@ WTZ "If SSM is legitimized so must all other forms of potential marriage
combinations, including polygamy, incest, children, siblings, anyone who loves
anyone else."That is what known as the Slippery Slope Logical
Fallacy and not valid in law. You assume that that there is a constitutional
right to harm and abuse along with the marriage presumption of intimacy with
children and siblings. That is quite a stretch of imagination don't
you think?Keep in mind that at the most basic level, by requiring
that classifications must be justified by an independent and legitimate purpose,
the Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment) prohibits classifications from
being drawn for “the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the
law." Romer, 517 U.S. at 633. There is simply no logical reason whatsoever
to demean and disadvantage the children of same-sex couples by denying them
access to stability and legal benefits that civil marriage law provides.
Meanness and desire to harm are not a legitimate state interest.
@MIchelle OrmeIt takes a village to raise a child. My mom and dad
showed me a lot of things. But one Girl Scout leader showed me how to really
lead and makes a difference. A neighbor woman taught me about caring for kids
with special needs. My aunt introduced me to feminist writers, then taught me to
evaluate and form my own opinions. My uncle insisted girls need to
know how to work on mechanical things, and made me (and my sisters) get my hands
dirty fixing my bike and, later, working on my car. I don't like it, but I
can do basic maintenance myself, and I know when a mechanic is talking smack.
My parents taught me a lot of things, but without the rest of the
village I would lack so much of who I am today. My kids, being
raised by two moms, also have a village. My parents. My brother and his wife,
sister and her husband. My cranky uncle. Our friends at church. The gay and
lesbian couples we know. They all contribute, are all part of our village.
@MIchelle Orme;Using your argument, you should have been taken from
your mother and placed with a two-partent opposite sex family. Children of
single heterosexual parents should be removed from those homes if that is your
only reasoning for denying marriage to LGBT couples.As many have
stated before, denying marriage to LGBT couples does nothing to promote stable,
heterosexual families. That is the responsibility of the heterosexual family
and no amount of denying gays the privilege of marriage is going to help
"traditional marriage".Unless you apply your standard across
the board, to everyone, that is discrimination. If the ONLY group you single
out is LGBT, that, ma'am, is bigotry.
My mother did a great job of being a mom. But since my parents were divorced, I
didn't receive as much parenting from my dad. Yet I did genuinely need my
dad. More 'mom' would not have helped me, a heterosexual female,
negotiate the world outside my home. He did the best he could with the amount of
time we had when we were together. Children do need parents of both genders,
they do better raised in a stable family with both genders.While
same sex couples love each other and love the children they have, there is
something missing that can't be made up with deconstructing traditional
@1 Voice: "The change in public opinion comes from a well-orchestrated group
of people who want to impose their will about SSM on society. They don’t
seem to understand that those who support traditional marriage are not anti-gay
bigots."Actually, it comes because we got tired of being pushed
into the closet, of being shamed and mistreated, of having our jobs threatened,
of being told we are perverts and being compared to pedophiles. I
don't have a desire to "impose" my will. I want to know that if my
partner - who has a serious medical condition - ends up in the hospital again I
can visit and make decisions without any problem. I want to know that we can
jointly inherit from each other without penalty. I want to know that I
won't be fired if my boss finds out I am gay. I want to know that we can
walk down the street holding hands and not be threatened. Stopping
us from being able to marry does nothing to "support traditional
marriage." It just stops same-sex-couples from having the same protections
1 Voiceorem, UT========== If you are not allowing
people like Candied GingerBrooklyn, OHthe same oppotunities --
[financial, legal, otherwise]as you do others -- the YES, that
would qualify as a "bigot".try looking up the term, in a
dictionary.Someone who exhibits a intolerance toward a
"group" of people, as opposed to an individual.
The change in public opinion comes from a well-orchestrated group of people who
want to impose their will about SSM on society. They don’t seem to
understand that those who support traditional marriage are not anti-gay bigots.
We have laws about marriage to protect the best interests of society. The
recent court decision denying polygamous marriages was based on the fact that it
was not in the best interests of society. SSM advocates want this to be about
rights which it is not. If it were then polygamous, bigamous, and polyamorous
marriages (as well as any marriage arrangement between consenting adults
including siblings and parent child relations) should be considered legal
marriages. We restrict marriage, defining it as between a man and a women,
because traditional marriage promotes the best interests of society. All the
legal and social ramification for same sex and other common law relationships
can be managed through other legal means. Unfortunately, GLBT want more than
that, they want people to condone the behavior when all they will get is a
tolerant society that acknowledges them as worthwhile individuals who should not
be persecuted in social, work and housing situations.
