*** J Thompson says: "Your post is false. Mixed race marriage was not
"outlawed" by the Church prior to 1978."***Here
are a few relevant quotes from the leadership of the LDS church:Joseph Smith, 1845:“Had I anything to do with the negro, I would
confine them by strict law to their own species...”(Journal of
Discourses, v. 10, p. 110)Brigham Young, 1863:"Shall I
tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who
belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty,
under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so."
(Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110).Apostle Delbert Stapley,
1964:"I fully agree the Negro is entitled to considerations, also
stated above, but not full social benefits nor inter-marriage privileges with
the Whites, nor should the Whites be forced to accept them into restricted White
areas."(Letter to Michigan Governor George Romney on LDS letterhead)
@skrekk,Your post is false. Mixed race marriage was not
"outlawed" by the Church prior to 1978. Marriages performed by a bishop
had the same validity as any marriage performed by a pastor, priest or judge -
until death. You probably already know that, but I would guess that admitting
that would not suit your purposes since it appears to me that your agenda is to
force the LDS Church to perform SSM. That is not going to happen. Christ
forbids any church from taking it upon itself to change His doctrine so that
people can feel good about their way of life.Everything in nature
tells us that we must change if we are to have lasting worth. The car that you
drive has parts made from metal. Until ore is changed by heat and pressure, it
is just dirt. Until oil has been extracted from the earth and subjected to heat
and the refiner's fire, it is just oily goo. The same stands for people.
Until we let the Master change us, we remain carnal, sensual and devilish. We
must change to accept Christ on His terms. We can't order Him around.
*** J Thompson says: "What would that marriage councilor tell you about the
chances that your marriage would end in divorce if your married someone of
another race or someone from another country?"***I have no
idea what a marriage counselor would say since my mixed-race marriage is doing
very well, thank you. No surprise though that your church prohibited it until
at least 1978, and apparently still discourages it.*** J Thompson
says: "Are you trying to tell us that SSM is no different that marrying
someone outside your race?"***Yep. My gay daughter
deserves the same rights which her sisters enjoy and which my wife and I enjoy.
I never understood why you Mormons opposed equal rights for all Americans, and
wanted special rights for yourselves. The policies of your church seem quite
unethical, especially when you lobby to deny others the secular legal rights
which you enjoy. At best you're anti-family.
@J Thompson --"White wife/black husband had twice the divorce
rate as white wife/white husband, according to a study done by Bratter and King.
The numbers for Asian/white were even similar."You forgot to
mention, though, that white men married to non-white women overall had about the
SAME divorce rates as white/white couples -- and that white men married to black
women had a significantly LOWER chance of being divorced by their 10th year of
marriage. Also, that same study found that intercultural marriages
that didn't cross a racial line (like white/Hispanic white couples), had
the SAME divorce rate as white/white couples.Oops. Those were some
important numbers you forgot to mention.
@skrekk,There is no official proclamation to the world about
marrying within your own race. Are you trying to tell us that SSM is no
different that marrying someone outside your race? By the way, what
would a marriage councilor tell you about finding someone to marry who had the
same background? What would that marriage councilor tell you about the chances
that your marriage would end in divorce if your married someone of another race
or someone from another country?The "numbers" are easily
tracked and tabulated. White wife/black husband had twice the divorce rate as
white wife/white husband, according to a study done by Bratter and King. The
numbers for Asian/white were even similar.A good councilor would
never council people to walk through a mine field.What would your
Priest or Pastor advise you?
*** J Thompson says: "We can be foolish and declare that God cannot speak or
we can be grateful that He continues to speak."***Didn't your god used to say that marriage was only between people of the
Some tell us that because they can't find a definition of
"marriage" in their small scripture library, that no else can, either.
The Lord tells us differently:2 Nephi 29:6 "Thou fool, that
shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye
obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?"2 Nephi 29:9 "9
And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today,
and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And
because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak
another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of
man, neither from that time henceforth and forever."The Family:
A Proclamation to the World: "We further declare that God has commanded that
the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman,
lawfully wedded as husband and wife."-----We can be
foolish and declare that God cannot speak or we can be grateful that He
continues to speak.
