Quantcast
U.S. & World

Delay on gay marriage debate not a sign of victory

Comments

Return To Article
  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Feb. 10, 2013 10:00 a.m.

    "Victory" will be the legalisation of same sex marriage. Let's get it done' we've got way more important things that should be 'the big issue'.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 10, 2013 11:19 a.m.

    The argument against same sex marriage is that it somehow hurts traditional marriages. I don't see the link.

    A better argument is that children ought to have a mother and a father, and same sex relationships called marriage (or not) should not lead to adoption of children by such couples, especially when heterosexual couples can't adopt for lack of available children.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 10, 2013 12:20 p.m.

    Correction: "heterosexual couples can't adopt for lack of available [healthy, white infant] children."

  • chrisv0523 Glendora/US, CA
    Feb. 10, 2013 2:37 p.m.

    Evidently the shift between the rejection of gay marriage to the acceptance of gay marriage has sped up over time. I mean within a 4 year time span the shift has grown largely and even organizations who once supported the ban of gay marriage has now weakened their stance on it. Although they may not fully support the action of gay marriage they no longer fully oppose. I don't understand why the nation continues to prolong what is inevitably going to occur...and that is that gay marriage will be legalized.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    Feb. 10, 2013 7:41 p.m.

    O K I'll say it Mandate. There

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 10, 2013 8:33 p.m.

    The argument against same sex marriage is that it somehow hurts traditional marriages. I don't see the link. - cjb

    I agree.

    There is, no evidence of the 'harm' gay marriage brings America....

    almost a decade later.

    **'After 5 Years of Legal Gay Marriage, Massachusetts still has the lowest state divorce rate...' - Bruce Wilson - AlterNet - 08/24/09

    Line:
    'Massachusetts retains the national title as the lowest divorce rate state, and the MA divorce rate is about where the US divorce rate was in 1940, prior to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.'

    Massachusetts was the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2004.

    For any factual evidence against gay marriage, please cite date, author and source.

    I would love to read it.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 10, 2013 10:01 p.m.

    @cjb
    sorry but as has been pointed out to you before your claims about children are blatantly false. A short search of the research including a 20 longitudinal study by NYU shows that children raised by homosexual couples suffer no ill effects and function on the same level as those raised by heterosexual couples. its time for you to drop this lie it has not and will not work in any court of law and has lost its footing in the court of public opinion.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 11, 2013 12:09 a.m.

    A better argument is that children ought to have a mother and a father, and same sex relationships called marriage (or not) should not lead to adoption of children by such couples, especially when heterosexual couples can't adopt for lack of available children. - cjb

    Lack of available children?

    Unless there are 'zero' every child needs parents.

    And, I am pretty sure gay couples do not have accidental children.

    As for any implication that gay parents somehow bring 'harm' to unwanted children of heterosexual couples, that has alos been disproven.

    By the American Academy of Pediatrics.

    Here is the date, title, source, volume and page number:

    "In most ways, the accumulated research shows, children of same-sex parents are not markedly different from those of heterosexual parents."

    - AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS (AAP)
    - 'Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents' - POLICY STATEMENT - PEDIATRICS Vol. 109 No. 2 February 2002, pp. 339-340 - Pulished: 02/01/10

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 11, 2013 8:20 a.m.

    How many children have two homosexual parents ever created together in the history of the world?

    Zero

    Mother nature has spoken

    And I agree

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 11, 2013 8:37 a.m.

    the same marriage rules that apply to heterosexuals apply to homosexuals.

    find someone of the opposite sex of legal age who is not already married, and you can marry them.

    Since the same rules apply, there is no discrimination and no one is being denied any rights.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Feb. 11, 2013 9:20 a.m.

    Dear Lost:
    You wrote: "find someone of the opposite sex of legal age who is not already married, and you can marry them"

    Hopefully you mean Him or her intestad of "them"

    It really bothers me to state the obvious, but, I guess sometimes it may be necessary.

    The LDS church has a large number of single members, heterosexual members, many of them wanting desperately to get married . However, they don't seem to find the right person. Why? You know the answer, because they don't seem to find the person that their hearts wants.

    Marriage is more than sex. Marriage is about love, commitment, friendship, similar interests, etc. etc. sex and gender are only two components.