I find it interesting and frustrating how pro SSM people want to label all those
who oppose them as bigots. At the same time justifying their own prejudice and
bigotry based on the fact that gays have been treated unfairly by some people
(making the leap in logic that you can’t hold a different opinion without
being a bigot). The hatred does not come from those who oppose SSM (we are not
anti-gay for being pro traditional family) rather the hatred clear comes from
those who hate anyone who disagrees with SSM.
Us. Me and my wife. Our family. Two moms and two kids. We refuse to be
wall-flowers. Our kids call us "Mommy" and "MomCat" (my wife is
Cathy, she also gets "Mama" at times.)We go place and do
things as a family. I am the room mom for my daughter's class and am
involved in other things at her school. Our neighbors know us as a family, see
us with our kids. Part of our social group is some Gay and Lesbian
families who are also active and visible. Yes, we have gotten bigots
(no other word for it) who call us names or make rude comments, and one lady who
screamed at us in a store that we were going to burn for eternity. But we have a
lot of people who see us and smile or give compliments and a few who have said
seeing and knowing other families like ours changed their mind on the whole
acceptance and marriage issue.Visibility. We came out of the closet
and refused to be quiet or shamed or mistreated. It makes a difference.
Mr. Webb asks, "So my question to my gay friends is, can you do family? Can
you do it well?"If that is the standard for determining whether
a couple should be legally allowed to marry, then straight couples should be
denied marriage licenses, because half of them do not seem to be able to "do
family" at all, let alone do it well. Webb acknowledges that some gay
couples may be able to "do family" well, but discounts their experience
as irrelevant, while ignoring the vast numbers of straight families that fail.
Perhaps he should read the Eyres's column today to see how those straights
who can legally marry are faring at the job. It's not that great. His
precautionary standard should apply equally to straights.
@alleYcat: "I fail to see how redefining a religious sacrament is
somebody's 'civil right'."The fact that you want
to identify our relationships - which are just as sacred and intimate as yours -
by another term is the reason that we are demanding it be recognized as
marriage. Over half-a-century ago the Supreme Court established as a matter of
law that "Separate" is NOT "Equal." Your insisting
that your relationship has meaning above and beyond the meaning of my
relationship means that you want to be able to legally mistreat me and my
husband and all Gay and Lesbian couples. It means you want a legal backing to
discriminate.Your religion can hold marriage as a "sacred
sacrament" but that has no effect on US law, nor should it. We are a
constitutional republic ruled by law, not a theocracy where religion and
government are mixed.
@Badgerbadger: Marriage is a religious rite, not a right. I can't imagine
why unbelievers would seek it...I dare say it is a "right"
because of the many hundreds of identified legal protections and benefits it
gives to married couples. Gay and Lesbian couples want those legal
protections for the same reason as hetero couples. And, as much as you might
claim it is all about the religious imperative I don't see straight couples
offering to give all those legal protections a pass.
I fail to see how redefining a religious sacrament is somebody's
'civil right'. "Marriage" was a Biblical term and a ritual of
the church long before America ever existed, much less issued licenses and
created a tax status associated with it. It seems the LGBT movement has
completely abandoned the 'civil union' designation. why? For me,
this isn't an issue about the right to love whom you choose, or who raises
better kids. This is about the 'state' (and even 'the
people') over stepping its bounds into the realm of the 'church'.
Why are LGBT so passionate that the rest of us refer to their relationship as a
'marriage'? Does it make their relationship something less if it is
called a 'civil union' that gets the same tax and legal treatment as a
traditional marriage? I don't get it. The title 'marriage'
matters to me because of its religious/scriptural nature. Why does it matter so
much to you?