"No one has the authority to change Christ's definition of
marriage."Really. I don't recall anywhere in the bible
where Christ 'defined' marriage... chapter and verse, please.What did he have to say about same-sex marriage?Not that all this
has a single thing to do with modern secular law that our country is based upon.
@intervention,Twist? Am I twisting the words that prophets have
spoken as Christ's representatives about the family? I will not subtract
Christ words about the family. His words are true.@ Open Minded
Mormon,How is it when a baptized member of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints keeps his covenant to be a witness of Christ that
you take exception? I sustain the prophets of God. I recognize them as having
the only authority on earth to proclaim His gospel, yet when I quote or
paraphrase parts of "The Family: A Declaration to the World", you claim
that I'm "forcing" others. How did I force them? How did the
prophets who signed that document force them? How did Christ, who gave us that
document, force them? ------The family is the most
important unit in society. Every adult who participates in the conception of a
child is responsible to God for that child. No living parent is exempt. No one
has the authority to change Christ's definition of marriage. No one has the
right to teach incorrect principles to a child nor to teach, by example, an
authorized form of "marriage".
I can't follow the logic of the authors of the article.....first they
confuse marriage with procreation and child rearing, apparently unaware that
marriage is about kinship rights and property rights and that children
aren't necessary or required.Then they seem unaware that many
gay couples raise children where one of the parents is the biological parent of
the children.And then they seem to want to deny the rights and
protections of marriage to those families and any biological or adopted children
they might raise, yet they're unable to articulate any rational reason to
do so. It seems quite bizarre.....why would they want to deny
those families the same right to marry which they enjoy? Is it because the
Ericksons think they deserve special rights, special privileges and a special
status which they want denied to gays? Why is that?
@mike RobardsNo one asked you to "apologize for Christ" and the
more you attempt to twist this into something it is not the more you call into
question whose work you are doing.
@J Thompson --"When people demand to be allowed to make their
own rules, regardless of the effect it has on society, they don't care
about others."Yet again -- there is NO evidence that gay
marriage has ANY ill effect on society. On the contrary, in fact. We know that
marriage encourages family stability, and we KNOW that stability is good for
kids.If you are really concerned about kids, you should be
SUPPORTING gay marriage.
J ThompsonIt says a great deal about you that the only mechanism that
keeps you from doing ill deeds to others is some sort of fear of divine
retribution.Aren't we all human, and deserve respect as such?
Religion is not the only thing that makes us human. Divine retribution or not,
we all have to occupy the same sphere, and as humans each deserve respect. Seems pretty simple to me. Be good to others, and the afterlife will take
care of itself, whatever you may or may not believe.
Why have ideals? Why not just tell everyone that life is a free-for-all? Why
not pretend that anything that WE want to do to ourselves or to others is
perfectly fine, as long as WE get some enjoyment from it?Isn't
that what we teach our kids? Do we tell them, "Go play in the street!",
"Here's a rock. Go find a window to break!", "So what if
he's crying because you hit him. It's your right to do whatever you
please!"?When people demand to be allowed to make their own
rules, regardless of the effect it has on society, they don't care about
others.In front of my house, the speed limit is 25 mph. Less than
100 yards away, it is 35 mph. Two blocks away, it is 40 mph. Why the different
"rules" in such a small area? It's because of the CHILDREN. We
protect children, no matter whether we want. We protect them, even if we have
to give up our "right" to drive as we please.Marriage
between a man and woman protects children.
@Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahI will kneel before the Savior
as He examines my testimony of Him and of His doctrine.======= As will I.Christ never once used FORCE on others, even to
choose the right.That was NOT his plan, but his arch nemesis.It was
soundly rejected.I fight for Christ's Free Agency, and
ASK, Beg, Plead, and live by example for others to follow him, of their own
Freewill and Choice.BTW -- Just a thought for you ---YOU will
be judged on how YOU judged and treated others.Now ask yourself this
-- Lord, is it I?Mote, beam, and dandelions...
Yet another editorial, and even more comments that only cement into the minds of
rational readers that the unnatural fear of same sex marriage is not rooted in
evidence, but in a particular prejudice.That prejudice has a name,
but if I use it, the mysterious censors of the DN news will claim the comment is
overly contentious or combative.Yet that same prejudice, that dare
not speak its name, refuses to allow those folks who do not follow their
particular viewpoints on matters eschatological have the right to follow their
own conscience. That allowing others to live a bit differently is no threat to
their doctrine. And that this is the price of a secular society that values
multiculturalism, tolerance and religious freedom.