    Lost, why are you against SSM? How SSM affects you personally? If it is for religious reasons...Then, shouldn't be a personal choice?

    If you answer me these questions, I may understand you and others better. Thank you for your clear and objective response.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Feb. 11, 2013 9:58 a.m.

    Voting on someone else's rights puts your own at risk because you set a precedent that the rights of others are optional, which makes your own rights optional.

    That is not America.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Feb. 11, 2013 10:00 a.m.

    No matter how you justify, it has been,and will always be wrong.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Feb. 11, 2013 10:24 a.m.

    @lost
    Again lost this the EXACT same failed logic used to try to justify not allowing interracial marriage. If you have any actual evidence to support an actual ligitimate state or societal interest in not allowing same sex marriage please present it.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 11, 2013 11:10 a.m.

    Everyone has equal rights. You can marry a consenting adult of the opposite gender.

    It's not true to say that everyone but gays can marry who they want to.

    A man cannot marry his brother.

    Nor his father.

    Nor his pet rock.

    Even if he wants to.

    Is this discrimination?

    No, just common sense.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Feb. 11, 2013 11:32 a.m.

    Really Chris? You just embarrass yourself with such comments. Give us one ligitimate state or societal interest for blocking gay marriage.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Feb. 11, 2013 11:36 a.m.

    @ Chris B.

    Is this your best argument against SSM?

    May be common sense is a not as common as people say.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Feb. 11, 2013 12:50 p.m.

    lost in DC
    West Jordan, UT

    Chris B
    Salt Lake City, UT

    ===========

    Your logic as to who can marry who, only, and "if"
    are about as lame as saying --

    A Jew can only marry a Jew,
    A Catholic only a Catholic,
    A Mormon only a Morman,
    A Black only a Black,
    An Asian only an Asian,
    A male only a female,

    It might be taught that way in church, or in the home,
    but it doesn't even come close to passing legal constitutional muster.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 11, 2013 1:16 p.m.

    @LDS Liberal,

    Your lack of a logical response again shows my point is valid.

    Thank you.

    and what is with "Morman"?

    I would have thought a Mormon knew how to spell Mormon.

    But then again, we all know you aren't a MormOn.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 11, 2013 2:19 p.m.

    Bacchus0902,
    Just because someone cannot find the person they want to marry does not mean they do not have the right to marry. I do not want to smoke, but that does not mean I do not have the right to smoke.

    What you want to do and what you have the right to do are not always the same thing. Some want to steal, some don’t, but as long as the same rules apply to all, (NO ONE can steal) EVERYONE is being treated equally.

    Tolstoy,
    If you cannot tell the difference between race and gender, you need a remedial biology class. What percent of self-contained homosexual relationships are capable of procreation? ZERO. What percent of self-contained interracial relationships are capable of procreation?

    The societal interest argument is from the religion act signed by Clinton that gives congress the power to deny religious rights if there is a compelling national interest. The 1st amendment does NOT say, “congress shall make no laws concerning the establishment of religion unless there is a compelling national interest”

    LDS?lib,
    See the first comment to Tolstoy, but in addition to “interracial” add “interreligion”.

  • JanSan Pocatello, ID
    Feb. 11, 2013 2:55 p.m.

    At the time that I read these comments there were 17 of them.
    Remembering that this is an LDS newspaper written for generally LDS people, It was interesting to note that out of the 17 comments 11 1/2 of them were against LDS doctrine on this subject.

    Just interesting to me that so many people feel the need to get on this paper and put down our religion with so much intent!

    I think that it is really sad that an LDS person cannot even come to and LDS newspaper and not have deal with religious persecution.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Feb. 11, 2013 4:56 p.m.

    @JanSan
    You wrote: "I think that it is really sad that an LDS person cannot even come to and LDS newspaper and not have deal with religious persecution"

    Religious persecution? What are you talking about?. Difference of opinions constitutes ...Persecution? You must have a fragile concept of self.

    You wrote:
    "Remembering that this is an LDS newspaper written for generally LDS people, It was interesting to note that out of the 17 comments 11 1/2 of them were against LDS doctrine on this subject"

    I can assure you that most of our names are registered and counted by the LDS church when releases their statistics in number of members of the Church.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Feb. 11, 2013 6:30 p.m.

