In marriage debate, don't give up the ideal

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • skrekk Dane, WI
    Nov. 3, 2014 7:01 p.m.

    *** 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)

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Nov. 3, 2014 4:59 p.m.

    @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.

  • skrekk Dane, WI
    Nov. 3, 2014 4:26 p.m.

    *** 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.

  • Contrariusest mid-state, TN
    Nov. 3, 2014 3:59 p.m.

    @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.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Nov. 3, 2014 3:20 p.m.

    @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?

  • skrekk Dane, WI
    Nov. 3, 2014 8:27 a.m.

    *** 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 same race?

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Nov. 3, 2014 7:32 a.m.

    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.

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Nov. 3, 2014 6:42 a.m.

    "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.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Nov. 2, 2014 9:03 p.m.

    @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".

  • skrekk Dane, WI
    Nov. 2, 2014 8:56 p.m.

    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?

  • intervention slc, UT
    Nov. 2, 2014 5:53 p.m.

    @mike Robards
    No 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.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Nov. 2, 2014 11:19 a.m.

    @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.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    Nov. 2, 2014 10:23 a.m.

    J Thompson
    It 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.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Nov. 2, 2014 9:34 a.m.

    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.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Nov. 2, 2014 8:35 a.m.

    @Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    I 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...

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    Nov. 2, 2014 4:46 a.m.

    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.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Nov. 1, 2014 10:57 p.m.

    @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.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 1, 2014 9:34 p.m.

    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.

  • Jeff Harris Edmonds, WA
    Nov. 1, 2014 11:06 a.m.

    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?

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Nov. 1, 2014 10:58 a.m.

    "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.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Oct. 31, 2014 10:47 p.m.

    @mike richards
    Referring 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.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Oct. 31, 2014 6:58 p.m.

    It is great that the ideal has been expanded to include same sex couples.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Oct. 31, 2014 5:36 p.m.

    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.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Oct. 31, 2014 5:12 p.m.

    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.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2014 5:01 p.m.

    Light and Liberty
    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.

    KJK
    They'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.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Oct. 31, 2014 4:02 p.m.

    @ 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?

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Oct. 31, 2014 3:39 p.m.

    @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.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Oct. 31, 2014 3:34 p.m.

    @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??

  • Demiurge San Diego, CA
    Oct. 31, 2014 3:33 p.m.

    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.

  • gmlewis Houston, TX
    Oct. 31, 2014 2:58 p.m.

    @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.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2014 2:36 p.m.

    @Light and Liberty
    But 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 Dogma
    A large percentage of homeless youth in Utah are LGBT kids kicked out of their houses by their "ideal" heterosexual married parents.

  • Light and Liberty St. George/Washington, UT
    Oct. 31, 2014 1:52 p.m.

    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.

  • Thought not Dogma Hurricane, UT
    Oct. 31, 2014 1:39 p.m.

    @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.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Oct. 31, 2014 1:01 p.m.

    @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?

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2014 12:30 p.m.

    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.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Oct. 31, 2014 12:30 p.m.

    @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.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Oct. 31, 2014 12:22 p.m.

    @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.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    Oct. 31, 2014 12:05 p.m.

    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.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Oct. 31, 2014 12:01 p.m.

    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.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Oct. 31, 2014 11:49 a.m.

    @mike and NT
    Is 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?

  • Light and Liberty St. George/Washington, UT
    Oct. 31, 2014 11:27 a.m.

    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.

  • Uncle_Dave Springville, UT
    Oct. 31, 2014 11:22 a.m.

    This article is very well written. I agree with the authors.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Oct. 31, 2014 11:17 a.m.

    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.

  • B Man Orem, UT
    Oct. 31, 2014 11:12 a.m.

    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.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Oct. 31, 2014 10:59 a.m.

    @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?

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Oct. 31, 2014 10:46 a.m.

    @NT
    Simply 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.

  • Thought not Dogma Hurricane, UT
    Oct. 31, 2014 10:30 a.m.

    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.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Oct. 31, 2014 10:22 a.m.

    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.

  • JT4 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2014 9:57 a.m.

    @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.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Oct. 31, 2014 9:55 a.m.

    @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.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    Oct. 31, 2014 9:52 a.m.

    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?

  • NT SomewhereIn, UT
    Oct. 31, 2014 9:41 a.m.

    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 were.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Oct. 31, 2014 9:24 a.m.

    @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.

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Oct. 31, 2014 9:22 a.m.

    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 Pediatrics
    American Academy of Family Practitioners
    Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
    American Psychological Association
    American Psychiatric Association
    National Association of Social Workers
    American Medical Association
    Child Welfare League of America
    National Adoption Center
    North American Council on Adoptable Children
    Voice for Adoption

    EVERY 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.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2014 9:15 a.m.

    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.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Oct. 31, 2014 9:11 a.m.

    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.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Oct. 31, 2014 9:11 a.m.

    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.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2014 8:47 a.m.

    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.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Oct. 31, 2014 8:39 a.m.

    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.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Oct. 31, 2014 8:35 a.m.

    Isn't it up to the individuals to decide what is "ideal" for themselves, rather than have it imposed by outsiders?

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Oct. 31, 2014 8:22 a.m.

    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?

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2014 12:56 a.m.

    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.