@Tolstoy,I have never hid the fact that I fully believe in Jesus
Christ. I have never tried to hide the fact that I sustain the Prophets, Seers
and Revelators that Christ has chosen to lead His Church. I admire the Deseret
News for publishing articles reminding us that, not only does it support the
traditional family, but that it is a vehicle of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints to print articles, op eds, letters and editorials that support
Jesus Christ and His doctrine.Christ told the world through His
prophets that the family is ordained of God and that the only marriage
recognized by Him is one between a man and a woman.Why should I bow
to public pressure because some reject Christ, His Prophets and His doctrine?
You serve whomever you wish. You have agency, as do I. Both of us
will be held 100% accountable for our choices. I will kneel before the Savior
as He examines my testimony of Him and of His doctrine.I make no
apologies to you or to anyone else for Christ or His doctrine.
Excellent article and one with which I am in complete agreement.Thank you DN for publishing the truth in the face of the powerful but woefully
misguided new orthodoxy.
The same argument that only heterosexual couples provide good parenting,
presented without any peer reviewed scientific studies to support it, failed to
impress judges in the the federal appeals courts in the 4th, 7th, 9th, and 10th
districts.Do the publishers of the Deseret News truly believe that
repeating the same argument over and over again, without presenting any peer
reviewed, scientific evidence to support it, will somehow make it come true?
"A child needs a father who is male and a mother who is female - or that
child will suffer."It is this type of unsupported conjecture and
fear-based 'sky-is-falling' argumentation that has been rejected time
and again at every judiciary level. No amount of repeating such unsubstantiated
opinion will make it true. "But we will continue to proclaim the
difference between moral and immoral, right and wrong, the ideal and the
counterfeit."No one is telling you can't believe whatever
you wish. It is when groups try to superimpose their beliefs on individual
liberties (and veil their intolerance through celestial indoctrination), this
type of inequality will be called out and held up to scrutiny every time.
@mike richardsReferring to others comments directed at you as "some
people" for the purpose of misrepsenting thier comment and the facts kind of
stricks "some people" as moral relativistic behavior. Please do
not try to claim you did not support amendment 3,and were opposed to the courts
rightful action of overturning a law that served no purpose other then to deny
people the free agency that lucifer so opposed. Continuing to misrepresent
the known facts about the effects on children only further corrodes the moral
ground beneth the feet of those that claim the children are being harmed.
It is great that the ideal has been expanded to include same sex couples.
What every child deserves is TWO parents, one male and one female, after all a
male and a female were required to invite that child into mortality. As long as
those two adults are living, they are not dismissed from their duty to that
child.Some have said that stating that fact is "forcing"
them to accept something that they don't want to accept. I reject that
thesis. Doing the act means that you accept full accountability for any child
produced by that act. You've already made a choice. You've invited a
child into the world by your actions. It's not possible to claim that
you've changed your mind after that child has been conceived. Look up
"ex post facto".God gave us agency, but He did not separate
agency from accountability. It doesn't matter what reason we use to excuse
ourselves, we are accountable for our actions. We accept the fact
that we have speed limit signs everywhere to remind us to restrict our speed.
If we reject those signs, we are penalized. If we reject the laws given us by
God, we destroy ourselves and our children.
What every child deserves is at least one competent, loving, nurturing parent, a
parent who protects them while equipping them to thrive in the outside world.
Simply assuming that every father is the same and every mother is the same and
all you need for success is one of each utterly ignores reality.I
had a mother and a father. A narcissistic mother and a father who believed that
the wife ran the home and the children. I was frequently jealous of my
friends' parents, who seemed so much warmer towards their children and more
together than mine. Luckily, I was an intelligent kid and managed to make my
way and achieve a level of success despite my parent's deficits. My sister
still struggles, though. I have little doubt we both would have done much
better if one of our parents had an active emotional connection to us,
regardless of whether they were married, single, straight or gay.So,
when I see your little battle cry, "Every child deserves a father and a
mother," I think, "That really depends who they are." My sister and
I deserved better.