@Really,That bus driver was wrong. I stand by my statement: gays
have the right to sit on the bus. Being gay does not make somebody evil. You
have just as much of a right as anybody to use public transportation, as long as
you are not being unruly in any way.Likewise, homosexuals should be
allowed the same services at businesses as anyone else. If someone is denied
service simply because of their orientation then that is discrimination (unless
there are serious concerns about sexual matters, such as with scout leaders on
scout camps; they don't let female scout leaders sleep along with boy
scouts either).However, people misunderstand the situation. The
photographer did not refuse to take photographs of gays, she was refusing to
photograph a gay marriage ceremony. It was the event she opposed, not the
people. Likewise a filmmaker might not have any objection to interviewing known
gamblers, but might refuse to make a documentary that promotes gambling.
2 bits. of course this is a religious debate. The only arguments against equal
marriage are religious. They're certainly not scientific.
"Unless they are causing some type of problem or annoying other passengers
with some type of off the wall behavior, I've never seen anyone kicked off.
So, let's just say I'm skeptical of Really???'s comment."You are right, to some extent, Flashback. I actually got on the bus at
the same time as some unruly passengers. I did not know the other passengers,
and sat in a different area than they did. I was happy when the bus driver
pulled over to demanded they get off the bus. Unfortunately he looked back at my
friend and I and told us we had to get off of the bus as well. He
didn't care that we weren't with the unruly passengers. He didn't
care that we were quiet and keeping to ourselves. He wouldn't move until we
got off the bus. I heard him call us an unpleasant slur as we got off of the
bus. It was humiliating, and I was disappointed that nobody else on the bus
stood up for us.
Why have we changed? Simple. We have changed from a God worshiping country to a
self indulgence worshiping country. Marriage is a religious rite,
not a right. I can't imagine why unbelievers would seek it, nor can I see
why our government recognizes and regulates it.Gay should be able to
marry any man who consents, within the laws of her church, without her name
being used as a sexual reference.
2nd try."But it’s a grand, untested, social experiment
because it really hasn’t been done broadly..."--- That
isn't reason enough to approve discriminatory behavior.@play by
the rules;Prove your god even exists before declaring his demands.
Secondly, S&G were destroyed for inhospitality and greed (a lot like
today).@wrz;You have yet to show how LGBT couples
getting married is a "threat to traditional marriage". The one
won't affect the other. Problems with "traditional marriage" are
the fault of heterosexuals, not LGBT.@Getting Older;You
never had the right to vote on the rights of others in the first place.@firstamendment;More lies.@Flashback;The
10th Amendment PROHIBITS states from Violating the rest of the Consitution. You
should read it yourself. (P.S. The Bible is irrelevant to our laws).
‘Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Why the change of public opinion on
same-sex marriage?’======= I suppose for the very
same reason the next generation doesn't understand older people's
racial or gender bigotries.
airnaut 11:38 a.m. (AKA Open Minded Mormon, AKA, LDS Liberal, and many
others)Getting on people for bringing their religious beliefs into the
debate... now THAT's hypocritical...I agree it has no place
here... but for him of all people to be the one to call them it...
incredible...===This is not a religious debate. If it
were... we all know there would be no resolving it (or there would be only one
religion in the world today).We don't want the government
making one's religion or morality into law. So why is the left constantly
calling everything they do "their moral duty"?What makes
THEIR morality any better than anybody else's morality?We
should just leave morality out of it (unless we can all agree on what is moral
and what isn't).Personally... I like to get my morality from my
faith and my understanding of the gospel. But I don't expect the
government to adopt my sense of morality or to legislate that everybody adopt my
sense of morality.Why can't the left do that when they claim to
be driven by a higher sense of morality??
Frank, if you think marriage equality is wrong then, by all means, don't
marry someone of the same sex. But why should your beliefs take precedence over
the rights of these gay and lesbian people? Why should you be able to deny them
the same benefits and comforts that your family receives simply because, unlike
you, they are not heterosexual? Your claims that you love or care about these
people ring hollow when you deny them equal rights.
@FlashbackThe 14th Amendment was passed specifically to reign in the
states and their civil rights violations. It basically extended the 5th
amendment which speaks to the limits of Federal law to the States. While states
do have rights, they don't have the right to limit the rights of a minority
without solid evidence as to why the limitations are necessary. So far, the
states have not been successful in defending their laws.To your point of
children raised by same-gendered partners, that has already been happening for a
very long time. Banning marriage equality does not change that in any way.
However, allowing these couples to get married will bring the stability to their
families that heterosexual-led families enjoy.
