Quantcast
Opinion

Middle class needs marriage more than jobs and tax breaks

Comments

Return To Article
  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Dec. 18, 2012 8:03 a.m.

    Of course Kathleen fails to mention that the continuing concentration of wealth at the top of the economic spectrum and the destruction of worker power and influence that make it more and more necessary for all families to have both parents working just to survive is a major factor in why single parent households need social assistance. When a family breaks apart and two households with two sets of costs are set up the equation for survival is broken.

    Two parent families is the best way for children to be raised for many many reasons, but the lack of a living wage in America is one of if not the reason for the lack of economic success of single parent families.

  • isrred South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 18, 2012 8:42 a.m.

    I'll get married as soon as you social conservatives stop passing laws telling me that I can't.

  • roswell Saint George, UT
    Dec. 18, 2012 9:11 a.m.

    It is unfortunate that there are these negative commenters who only see their very narrow view of life in the context of gay rights or oppression of workers. The author is correct that values DO MATTER and have far reaching social implications. Our economic and social problems will not improve until enough of our citizens appreciate that the root problem is moral/spiritual.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 18, 2012 10:00 a.m.

    Having more committed adults in a household is better for the kids,the adults and society than having smaller separate homes. It's common sense. It saves money and increases the adult:child ratio in the home. All are benefitted. This is why laws against same-sex marriage and polygamy (practiced by fully informed consenting adults) hurt kids and harm society.

    Efforts to deny same-sex marriage harms the kids in those families. Those families are less stable because of it. It's more difficult to have a stay-at-home parent because they are forced into the workplace in order to abtain insurance for them and their kids.

    Polygamists often have separate households to hide from the law. This increases costs and hinders father/child interaction.

    Let's help kids, encourage stay-at-home parents and lessen the burdens on society by allowing polygamy and same-sex marriage.

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    Dec. 18, 2012 11:04 a.m.

    Lots of leaps made in the opinion. I don't buy it

  • isrred South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 18, 2012 11:12 a.m.

    "It is unfortunate that there are these negative commenters who only see their very narrow view of life"
    How is it a narrow view? You cannot on the one hand continue to print articles every week extolling the virtues of marriages and its economic benefits and bemoaning the fact that fewer people are getting married while at the same time telling people that WANT to get married that they can't.

  • Voice of Reason Layton, UT
    Dec. 18, 2012 1:12 p.m.

    isrred,

    You can, of course, get married any time you want...it's a free country. What you cannot do, however, is force your fellow citizens through their government to endorse a particular type of sexual relationship - homosexuality. When gay activists talk about "marriage," they're really talking about government endorsement of gay relationships on the same plane as the traditional family. Permitting something to happen and actively endorsing it are two completely separate things.

    I actually support allowing two adults, regardless of relationship, to designate each other for purposes of visitation rights in hospitals, medical decisions, inheritance, etc. so that a gay person can access all those rights that married people can access regardless of lifestyle. But I do NOT support, and neither does the nation support, specifically elevating gay "marriage" - based on an extremely high-risk lifestyle - to the same plane for official endorsement and encouragement as the traditional family, which society has a compelling interest in promoting for a number of well-established reasons.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Dec. 18, 2012 2:22 p.m.

    @VOR
    You can, of course, get married any time you want...it's a free country. What you cannot do, however, is force your fellow citizens through their government to endorse a particular type of sexual relationship - homosexuality"

    we cant or you don't think we should" you seem fine with your forcing others to accept heterosexuality as the only legitimate form of relationships for society what makes your opinion so superior that it "cannot" be challenged?

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Dec. 18, 2012 2:26 p.m.

    @roswell
    So you believe that the only way to improve our social problems is through your brand of morality/spirituality but other are taking to narrow a view in their comments? Do you see any issues with this logic?

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 18, 2012 2:48 p.m.

    the middle class is suffering because of taxes - Obama taxes - present and soon to come. These taxes stain any marriage and they kill jobs which is another strain on marriage. Wait til the full ugly face of Obama-nomics rears it's head and the middle class understand the consequences of the last election. Obama is no friend of marriage.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Dec. 18, 2012 3:30 p.m.

    @patriot
    the sky is falling, the sky is falling, run and hide run and hide.. does that pretty much sum it up?

  • Mukkake Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 18, 2012 4:15 p.m.

    VOR:
    [What you cannot do, however, is force your fellow citizens through their government to endorse a particular type of sexual relationship - homosexuality.]

    We sure can, we did it for laws against interracial marriage/miscegenation.

    [But I do NOT support, and neither does the nation support, specifically elevating gay "marriage" - based on an extremely high-risk lifestyle - to the same plane for official endorsement and encouragement as the traditional family, which society has a compelling interest in promoting for a number of well-established reasons.]

