripture accompanied by two thousand years of church history affirm the teaching of Scripture that upholds the view of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but the Scriptures also speak plainly of another truth: that no sin is wider than Christ’s mercy if one will only repent and believe."

    Separate religion and secular if you want but the religion of Christianity marriage is between an man and a woman.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    April 9, 2014 9:58 p.m.

    The whole issue of homosexual "marriage" is mostly the consequence of a continuing devaluation of the institution of marriage, generally, in the minds of more and more people.

    It is little wonder that there is so little concern about the distortion or, at a minimum, the dissolution of the definition of marriage when its importance to so many people is in such a precipitous decline.

    Unfortunately, like many a neglected treasure, the actual value of marriage to our society and everyone that is part of it will only be better appreciated long after the negative effects of its undervaluation are upon us.

  • On the other hand Riverdale, MD
    April 9, 2014 9:40 p.m.

    Morabito's article lays out a great conspiracy theory but she doesn't support her assertions. Certainly there are some activists out there who would like to end government-sanctioned marriage, but that doesn't mean that all or most of the people in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage are in favor of abolishing marriage altogether. And it's ludicrous to suggest that what supporters of same-sex marriage really want is to end freedom of association and create a world in which biological parents don't have the right to raise their own children. By what bizarre turn of events could the views of American society possibly change to the point where they would allow their leaders to do this? It simply won't happen.

    I favor traditional marriage, but absurd, extremist speculation like this really doesn't help the cause.

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    April 9, 2014 9:36 p.m.

    Stella Morabito is speaking from a twisted U.S. perspective, using bits and pieces out of context, and scaring readers with apocalyptic language.

    Look, instead, at the most advanced countries of the Western world which approved of ame-sex marriage years ago. First, these countries recognize only civil marriage as valid (the religious ceremony is an optional extra), which avoids the whole issue of religious freedom. Second, same-sex couples constitute a tiny fraction of the population (some 3%) without any detrimental impact on hetero marriages or the family. Third, the movement to obtain recognition of same-sex marriage has actually reinforced the value and desirability of marriage also for hetero couples.

    Recognizing same-sex marriage becomes a non-issue once approved. Please, don't predict calamities.

  • 1covey Salt Lake City, UT
    April 9, 2014 7:54 p.m.

    Marriage is such an important institution in society. Because of this fact, society has given helps to safeguard and support marriages. SSM advocates want these same benefits, but do they produce what a 'traditional' marriage does? The differences between men and women are significant. Hence marriage between men and women presents difficulties that need to be addressed. Getting along with anybody can be trying. Unfortunately, our society seems to be losing the gumption to stick-to-it and work things out. SSM may be cashing in on the problems between the sexes. But, they will fall prey to the problem of sticking-to-it as well, since they seem to be following a "it's what I want that matters most" philosophy.

    April 9, 2014 7:41 p.m.

    Many of the disturbing trends in society can be traced back to the disintegration of the traditional family, so gay "marriage" is not really a "tin foil hat" or "sky is falling" issue as some pretend; rather, it is a real and tangible attack on the family that will inevitably result in more societal dysfunction. Then, of course, the government will step in and pretend to have solutions for the problems that government created. It's a pattern that's been repeated numerous times during my life.

    It's unfortunate that so many have framed the issue as haters vs. non-haters, bigots vs. the liberal-minded, because that isn't the crux of the issue at all, as is succinctly pointed out by the article. Those of us who support traditional marriage are doing what little we can to preserve and protect society. But then I guess the mis-framing of an issue is one way of getting what you want in our post-rational age.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    April 9, 2014 7:38 p.m.

    @Chris B: "I'm in good company in this debate."

    I'm in good company in this debate.

    People who agree with me:
    The Dali Lama
    Archbishop Desmond Tutu

    Considering the work these men have done for healing and peace and equality around around the world, that is good company to be in.

    Dali Lama: "If two males or two females voluntarily agree to have mutual satisfaction without further implication of harming others, then it is okay."

    Desmond Tutu: "I would not worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this. I would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven. No, I would say sorry, I mean I would much rather go to the other place.'

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    April 9, 2014 6:47 p.m.


    A gay activist gave a speech saying, and I summarize, the Gays didn't really want marriage, but to end the institution of marriage.

    You can find the video and story on the internet if you willing to look for it.

    Redefining marriage does in fact make it less meaningful.

  • intervention slc, UT
    April 9, 2014 5:24 p.m.

    Nice to hear from the tin foil hate segment of society.

  • Spellman789 Syracuse, UT
    April 9, 2014 4:49 p.m.

    You are right about the Aaronic Priesthood Manual. It also says: “In selecting a companion for life and for eternity, certainly the most careful planning and thinking and praying and fasting should be done to be sure that, of all the decisions, this one must not be wrong. In true marriage there must be a union of minds as well as of hearts. Emotions must not wholly determine decisions, but the mind and the heart, strengthened by fasting and prayer and serious consideration, will give one a maximum chance of marital happiness”. It makes sense for people to marry, first someone of the opposite sex, and then try to match as well to that other person as possible. It makes sense that this would either eliminate, or substantially reduce a lot of the heartache and frustration that major differences can cause.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    April 9, 2014 3:33 p.m.