Light and LibertyMr. Kirkham: If you are trying to convince me that since
we have so many dysfunctional marriages in our society, let's add one more,
it won't happen. KJKThey're not dysfunctional. The
only difference between them and straights is that they, like many straights,
can’t produce kids genetically related to both partners. The marriages I
previously mentioned ARE dysfunctional but are welcomed with open arms by you,
yet there is never a thought about barring people with criminal pasts from
marrying. Perhaps couples should be graded on a point system. Only
couples meeting a certain score would be allowed to marry.In another
thread, I mentioned that couples with complementary personality types do better
at raising kids than 2 tough love type As. Kids need a nurturer too. Having 2
nurturers who let the kids run wild doesn't work either. Both genders can
be any of the 4 personality types. They determine how we respond to things,
including kids. I posit that a gay couple with complementary personalities
would provide better parenting than a demographically identical straights each
with the same type.
@ JoeCapitalist2"...adults (both heterosexual and homosexual)
are putting their own selfish interests above the interests of their
children."How is this a valid statement for gay parents?
Because you think SSM is immoral? But they don't. So if they genuinely
believe their god is all right with them, and marrying provides their children
with benefits and legal protections they didn't have before, wouldn't
it be selfish of them NOT to marry?
@Light and Liberty --"It is in the bible"Nope,
sorry. There is not a single word about gay marriage harming straight marriage
in the Bible."I don't have much respect for lawyers either,
so their opinion matters very little with me."Since they
generally determine the laws of our land, either in court or in the legislature
(a high percentage of elected officials are lawyers, you know), maybe you out to
rethink that attitude.
@Thought not Dogma --"What serious problems with discrimination
or hate crimes?"20% of all US hate crimes annually are based on
bias against sexual orientation -- even though only about 5% of the population
is LGBT. THAT kind of serious problem.40% of all US homeless youth
are LGBT. They are usually on the street because their own parents have thrown
them out. THAT kind of serious problem.In 29 of the 50 states,
people can still be fired or thrown out of their homes just for being LGBT. THAT
kind of serious problem."person is more likely to be the victim
of a "hate crime" because of (anti-)religious bias than because of
sexual orientation."That's completely untrue.In
fact, FBI statistics show that (as I mentioned above) less than 2% of US hate
crimes are based on bias against Christians. And this is true even though the
straight Christian population is many times larger than the LGBT population."If a rare landlord, employer, or photographer doesn't want to
associate with homosexuals, nobody has been materially harmed."Nobody has been harmed when they're tossed out on the street? Nobody has
been harmed when they find themselves without a job?Seriously??
I still don't see why "the children" are seen as a legitimate
argument with respect to SSM. These people will have children irrespective of
SSM. It might be nice if they had a mother and a father but they don't, so
strengthen the family they do have as much as possible. That means marriage.This isn't about the children for those opposed to SSM, not really.
It's about their own self-doubt and worries, as simple logic and all of the
court cases have shown that SSM has no negative impact on anyone, not even the
children that are part of those families who will exist whether or not a
marriage takes place.
@Thought not Dogma: I agree that we should encourage the ideal without offending
each other."If a rare landlord, employer, or photographer
doesn't want to associate with homosexuals, nobody has been materially
harmed. Live and let live."If we truly live by the Gospel, then
we shouldn't have any problem that our business serves same sex couples.
Our Savior said that if a man compels you to carry a burden for a mile, go the
second mile.Current law now requires businesses to cater to Same sex
couples, therefore we should not only serve them but serve them above and beyond
the call of duty.
@Light and LibertyBut the "ideal" isn't reality. You
can't guarantee that the opposite sex married couple will be fine. You are
using an average and applying it to everyone. If we're going to use
statistical averages then "ideally" we should make sure children are
raised by upper middle class white Jewish married couples living in New
Hampshire. @Thought not DogmaA large percentage of homeless
youth in Utah are LGBT kids kicked out of their houses by their "ideal"
heterosexual married parents.
Contrariuser: It is in the bible, but I have no desire to get in an argument. I
will let you have your opinion and I will have mine! I don't have much
respect for lawyers either, so their opinion matters very little with me.