FlashbackKearns, UTNew Age Mormon, go back and read Romans chapter
1.12:10 a.m. April 14, 2014======== Flashback,For the last 12 years we have been fighting a war
against Governments using scriptures for laws.If that's what
you want -- go back and read Koran Surat An-Nisa 4:24It says
basically the same thing...And what makes you different than them?
I have never heard of one incident where someone was ejected from a bus without
good reason. I've seen a lot of strange looking and acting people on UTA
over the years, and unless they are causing some type of problem or annoying
other passengers with some type of off the wall behavior, I've never seen
anyone kicked off. So, let's just say I'm skeptical of
New Age Mormon, go back and read Romans chapter 1.
I guess that all you libs who like to tout the 14th amendment (directed at the
slaves by the way) have never bothered to read the 10th. Read it sometime. It
was on of the original 10 amendments.Webb was right. We will not
see the effect of homosexual marriage on society yet, and it will be years
before we do. What will the children either adopted or brought forth by
artificial means turn out like? BTW Mozilla's CEO did get
forced out for giving money to Prop 8. And now we have the dude from
Chick-fil-a backing off in the name of the almighty dollar so he can expand his
business in the North East. Yes indeed, the demonization of everyone that
disagrees with the homosexual agenda is gaining momentum. And it will be a sad
day when people can't speak with either their pocket book or mouth against
homosexual marriage without being branded as bigots, homophobes, etc. There
will be no tolerance from the left for anyone or anything that disagrees with
The attitude shift came when the conservatives in the early Bush era started
backing affirmative laws like DOMA and the unfortunate California law
prohibiting it. Freedom is freedom, ask the tea party.
"Homosexuals have had the right to sit in the front of buses, use the same
drinking fountains and restrooms as heterosexuals, and vote for a very long time
now."I would believe that, if I hadn't actually been kicked
off of a bus for being gay. I would believe it, if I hadn't witnessed
hundreds of friends getting kicked out of their churches and homes for who they
are. I would believe it if states weren't rushing to pass laws to allow
people to not do business with gays out of "religious conscious." I
agree that this is not the same as the civil rights' battles of the
60's, but does it make this any less important? People are still being
ridiculed and excluded because of who we love. It's time for that to
change.On a side note--please forgive my their/there error in a
previous post. I should do a better job of proof reading before I post.
One big factor is that so many people don't look into things enough to
understand that we are being lied to about homosexuality (Yes, gays should be
loved and protected. NO, they are not necessarily born that way, many do change,
and promoting homosexuality through marriage is NOT good for America, humanity,
or for gays), and those who tell truths about it are often attacked or
threatened in one way or another (including the former APA President who is gay,
our Nations President (mainly with withdrawal of money and support, etc etc) and
the History of the movement is censored out, and so many people now believe the
propaganda and support something that they really don't understand.
The gospel is pro-faith and positive hope. A fool worships the almighty law
suit and negativity; the wise are positive. Christians will always win by
reading the scriptures and staying close together as a community. The gospel
is for faith and change of heart and for progress and forgiving one's
enemy. Darkness is forcing others to accept your opinion. All people can
@wrz"If SSM is legitimized so must all other forms of potential
marriage combinations, including polygamy, incest, children, siblings, anyone
who loves anyone else. You name it. Even group marriages such as a fraternity or
neighborhood. It might even include marrying a Bush. "Yeah, two
Bush presidents is enough...Anywho, since interracial marriage bans
being struck down is the precedent for the same-sex marriage cases, do you think
striking down those interracial marriage bans was a bad idea or would lead to
this slippery slope? Or do you only use this argument for same-sex marriage? I
suspect the latter. "Everyone has equal rights to marry but
under a certain set of requirements: one man/woman, not closely related, of a
certain minimum age, mentally competent, etc."Of the same race
was considered an equal requirement too...
The last straw of those against same-sex marriage seems to be "OK for civil
unions, but not same-sex marriages".That's semantics which
can't work in nearly all other countries around the world, where marriage
is by law and by definition a civil marriage. It always has to precede the
optional religious ceremony, which is sometimes called a "church
marriage", but has no legal value. That also solves the issue of religious
freedom, which is never under threat.
Opinions are shifting because open minds are receiving further light and
knowledge on this issue and the truth is becoming clear. Those who
call this a "war on God" are misguided and naive. The "war" is
being waged by those who fail to understand the principle of continuing
revelation as outlined in the 9th Article of Faith. We went through a similar
"war" with civil rights 35 ago and fortunately the truth
prevailed. It won't be long now on this issue.