    @Lost in DC
    You wrote:
    "Just because someone cannot find the person they want to marry does not mean they do not have the right to marry"

    Conversely, if you find the person you want to marry and this person reciprocates the feeling and the desire to marry you. Shouldn't you be able to marry? Why "your" religious taboos should have an impact in secular society?

    That is the situation here. Adult, responsible citizens find each other, yet, they are prevented from marrying each other. While at the same time other adults, responsible citizens are able to join their lives in an agreement sanctioned by society. That is not equal under the law.

    Lost in DC, you have the right to believe whatever you want to believe, But the SCOTUS needs and will re-affirm that your believes do not impose a form of tyranny on a minority.

    Lost in DC, I hope you feel free and happy to join the one you love. I wish I could feel the same.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Feb. 11, 2013 8:19 p.m.

    @lost;

    Still wandering around in the dark? Would you like a little light? All you have to do is ask.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Feb. 11, 2013 10:13 p.m.

    @lost
    Where in any navigate law is it required that you be able to procreate? Whee in science or the law does it say you must be married to procreate? Why does it matter if a couple uses outside help to procreate? where is the socital interest? However Race and sexuality are related because both have been used to systematically discriminate against a segment of society for no logo are reason.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Feb. 12, 2013 9:40 a.m.

    JanSan
    Pocatello, ID
    At the time that I read these comments there were 17 of them.
    Remembering that this is an LDS newspaper written for generally LDS people, It was interesting to note that out of the 17 comments 11 1/2 of them were against LDS doctrine on this subject.

    =========

    Interesting....

    The LDS Church supported anti-discrimination laws directed toward the LGBT community.
    The GOP members of the Utah State Legislature (many LDS) -- shot them down, against the suggestion of the Brethern, and claimed "religion" was their motive to continue their laws of bigotry.

    Who do I believe?
    The Brethern/sisters in LDS leadership?
    or
    Utah Mormons, their culture, and the Republican Party?

    The LDS church has good gay and lesbian members.
    I love them, and respenct them even more than those who are so-called 'normal'.
    They have the deck stacked against them, yet still keep their faith.

    Perhaps - once again - it is the "members" and the "culture" who are wrong, and are not following the council or are not in harmony of the teachings of the Church.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Feb. 12, 2013 12:29 p.m.

    @jansan
    Interesting that you would openly question others faith.

  • EW HENRIETTA, NY
    Feb. 13, 2013 12:41 p.m.

    @ spring street, actually the study you cite used well-to-do homosexual couples only, not ones reflective of the population at large, nor did those studies ask the grown children directly about their well-being. Someone did one of those studies during the past few years and found that yes, traditional marriage produces the most stable offspring by interviewing both homosexual parents and grown children.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 13, 2013 1:56 p.m.

    @EW
    that is interesting, would you please site your sources? i would like to read them.

  • Admiring Gentile Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 13, 2013 4:27 p.m.

    @cjb

    You can't make a sound argument with the word "ought" unless you can back up your "oughts" with facts. And there's no facts that say children raised by gays have a disadvantage of children raised by straights, not as long as the home is loving, nourishing and supportive.

    As for your statement that "heterosexual couples can't adopt for lack of available children," surely you must be joking. There are more than enough (too many, in fact) children waiting to be adopted, both in the USA and internationally. You can't seriously be implying that gays are *competing* with straights for a limited number of adoptees???

  • observator east of the snake river, ID
    Feb. 14, 2013 8:23 p.m.

    OK. I think I've read and re-read these arguments enough. We're asking the wrong question entirely here, every time this comes up.

    In the United States, we no longer have laws against basic associations. You can set up house with any other consenting adult you care to set up house with. Even SLC passed their equal housing ordinance not long ago.

    The question we should be asking, which no one seems to bother asking, is WHY in the world should I be required to register my partnership, of any kind, with the government? To quote CS Lewis from Shadowlands, "A marriage is a declaration before God, not some government official." What compelling interest does the government have in registering marriages? It's not a question of whether you have a "right" to associate or cohabit. Why should the government force you to fill out paperwork about it.