    First, I agree with Jeanie.

    Second, please check the 2014 manual.

  • vangroovin West Jordan, UT
    April 9, 2014 3:11 p.m.

    It is upsetting to see that the eventual intent of the SSM clan is to eliminate marriage benefits as a whole and put relationships, including those with our own children, under the dictatorship, disguised as "watchful care", of a totalitarian and extreme leftist government that has eliminated our freedoms, rights, and privileges under the guise of "liberty and equality for all". There is something horribly sick and wrong in the minds of these elitists (and sympathizers) who fail to see the consequences of the evil designs they are so deceptively promoting. Yes, I believe in treating people, all people, with dignity and respect. But to manipulate people into thinking there is an equality that is really a private agenda to propel government control is wrong and unethical. If this movement is successful, society will literally crumble into disarray and we will become government property without freedoms, not people supported by a government allowing for and protecting our freedoms. My proposed solution: save the family unit, especially the sacred union of a man and a woman, and keep it intact (see also "The Family: A Proclamation to the World").

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    April 9, 2014 2:54 p.m.

    Father of Four,

    Sorry, my church doesn't say that. That doesn't come from any publication of my church. I'm Catholic

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 9, 2014 2:44 p.m.

    "Same-sex marriage isn’t really what marriage equality activists are fighting for. It’s really about ending civil marriages altogether"

    Uh huh... all this effort trying to get civil marriages when they want to end it. That makes no sense at all.

  • Gary Federal Way, WA
    April 9, 2014 2:44 p.m.

    The sky is falling! The article assumes that the ratio of gay marriages is greater than the straight marriages. It's not even close. It's close to less than 1% of all marriages. That couples cohabiting with each other choosing not to get married is nothing new and after seven years they are automatically married in the eyes of the law. No one is saying anything about the high number of those failing to get married and the article is blaming gay marriages for it. That doesn't make any sense. Seeing it's from the Federalist Papers, that explains. A very opinionated article that has no basis on what it's really talking about. Just more smoke over nothing.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    April 9, 2014 2:39 p.m.

    This article argues that the growing number of singles is one of the evidences that marriage equality is really about destroying marriage altogether.
    This begs the question, what do you want gay people to do with their lives?
    If you don't want gay people to be single and you don't want them to be married to each other, what do you want them to do? Do you want them to marry opposite sex spouses? Or would you prefer if we all just didn't exist?

  • jeanie orem, UT
    April 9, 2014 2:27 p.m.

    There is a difference between recommending something and calling something immoral and unacceptable. Our church teaches marriage between one man and one woman. They recommend the other items mentioned and but are not defined as immoral if entered into.

    Incidentally, while those recommendations are not doctrine and should not be put into law, they are reasonable. Marriage is not easy and the more a couple has in common the less problems they can run into. There is proof of this wisdom in my own family where two good people from different nationalities have married and struggle greatly with the cultural differences. Their children feel the effect. No moral judgement in this, just an observation.

  • gmlewis Houston, TX
    April 9, 2014 2:16 p.m.

    The author makes an excellent point: The legal definition of marriage is really the sum of the 1,000 laws that relate to marriage. If the state replaces those laws with a relationship that each couple defines, then none of the marriage rights in those 1,000 laws are applicable anymore.

    In such an Orwellian world, we might be able to apply for those legal rights individually. Just as likely, these rights would cease to exist, and the government will take it upon itself to enact new laws that increase their control over parents and children.

    April 9, 2014 1:54 p.m.

    Chris B.

    You are correct. That is what they teach. In fact, here is a quote from the current Aaronic Priesthood Manual:

    “We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question”

    But even though that is what your church teaches, that is not how we make laws in this country. Otherwise rich would not marry poor, a college graduate would not marry a high school dropout, and blacks would not marry whites, and Catholics would not marry Mormons.

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    April 9, 2014 1:51 p.m.

    It's not a real secret; there are a notable number of people active in trying to change marriage who openly acknowledge that their goal is to remove marriage and the family altogether, and that this is the way to do it. They often state it as some means of "freeing women", or eliminating the "selfishness" of people who cling to families rather than the collective government.

    Just look at it; marriage is the bond of a man and a woman. If we can't say that, then how can one say that it's between any two people? Why not three or more? Who's to say it has to be between people at all? Why aren't willingly single people "entitled" to this-or-that? Why can't a single person who'd be a good parent adopt alone? The slope isn't just slippery; it can't be visually missed.

  • jeanie orem, UT
    April 9, 2014 1:38 p.m.

    Good article! If the same sex marriage folks get their way we'll see if it really ends there or where the author of the article cited said it will.

    The most simple, stable configuration of a family is and always will be a mom, a dad, and children united together through marriage of a man and a woman.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    April 9, 2014 1:35 p.m.

    I'm in good company in this debate.

    People who agree with me:

    Mormon Prophet Monson
    Pope Francis

    And considering who those men speak for, according to their religions, its even better company to be in!

    They think only men and women should be able to marry.

    April 9, 2014 1:26 p.m.

    Allow me to summarize: The sky is falling!