"But it’s a grand, untested, social experiment because it really
hasn’t been done broadly, and we’re messing here with the
foundational unit of society. . . "So up until now gays have not
had families or children? Well we know the answer to that. Gays have had kids
all along, and families.It's been said already, ignorance
doesn't stand the test the time. We see the same march of progress with
legalized marijuana. One group spouts ignorance and we everyone catches on its
wrz writes:"If SSM is legitimized so must all other forms of potential
marriage combinations, including polygamy, incest, children, siblings, anyone
who loves anyone else."Earlier I recommended reading some of the
legal briefs relating to marriage equality. A really high-quality example would
be the Bostic v. Schaefer brief out of Virginia, just filed on Friday._________ "IV. The slippery-slope arguments lack merit.The Clerks and many of their amici resort to slippery-slope arguments,
warning that, if States cannot ban same-sex marriage, they will have to allow
plural marriage, marriage between siblings, and marriage to young children.
Virginia’s counsel raised the same specter in Loving, arguing that
Virginia’s “prohibition of interracial marriage” stood
“on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or
incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may
marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally
incompetent.”These tactics are no more persuasive in 2014 than
they were in 1967.”_______wrz, why are your
slippery-slope assertions correct now, when history has not born out your
"Karen R reveals a previous prejudice that is a great example of the
evolution of social understandings: left handedness."I
don't know of any statement in The Proclamation that states that marriage
is between a right-handed man and right-handed woman. I must have missed that
part in my study of it."I wonder if the Dnews produced similar
articles in the early to mid 60s on "Why the change of public opinion on
black civil rights?""Homosexuals have had the right to sit
in the front of buses, use the same drinking fountains and restrooms as
heterosexuals, and vote for a very long time now. The "Gay rights"
movement is NOT the same as the civil rights movement of the 60's. Gays
have rights (even the right to marry). The issue is that marriage is between a
man and a woman, which is what they reject.Rondonaghe brings up a
good point. The institution of marriage is under attack as the prophets have
foretold. They are Satan's target. He has destroyed marriage to some extent
already (hence the divorce rate) and SSM is his next weapon to destroy the
Has public opinion changed? After the Prop 8 victory in California, the gay
activists quit trying to win the argument and used bullying, intimidation,
hatred, and threats to win the day. If you publicly oppose gay marriage, you
will be intimidated,bullied and your job threatened or lost.Only a
vote will show if public opinion has changed. The laws that are being overturned
are NOT being overturned by the people. they are being overturned by judges who
may fear repercussions of going against the gay agenda.
If the concern really was about the well-being of children we would be focused
on poverty.According to data from Kids Count, over 24 million U.S.
children live in single-parent homes.More than 16 million U.S.
children live in households below the poverty level, with many under the age of
5 living in extreme poverty.The National Center for Children in
Poverty at Columbia University reports a family of four needs an income about
twice the poverty threshold to cover basic expenses. More than 42% of American
children live in families that don’t meet this mark. The
detrimental effects of poverty on children is well-documented by numerous
Every person, whether straight or gay, should ask those questions that LeVarr
Webb posed. You see, those problems of fathers not being their to wipe noses,
teach values, make sure their children do their homework, and teaching self
confidence has been a absent in many traditional families for years. We all need
to be reminded of the commitments of marriage and child rearing regularly.
Please, let's stop blaming gay couples for problems that started long
before same-sex marriage was even considered an option.
I think both authors are saying essentially the same thing: By demonizing the
issue, Republicans managed to cause everything they were trying to avoid. Now,
ten years later, when their rhetoric is replayed, it makes if awfully difficult
to convince the courts the law was only about promoting optimal child
rearing.I suspect the end-result of all this, is that LBGTs will
become a "suspect class" subject to "heightened scrutiny." The
Ninth Circuit Court has already used that designation in an unrelated case, and
the oral arguments in Utah's case makes clear the Tenth Circuit Court is
considering the same move.
Societal opinions are changing. A useful analogy is the Klan or the Westboro
Baptist folks. There's no law stopping the KKK from marching, or the WBC
from picketing, but it's pretty clearly unacceptable behavior in the eyes
of most of society. If the Mozilla CEO were fired from his job
because of the government, that would be a civil rights issue. He was fired
because a private company decided his beliefs and actions were incompatible with
their corporate ideals, and with their bottom line as a business. The same as
if someone showed up to a job interview in Klan hood.