@Contrariuserer:What serious problems with discrimination or hate
crimes? Since SLC added sexual orientation to their anti-discrimination
ordinance, not a single complaint has been filed. Ditto with unincorporated
SLCo.I doubt Utah gained one of the largest homosexual populations
in the nation because we are mistreating homosexuals. In fact, the last report
I could find shows that Utah has a lower overall rate of "hate crimes"
than does California. And sexual orientation falls well behind race and about
on par with religion for the reason a bias crime was committed.In
other words, person is more likely to be the victim of a "hate crime"
because of (anti-)religious bias than because of sexual orientation.Have you considered or ever protested the mounds of hateful anti-religious
comments based on a concern of hate crimes against church goers? Yet you claim
that peacefully preaching conjugal marriage as the ideal is going to cause crime
and discrimination against homosexuals? So much for claiming that secularists
are driven by science and facts.If a rare landlord, employer, or
photographer doesn't want to associate with homosexuals, nobody has been
materially harmed. Live and let live.
@B Man -- Are you afraid that if SSM is normalized more people are going to
choose it? I think that must be your concern, but think about it. If you are
not attracted to the same sex, why in the world would you opt for a same sex
marriage? Just as you aren't going to marry your same gender, your kids or
the neighbor kids or whoever you are concerned about won't either -- unless
they are gay, which they would have been anyway, whether or not SSM is legal.
So how does it make things worse to normalize SSM?
JoeCap2: "Just because someone opposes SSM doesn't mean they ignore
the other assaults on marriage and family."Really? Please
itemize the number of ballot initiatives and constitutional amendments in the
past twenty years that have sought to limit divorce in any way. Please list the
number of bills proposed and votes cast in legislatures to restrict divorce.
Please cite the court cases trying to invalidate divorce laws. Please tally the
number of dollars spent by the National Organization for Marriage, the LDS and
Roman Catholic churches, and other pro-family organizations in support of these
initiatives. Now provide the same data for the political fight against SSM.
While I'm sure that there is some anti-divorce political activism, the
extraordinary disproportionality in such efforts compared to the the SSM issue
suggests that their concerns are not about the best interests of children. If
the goal is to protect children, the effort should be targeted to where it could
do the most good. SSM is a tiny speck next to the hetero divorce boulder, when
the welfare of children is concerned.
@JoeCapitalist2 writes, "That doesn't mean we shouldn't be
concerned about small pox, measles, and other threats as well."
Joe, the last case of smallpox on the planet was in 1977. It's no more a
"threat" to society than gay marriage.
@Light and Liberty --"Contrariusest: I've never heard of
most of your organizations."That says a lot more about you than
it does about them."I use the bible as my main source on this
subject. "So do a lot of people who SUPPORT same-sex
marriage.Jesus never said a single word against homosexuality.But he did tell us to love our neighbors as ourselves."Basically, anything that inflicts damage on marriage between a man and a
women for life does harm."How does same-sex marriage harm
straight marriage?Please be specific. None of the
lawyers in those 50-or-so court cases have been able to do this yet -- I'm
sure they'll be thrilled to hear from you.
B Man writes;"One of the main concerns I have with the legalization of
SSM is that it provides a sense of legitimacy or normality to something that
goes against the plan of God and nature." Not everyone agrees
that it -IS- against the plan of God and nature. This is a sincere
observation: Not all religious people, not all Christians, and not even
all Latter-day Saint Christians agree with you on this. (Take a quick look at
mormonsformarriage.com to verify that this is true). Yes, unfortunately, in
recent years, it has become a badge of orthodox Mormon identity to oppose civil
marriage rights for gay couples, but you would be surprised at the number of
Saints who are not on board with this position. And their numbers are growing
with each passing year.
JoeC:If the real problem is the disintegration of the nuclear
family, then you ought to be happy that same-sex marriage supporters are trying
to strengthen marriage and add to it, not destroy it. Has it occurred to you
that they are maybe not a crack in the foundation but are a form of sealant
attempting to patch up some of the cracks? If they were promoting promiscuity, I
could see a reason for your alarm. But they are promoting the opposite. Your
logic seems flawed here.
@mike and NTIs it not true that the sin Lucifer was cast out of heaven for
was the sin of trying to force others to follow his beliefs against thier will?