    Many of these arguments were made against interracial marriage as well. Interracial marriages were historically "high-risk" as well, but with societal acceptance they've become safer (but still plenty of prejudice to damage them in certain parts of this country), showing that it was prejudice, ostracization, and disenfranchisement that doomed children from interracial marriages, not anything inherent in the unions.

    The same will be proven with homosexual families as well. When children and and their parents cease being shamed, ostracized, and disenfranchised, we'll see far more successful outcomes in homosexual unions too (and less garbage studies that try to prove otherwise).

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 18, 2012 4:23 p.m.

    @Tolstoy

    I am tolerant because I am intolerant for all the fashionable reasons: Does that pretty much sum it up?

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 18, 2012 4:40 p.m.

    @Mukkake

    After 50 years of feminism and civil rights activism - we no longer have colored and white bathrooms, sports teams, etc.; but we still have men's and women's teams, restrooms, support organizations, etc.: Why?
    Because gender matters and it is NOT superficial like skin color.

    Melanin is NOT genitals: Using interracial marriage as an excuse to claim their is no difference between homo and heterosexual marriage immediately blows all credibility

  • Voice of Reason Layton, UT
    Dec. 18, 2012 5:10 p.m.

    And the comparisons to interracial marriage were bound to come out before too long. This is, of course, a completely irrelevant comparison but it does push emotional buttons (instead of intellectual ones), so it's a popular tool of misdirection by gay activists.

    Truth is, I could make the same argument about any other high-risk behavior that I want to have mainstreamed. Polyamory, for example. I think we should have governments issue marriage licenses to as many people as want to be involved in a single marriage...why not "marry" an entire commune? What, that's just wrong? What about human/horse marriage? Even worse, you say? But society did the same thing to blacks & whites trying to marry in the 1800's, you bigot.

    Point is, you're never going to intellectually succeed in your argument by appealing to miscegenation, a completely irrelevant comparison about an actual physical trait-race-that doesn't change the traditional family structure. You need to make the case for why governments should endorse gay marriage as a unique benefit to society, to the same degree that traditional marriage has been shown repeatedly other thousands of years to benefit society.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Dec. 18, 2012 5:28 p.m.

    Then let middle class gay people marry so they can save the institution.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Dec. 18, 2012 5:41 p.m.

    There are millions of people TRYING to get married and you won't let them.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    Dec. 18, 2012 7:10 p.m.

    Kathleen seemed to concentrate on those who don't get married. Fine, but that's an issue often of the failing morality we're not supposed to talk about. Do talk of that and the reasons for that problem. Yet I think there is an issue equally or more important.

    Where Kathleen might have more success is seeking honestly to discover why so many marriages don't survive. She might have some success there and we don't talk about it much. If couples would love and nourish one another -both partners - we would have a lot more marriages and a lot less "once bitten twice shy" lonely singles.

  • Mukkake Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 18, 2012 7:11 p.m.

    VOR:
    [I think we should have governments issue marriage licenses to as many people as want to be involved in a single marriage.]

    I agree, so did Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, and Wilford Woodruff (at least until he changed his mind). See how definitions of marriage have changed?

    [human/horse marriage?]

    A horse can't enter legal contacts.

    [You need to make the case for why governments should endorse gay marriage as a unique benefit to society]

    No, we don't. But... so that children can grow up in stable environment. You can't/won't stop homosexual relationships, so by preventing marriage you keep their children in limbo.

    [traditional marriage has been shown repeatedly other thousands of years to benefit society.]

    Marriage during much of that time consisted of a man owning a woman. Historically in the west, a man had the right to beat and rape his wife. In the middle east, including ancient Israel, you can/could stone them for a variety of superficial reasons. So I really fail to see the "benefit" such a deplorable institution necessarily provided.

    So marriage has changed its definition many, many, many times. So it can change again.

  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    Dec. 18, 2012 8:13 p.m.

    My marriage is fine but I would like the tax break and a raise...

  • George Bronx, NY
    Dec. 18, 2012 10:05 p.m.

    @ci
    That was a bit of a stretch even for you.

  • Voice of Reason Layton, UT
    Dec. 19, 2012 12:16 p.m.

    Mukkake - Wow, that's an amazingly balanced view you have there on traditional marriage. Yes, of course traditional marriage is defined solely by cases of rape, abuse, and murder by stoning...and I'm sure gay relationships have NEVER historically dealt with the same challenges...of course, it's not relevant at all that traditional marriage creates by far the most stable environment for children, the only one that binds both genetic parents to the children - the adults with by far the strongest likelihood of the strongest emotional bond to the children, institutionalizes the only human relationship that can naturally produce children, has the lowest rates of childhood delinquency and domestic abuse, brings the highest expected life expectancy as measured from childhood...shall I go on? I'd love to, but I'd run out of room.

    Does that mean that single parents, polygamists, gay parents, etc. are all evil and don't love their children? Of course not...but government has a compelling interest in promoting traditional marriage for the greater good of society, while not in any way prohibiting other parents who don't enjoy that situation.

