Actually, the basic unit of a society is an individual person. Your doctor is
never a married couple, Einstein didn't need a wife to make the
contributions he made, and the majority of people do their jobs at work without
a spouse at their side. Also, we all know amazing single parents. Now, having a
committed companion at your side definitely doesn't hurt, but there are
definitely a lot of flaws in these type of editorials the Deseret News keeps
I find it interesting that only homosexuals are clammoring for the right of
marriage while heterosexuals continue the practice of living together. You
rarely hear of heterosexuals defending marriage and the importance it brings in
society, except when homosexual marriage is involved. Somehow homosexuals see
the importance of marriage while heterosexuals continue to watch it devolve.
This is a sad, but true commentary. The young people of today are treating sex
as a purely recreational activity with no consequences whatsoever. Thus, they
see no reason to make any commitments.The point is that society does
suffer when a large segment of the population engages in wanton and uncontrolled
sexuality. Society gets flooded with fatherless children and disease runs
rampant. This places a huge burden on law enforcement and social services. Let us be clear. Anyone who engages in sexual acts outside of marriage
is completely selfish. The needs of society are more important than the
opportunity to perpetually act no better than an excited rabbit on a Spring day.
"If we need still another perspective from which to appreciate the value of
marriage, consider the gay rights movement, which recognizes the importance of
the marriage commitment and is thus willing to fight for it. Meanwhile, our
broader society is devaluing marriage."Mr. & Mrs. Eyre,
Thank you for the acknowledgment!
Somehow homosexuals see the importance of marriage while heterosexuals continue
to watch it devolve.Agreed.
The fact that Gays are trying to get the right to marry, while larger society is
not taking advantage of marriage in the numbers we used to was brought up in
this article.It is sometimes said that allowing gays to marry
somehow will harm marriage in general. Though I don't see that logic, I
will share an argument here that seems to indicate, at least im some small part
just the opposite.It used to be fairly common that gay people would
marry a person of the opposite sex, because of social pressure. This hurt their
spouses by putting them in marriages that had no chance of being whole and
complete.Therefore gays coming out of the closet has, at least for
the potential spouses of gays is a help to traditional marriage. Little doubt
there are some at the fringes of gay society, i.e. from a conservative religious
families or communities, who still marry those of the opposite sex because of
societal pressure. Were we to remove this societal pressure completely, this
would in the manner just described help traditional marriage.
To kishkumen:An individual adult can survive and contribute well to
society as an individual, yes. And I would never want to discredit tremendous
single parents that do very difficult work, but we don't just wake up one
day into existence as an independent, functioning adult.Who brought
that doctor into existence in the first place? Who worked to provide the
resources necessary to feed that child? Who actually took care of that
person's needs as an infant, toddler, child, teenager, etc? Who taught
them to read, to study hard, to keep fighting when things are difficult?The evidence is pretty stark: the vast majority of children in poverty
in our country today live in one-parent homes. Crime and other societal ills
follow this trend as well. Conversely, the numbers support the premise that
loving, 2-parent households provide the highest likelihood of a successful,
happy life into adulthood."Society" is more than mere
existence. For mere existence, we could conceivably go the near-petry dish
route starting with conception, perhaps even feed children by machine, etc.
until adulthood... but could you tell me, then, what would be the resultant
The obvious point of not getting married is that it keeps one's options
open (no public statement of intent). That women settle for this is a puzzle to
me. That we are willing to raise children in such an unstable situation is
Anyone who engages in sex outside of marriage is completely selfish. And
completely normal. Sex is natural, marriage is not. If we had healthier
attitudes towards sex, and especially birth/disease control, as well as maybe if
we just grew up a bit in general. we could deal with some of the associated
The sad part is tht the lack of commitment by those who cohabit ends up in an
increased rate of separation and abuse. Not only do the single-mother families
end up in poverty, but their children end up abusing drugs and going to prison
at a astoundingly higher rate than those children raised in two-parent families.
JcsIt s true that we need to continue to work to prevent the spread of
desease but the idea are just out having wanten sex just does not square with
the data coming out of the CDC.
@ kishku: why waist your time reading DN?
RE: same sex unions: sin is still sin no matter how nicely you wrap it. For that
matter, the same goes for having (hetero) sex outside of marriage. Did I
mention sin is still sin?
Dear Kishkumen: many DN readers will take issue with you that these articles
are flawed. I do not view this article as flawed at all. You think it is
flawed because the concepts in the article evidently run against your personal
beliefs. There are plenty of well conducted studies that demonstrate that
traditional heterosexual marrige continues to present the best opportunity for
successful child rearing with better societal outcomes. Most single parents I
know did not want their marriages to fail, but once it did they are making the
best of it. Two + two still equals four whether or not you want it to or not.
I love reading through these comments and this interesting division.To me
one side sounds so lucid and loving and the other so sad and selfish.Of
course individuals are important, but individuals reach their highest and
happiest potential when they commit and sacrifice to those they love more than
themselves, their spouses and families.
@mekoYour half right the research does show that a household with two
parents produces the best results but the research does not support your claim
that they must be heterosexual.@bridellSo basically if they
agree with you they are lucid and loving but if not then they are not, no need
to elaberate? I am convinced?
@Hutterite: It sounds like what you are saying is we should wake up and want to
be instinct-driven animals. That is not for me. The "natural" human is
not something to aspire to be. Selfishness hasn't ever brought me real
happiness. Quite the opposite.