Marxist: Join the rest of the leaders in this country and stick with the first
sentence of your comment. That would be best! Laura: Father and
mother is best. Jesus too spoke of ideals. The sermon on the Mount is an ideal.
Let's stick with the ideal and see what happens.Esquire: If
every moral law is left up to the individual, welcome to the most unjust world
of all!GZE: Basically, anything that inflicts damage on marriage
between a man and a women for life does harm.Mr. Kirkham: If you
are trying to convince me that since we have so many dysfunctional marriages in
our society, let's add one more, it won't happen. Schnee:
See above.Contrariusest: I've never heard of most of your
organizations. I use the bible as my main source on this subject. In conclusion: As the years go by and as the ideal becomes apparently more
useful, it will continue to bear the antipathy, intolerance, and anger against
it. The truth, the ideal, and the good has always taken the brunt of criticism
from those who seem conflicted over it.
This article is very well written. I agree with the authors.
Karen R: "SSM opponents...stop fretting about SSM and direct your
considerable resources to where the real problem lies."The real
problem is the disintegration of the nuclear family. It is that adults (both
heterosexual and homosexual) are puting their own selfish interests above the
interests of their children. We no longer want to live as God wants us to. Our
own pleasures are more important than the welfare of society and the next
generation.SSM is yet another huge crack in the foundation of
marriage and family. Divorce, abuse, neglect, infidelity, and other selfish acts
are also huge cracks as well. Those who want to preserve the family do put
considerable resources to those problems as well. It seems we are swimming
upstream.Just because someone opposes SSM doesn't mean they
ignore the other assaults on marriage and family. Ebola is the latest threat to
health and is in all the news. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be
concerned about small pox, measles, and other threats as well.
Well written, thoughtful, and thought-provoking article. Thank you. One of the main concerns I have with the legalization of SSM is that it
provides a sense of legitimacy or normality to something that goes against the
plan of God and nature. To me, it seems that the real effort behind most of the
SSM agenda has been to get others to think that homosexuality is normal and
actually good. It is fulfillment of prophecy that many will try to call good
evil and evil good. I agree that same sex attraction is a real issue, but I do
not agree that this requires us to legalize and legitimize same sex marriage.In spite of the failure of our court system to uphold the voice of the
people regarding the legality of SSM, those who believe in the importance of
traditional family should boldly (and compassionately) maintain that marriage
between a man and a woman is the best for children and for society.
@Truth Not Dogma --"So why all the angst if a few folks believe
and preach that a man and a woman are the ideal? "Because it
perpetuates the ignorance and bias that aid in maintaining anti-LGBT prejudices
all across the nation, of course. As long as anti-SSM folks continue to tell
themselves and others, regardless of the facts, that LGBT couples are somehow
lesser or worse or "other", we will continue to have serious problems
with bigotry, discrimination, and hate crimes. Understanding requires education
-- and education requires rebutting false claims such as were made in this
opinion piece.We get freedom of speech too, remember?
@NTSimply because others disagree with you does not make them anti God or
even anti LDS. There are many people of faith Including some of the LDS faith
that disagree with your stance. If you want to take the hatred out of the
conversation my I suggest you start at home.
Yet again, the legal debate over marriage benefits appears to be all but over in
this nation.The homosexual have won. They have their
"rights".And for years they assured us that marriage
benefits for homosexual would not affect anyone else.So why all the
angst if a few folks believe and preach that a man and a woman are the ideal?
This opinion can no longer sway law. It is a personal matter not much different
than what is the best flavor ice cream.That is, unless marriage
benefits and legal equality were never really the end goal. It seems the end
goal is really to have, to force, social acceptance of homosexual relationships
and conduct as being completely on par with the conjugal relationship between
husband and wife. The media and courts have adopted that view. But
there are major segments of society that will never accept that.We
will respect the law. We will respect your right to live your life peacefully,
just as we always have.But we will continue to proclaim the
difference between moral and immoral, right and wrong, the ideal and the
counterfeit. Ignore us if you like.
For the umpteenth time...If folks are concerned about preserving "ideal
families," their attention should be on the many issues negatively impacting
hetero families. SSM is not one of them! But even it if were, going after
families headed by SS parents as a means of addressing the problem is like
treating a broken leg by applying a Band-Aid to the scrape on the knee.SSM opponents, put your money where your mouth is. If you're really
concerned about preserving hetero families, then you will stop fretting about
SSM and direct your considerable resources to where the real problem lies. I
don't believe you will, but I hope you prove me wrong.