Could it be that the real truth is that people have not changed their minds
about same sex marriage but have realized that the issue is freedom for the
individual as promised in the founding documents of this nation. And that
freedom for the individual is more important than the personal habits of the
individual.A person can be totally against the homosexual life style
and at the same time willing to allow adult Americans to do as they wish
according to their own religion. So long as those people don't impinge on
the freedoms of others.
n the US, same sex marriage is being used as a club to destroy religious freedom
and freedom of association and simple democracy.
@Owen:"For my conservative family it was a sibling coming out and
finding a partner that made it abundantly clear that their bring together posed
no threat whatsoever to anyone."If there is a threat, it's
not to any person in particular. The threat is the institution of marriage
itself.If SSM is legitimized so must all other forms of potential
marriage combinations, including polygamy, incest, children, siblings, anyone
who loves anyone else. You name it. Even group marriages such as a fraternity
or neighborhood. It might even include marrying a Bush. Then there goes the
institution out the window.The LGBT argument is faulty... that of
denying SSM violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It
doesn't. Everyone has equal rights to marry but under a certain set of
requirements: one man/woman, not closely related, of a certain minimum age,
mentally competent, etc. These requirements apply to all across the board. No
one is excluded. Thus there is no discrimination against gay/lesbians.
Man cannot make moral what God has declared immoral. It is that simple,
unfortunately, we are lost on the example of Soddom and Gomorrah.
It is quite simply a war on God as prophesied in the scriptures and reiterated
Sal, above, cites the state of Utah's brief without ever acknowledging the
11th hour letter from outside counsel that seems to back away from the central
point of Sal's comment. Notice that two of the asserted sub-optimal outcome
examples, "absence of a father" and "sperm donation",
overwhelmingly involve the actions of heterosexuals. How, then, is it effective
to ONLY focus on civil marriage between same-sex individuals? But
in citing a legal brief, Sal does point to an excellent source of information if
one wants to understand the underpinnings of the public opinion shift at issue.
Read the briefs. I recommend it. Even if you disagree, you'll be better
educated as to why the shift is happening.
The Mozilla CEO case doesn't bother me one bit. He was forced out by the
board of directors, not by any activists, gay or otherwise. The next CEO may
think before supporting causes that may be detrimental to their careers if their
careers are important to them.
I wonder if the Dnews produced similar articles in the early to mid 60s on
"Why the change of public opinion on black civil rights?"Public opinion is hanging because ignorance is being replaced by knowledge and
understanding, just like the blacks civil rights movement in the 60s and
Women's Suffrage in the early 1900s.If the GOP hopes to stop
the bleeding, they need to stop opposing civil rights. Otherwise, they will
continue to see their tent become smaller and smaller.
Same-sex marriage may be new on the sociological horizon, but same-sex parenting
certainly is not. It is not a "grand, untested, social experiment." Gays
and lesbians have been successfully raising children for centuries, if not
millenia, just like hetero couples. There is at least one credible study going
back 40 years that shows no significant difference in childrearing outcomes
between GL and straight parents. The State backtracked on one of their primary
cited studies--the night before the 10th Circuit trial! In the Michigan marriage
equality trial a month or so ago it was ripped apart and discredited soundly,
and Utah wisely asked the 10th Circuit judges to pretend it wasn't included
in Utah's brief.DN, if you're going to have a two-sided
discussion piece on marriage equality, could you please, at least, find a
proponent of gay marriage for our side of the argument?
This first half of this article touches upon some actual common sense before
nosediving back down into typical DN propaganda. There is no requirement that
straight people have to have children in order to be married. I'd ask why
there's a double standard here, but I'm pretty sure I know the reason
why: as same-sex marriage grows more and more inevitable, you guys are going to
grow more and more desperate to tear it down...