  • Mukkake Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 19, 2012 12:52 p.m.

    VOR:

    I'll make this as simple as possible. What is "traditional marriage"? Because, as I mentioned earlier, the institution we, in the United States, call "marriage" is not the same institution it was 200 or 2000 years ago. It is also not the same institution all over the world.

    What makes a marriage valid? Religion, state, commitment, the most violent guy in the village declaring which women he owns?? Its pretty relative, isn't it?

    Gays want the same LEGAL rights that have been invented the last few centuries/decades. Protections that are all new stuff anyway. Nothing "traditional" about child tax credits, modern inheritance rights (historically in the West it was everything goes to the oldest son), and so on.

    "Traditional marriage/values" have changed plenty of times. So we can, and will, just keep changing them.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 19, 2012 1:20 p.m.

    AVOR: What you cannot do, however, is force your fellow citizens through their government to endorse a particular type of sexual relationship - homosexuality.
    LDS4:I may be morally opposed to interracial marriage, first cousins marrying, Old Geezer (Hugh Hefner)/young hottie marriages, but using subjective moral opinions to restrict the rights of others is contrary to scripture and American values of equality under the law.

    AVOR:I actually support allowing two adults, regardless of relationship, to designate each other for purposes of visitation rights in hospitals, medical decisions, inheritance, etc. so that a gay person can access all those rights that married people can access regardless of lifestyle.
    LDS4:Whites in the South allowed Blacks public drinking fountains...You seem to advocate “separate but equal” too.

    AVOR: an extremely high-risk lifestyle..
    LDS4:Huh? That’s what gays in Africa say about heterosexuality due to the heterosexual AIDS epidemic there.

    AVOR:..to the same plane for official endorsement and encouragement as the traditional family, ..
    LDS4:Gays are no different than old or sterile heterosexual couples...neither can breed. There is no objective reason to deny them marriage.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 19, 2012 1:28 p.m.

    AVOR:Point is, you're never going to intellectually succeed in your argument by appealing to miscegenation, a completely irrelevant comparison about an actual physical trait-race-that doesn't change the traditional family structure. You need to make the case for why governments should endorse gay marriage as a unique benefit to society, to the same degree that traditional marriage has been shown repeatedly other thousands of years to benefit society.

    LDS4:Easy. Traditional marriages raise kids. Gays do too. Denying them marriage harms those kids and families. There is a senior newlywed couple in my ward who will be NOT producing kids. Why should they be granted marriage when they aren't benefitting society? Why grant marriage to straight couples who purposely don't have kids? You want to grant marriage people unable or unwilling to produce kids and deny it to homosexual couples raising kids? How does THAT make sense? That hurts innocent kids. So much for being pro-family.

    Denying gays marriage is EXACTLY like denying interracial couples marriages. Both are based on subjective prejudice rather than objective facts. That is inescapable.

  • Voice of Reason Layton, UT
    Dec. 19, 2012 2:57 p.m.

    Lds4gaymarriage,

    With all due respect, I’m not sure how you can call yourself LDS without a massive case of cognitive dissonance, since the Church is unequivocally opposed to gay marriage. And stop with the sinister comparisons to racism; you know very well that gender is legitimately treated differently in ways that race is not. If you really think the comparison’s apt, then why aren’t you up in arms about separate men & women’s restrooms, dressing rooms, etc.? These were also relics of the Jim Crow era. Recognizing the unique natures of men & women, and their natural heterosexual state, is hardly the same as racism else we’d all be no better than racists every day. It’s simply a cynical, dishonest debate tactic used by gay activists to scare people into not using their brains, one that's contested by observable reality.

    And this isn’t about “denying” marriage, it’s about preserving the institution of traditional marriage in society. And if you’re not for that, then you’re due for an enlightening discussion with Heavenly Father on the subject as a practicing LDS.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 20, 2012 12:52 p.m.

    AVOR:With all due respect, I’m not sure how you can call yourself LDS without a massive case of cognitive dissonance, since the Church is unequivocally opposed to gay marriage.

    LDS4:I agree SSM violates LDS doctrine. We LDS should oppose performing such in our temples and chapels. Denying the legal rights of marriage to gays, especially regarding Prop.8, is contrary to scripture. The Church/prophet isn’t always right. The 18 mo. mission term for elders was a mistake that was quickly dumped. Pres. Benson said that Paul meant in 1Thes.5:22 to avoid doing things that seemed/appeared to be evil. The Bible footnotes, and every other translation (English and non) show that he really exhorted to avoid all forms/manifestations of evil. Benson was wrong. President JFieldingSmith wrote that men would never travel to the moon.

    Regarding separate restrooms, those physically protect women/girls. These have nothing to do with legal rights. We don’t have different tax rates or speed limits for women. Gender is not an objective reason to deny equal rights.

    Why didn’t you address my points about kids or AIDS?