@Laura Bilington,Is anyone surprised to see the number of number of people
against the DN's editorial responding here? Everyone is looking
to find or assert truth. Are you really surprised that those who feel there
were obvious reasons why this was considered common sense for millennia would do
what they can to reconfirm what is truth to as many as they possibly can?
Different versions of truth don't co-exist. If some aren't interested
in what humanity is intended to become, so be it, but others are. The truth is found in the Two Great Christian Commandments; if the entire
world were to live by these precepts, the world would reach the ideal that so
many push for in other forms. Also, individuals will approach their potential
by living these precepts. Finally, we have a responsibility to others,
especially including children. Virtually anything associated with the Sexual
Revolution goes against thinking of children over one's own desires, and
for that we should be ashamed if we are not pushing for the ideal for them.
@NT --"it is always interesting to read the opinions of the
visitors from sltrib club, the anti-God, anti-LDS and the anti-DN crowd."Remember that many religious people SUPPORT same-sex marriage, and many
Christian denominations are already happy to perform same-sex marriage
ceremonies. This is NOT an issue of religion vs. anti-religion, no matter how
much some people may wish to make it one."That is a pretty
credible and comprehensive list of organizations - made up of fallible
men/women, the "arm of flesh" as it were."Ahhh, but they
are not just "fallible men/women". These are thousands of professionals
who have devoted their lives to studying and improving the welfare of millions
of children as they grow up. These are people who deserve to have their EXPERT
opinions heard. They are not random strangers from the street corner.
Many good comments so far. I want to single out Laura Bilington's as one of
the best I've read at illuminating a disconnect. "Children are best
raised by a mother and father" and, therefore, let's outlaw civil
marriage rights for same-sex couples.I'm reading the editorial
and run across this detail: "A decade later they were deeply
surprised at the actual effects. In every area of development from physical to
emotional to academic, research studies showed that children whose parents
divorced were more likely to struggle, and for the long-term."It
seems, then, that the Church's campaign against civil marriage rights for
same-sex couples has been misplaced. WHY, have there been no campaigns to outlaw
divorce? No state-wide ballot measures, no legislative attempts to make divorce
illegal where children are involved?It's not a nice conclusion
to draw, but it almost seems like -well- outlawing divorce might involve
limiting the rights of people who matter, whereas limiting the rights of this
one small group is ok because they don't really matter. Can't sincere conservative religious people see how this might be seen as
a sign of disrespect?
Thanks for the article. Well written real-life perspective. If I
were to edit one word, I would change "embrace" to "allow""Recently, the legal landscape has changed quickly to embrace
same-sex unions as constitutionally equivalent to man/woman marriage."Also, it is always interesting to read the opinions of the visitors from
sltrib club, the anti-God, anti-LDS and the anti-DN crowd.Finally,
to Contrariusiest in TN: That is a pretty credible and comprehensive list of
organizations - made up of fallible men/women, the "arm of flesh" as it
@joe capitalist You are free to "believe" what you want it does
not change the known facts proven by the research that shows "two fathers or
two mothers" are just as effective at raising children.
Here we go again.Every major professional organization of child
development experts in this country SUPPORT same-sex marriage.There's a reason for that.Supporting groups include:American Academy of PediatricsAmerican Academy of Family
PractitionersAcademy of Child and Adolescent PsychiatryAmerican
Psychological AssociationAmerican Psychiatric AssociationNational
Association of Social WorkersAmerican Medical AssociationChild
Welfare League of AmericaNational Adoption CenterNorth American
Council on Adoptable ChildrenVoice for AdoptionEVERY family is
different, EVERY parent is different. The father in one couple may have the same
nurturing skills as another couple's mother. The mother in a third couple
may be more of a tomboy than the father in a fourth couple. The most essential
thing about people, whether straight or not, is that WE'RE ALL INDIVIDUALS.
Everyone is different. Stereotyping people by gender is just as silly as
stereotyping them by race.All of the above groups agree: kids grow
up just fine in same-sex households. The most important elements for
successfully raising kids are love and stability. Gay couples have plenty of
love to share -- and gay marriage will help them to provide that stability.