This article/opinion came across at first as well thought out, until the authors
decided to draw the line at traditional marriage and then asked whether gays
could "do family," and the answer they wanted was "no." And so
that was supposed to be a reasonable reason to deny traditional marriage. The
last holdout argument of those against same sex marriage has to do with
procreation and raising children, and the implied argument that children are
better off in a mommy/daddy household. That would be fine. But it's not the
reality. Fifty percent of opposite sex marriages end in divorce and the best
they can do is shuffle their children back and forth with one parent getting
visitation rights and the other essentially raising them alone. No need to list
all the ways that "traditional" opposite sex households have failed
miserably, especially involving children. So why attack and withhold marriage
from same sex couples? At least those same-sex couples who have children want
them and plan for them, unlike many, many heterosexual couplings that produce
children and reluctant or absent parents.
Why the change?I don't know -- progress?Why the change
that Blacks are equal?Why the change that Women are equal?Why the
change [ala, 1776] that all men [regardless of gender, race, religion, ect.] are
created equal?Some people are stuck in 1775.Rich ruled
the poor, Nobles over the Commoners, and achievement was based more
on what family you were born into, more than individual capability.
Why did American's change their view? Simple answer, ignorance never
stands the test of time. If it did, women would not have the right to vote nor
would blacks be able to hold the priesthood. Truth, honesty, love and compassion
are powerful forces.
Karen R reveals a previous prejudice that is a great example of the evolution of
social understandings: left handedness.Most people have no idea that
lefties were once viewed as being not just wrong, but actually evil. Seriously.
Frantic parents would try every known idea to change the orientation of their
left-handed kids, horrified at the life these children faced in a world that
viewed left-handedness as being not just wrong, but fundamentally evil.If one digs around today, they can find studies that show lefties have this
problem or that tendency, compared to righties. The material is out there, for
whomever wants to re-stoke this prejudice. (I didn't think there would be
many takers.)When I use the example of how left-handed people were
perceived and how the issue used to be viewed, most conservatives are baffled
that people could have ever thought that way. Which is exactly the
reaction young people have today when they hear anti-gay opinions from their
Agreed.Republicans are more ANTI-gay, than they are PRO-Civil
or EQUAL-rights.Just like Healthcare -- Just NO, Without offer any alternatives or solutions.Lose, Lose everytime.
Web writes:"So my question to my gay friends is, can you do
family? Can you do it well?"and"I have no doubt
that many of you can, and some of you are already doing it."and
"But it’s a grand, untested, social experiment because it
really hasn’t been done broadly, and we’re messing here with the
foundational unit of society. . . "Webb seems to be implying
that if the answer, to his questions above is, on balance, no -- then ALL gay
couples should be denied access to civil marriage. Does he really want to use
this argument?There are, right now, distinct groups in our society
for whom the answers to the above questions is, on balance, no -- and yet no one
is moving to strip them of the right to marry civilly.Why is he
suggesting disqualification ONLY for gay couples?
Why the change in public opinion? Because we are recognizing that the only
difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals is in the way we view
homosexuals' sexual orientation. When we didn't understand it, it
scared us and we condemned it. Much like left-handedness. Now that science is
illuminating our view with information, and gays are allowing themselves and
their lives to be more visible, we see we have nothing to fear.I
don't think LGBT's have anything to prove to us heterosexuals. I
think it's the other way around. I think WE need to prove that they have
nothing to fear from us.
LaVarr acts as if we are embarking on a great social experiment with an
undetermined outcome. The outcomes of same-sex parenting are well
established:Utah's brief focused "on the impact of family
structure from dozens of studies, journal articles and books. The brief showed
how “the two sexes bring different talents to the parenting
enterprise,” how “the weight of scientific evidence seems clearly to
support the view that fathers matter,” how the absence of a father places
a daughter at special risk for early sexual activity, that children in same-sex
households experience lower high school graduation rates, and that there are
higher rates of depression, delinquency and substance abuse among children
conceived through sperm donation."
For my conservative family it was a sibling coming out and finding a partner
that made it abundantly clear that their bring together posed no threat
whatsoever to anyone. Eight conservative adult men I associate with weekly have
had the same experience and change of heart. As for the tech CEO,
and other recent examples of reverse discrimination, this seems almost laughable
to me after what the LGBT community has put up with and continues to experience.
It shouldn't happen, but seems a little like saying 50 years ago, "Well
the civil rights bill passed, but there had better not be a single case of white
oppression if theses minorities want the rest of us to accept it.""Traditional marriage and traditional families have been society’s
bedrock." As has been pointed out countless times, this a strange statement
coming from someone who understands Utah's history so well.