Averages don't apply to everyone in the demographic being applied to.
It's just an average. Even if same-sex couples were inferior on average at
parenting some of them would still be better than the average opposite-sex
couple so why should they get punished too while the below average straight
couples be supported as the "ideal"? Also, single people can
adopt in Utah, as long as that exists without a fight it shows that many of you
don't really care about kids not having one gender of parent around.
Obviously a child being raised by a non-traditional family where they are loved
and cared for is preferable to a home with a mother and father where abuse and
neglect are present.But the SSM crowd wants to assert that two
fathers or two mothers are exactly the same as a mother and father when other
factors are similar. To them, gender makes no difference when it comes to
raising a child.I believe there are real differences and that those
differences matter. Yes, we need to strengthen traditional families and fight
abuse, drug use, neglect, divorce, infidelity, and a whole host of other ills,
but as the article points out, we should not give up on a mother and a father as
the ideal circumstance for raising a child.
It takes a man and a woman to produce a child. From the moment that they have
sex, they are responsible for that child. They have a duty to forget
themselves, their appetites and passions, their "wandering eyes", their
lust for something new and different. Their duty is to the child. They will be
held responsible for that child. They will answer to our Creator for everything
that they did and didn't do for that child.It's time to
stop looking at life from the adult's perspective and start demanding
accountability for "adult" actions. It will soon become
apparent that children raised in a same-sex home are being deprived of the
proper example required to prepare those children for their future. They will be
ill prepared to know how to raise their own children. Personal
selfishness on the part of an adult to "have" (own a child) is no
excuse. The feelings of the adult are secondary to the needs of the child. A child needs a father who is male and a mother who is female - or that
child will suffer.
Those who oppose SSM and justify their position by raising the incremental
benefits kids may receive by having opposite-sex parents vs demographically
identical same-sex parents seem to feel that this is the only issue that matters
in raising well adjusted kids. Nothing could be further from the truth.We allow couples with criminal records to marry and have kids. Also sex
offenders, child abusers, wife beaters, drug users, smokers, drinkers, etc...we
also allow those with inheritable diseases to marry and have kids though they
are likely to pass it on to their kids. these are FAR more detrimental to kids
than being raised by gays.until we outlaw sex offenders, child
abusers, wife beaters, drug users, smokers, drinkers, etc.. from marrying, it
makes no sense to outlaw gays by claiming that they are less than ideal. They
are far better than the above and far better than letting kids languish in
foster care.Voltaire said that the enemy of the good isn't the
"bad", but rather the "ideal". if the authors want to push for
the "ideal", they should focus on the abusers mentioned above rather
than the "good" gay couples.
I'm having a hard time following their thesis statement: Michael parents
got divorced so he knows that marriage equality is not the best course. This is
a bit convoluted.
Isn't it up to the individuals to decide what is "ideal" for
themselves, rather than have it imposed by outsiders?
Is anyone surprised to read this in the DN?Anyone with an ounce of
objectivity can see the pattern of these guest editorials. The writers take the
conclusion (Gay marriage is bad) and work backwards to find some [alleged]
support for this.But they can’t say “Gay marriage is bad
because my religion says so”. So you use the Gene Schaeer argument that
parents of different sexes are important in child raising and then leap into the
next county with “so therefore, gay marriage leaves children
shortchanged”. Not more than five percent of children in Utah
are being raised by gay parents, but way more than that are being raised by
single mothers. But I have yet to see an editorial bemoaning this fact, let
alone one that comes up with any suggestions to change this.And
never a peep about sexual abuse in straight families, particularly families
where the adult male is not the bio father. If your laws should
reflect this ideal, why are you not pushing to take children from single
mothers?Do you really care about the children or is that a
smokescreen for your antipathy toward gays?
I am sure that the best family situation is one where there is a father and a
mother and where there is no abuse. Yes, I agree. But traditional marriage is
being wrecked by domestic abuse. The existence of abuse is a big part of the
high divorce rate. I'm also sure that there are many excellent
SSM families. And often these families pick up the pieces from wrecked
traditional families. Of course abuse happens in all family types
unfortunately. Abuse - emotional, sexual and physical is a plague wrecking all
types of families, and it gets surprisingly little attention.