Quantcast
Opinion

My View: Women in battle and gay marriage are wrong celebrations of equality

Comments

Return To Article
  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 3:43 p.m.

    Here is a harsh reality for liberals. No, we aren't equal. Exactly 0 women have ever played in the NBA or NFL. And no, its not because they discriminate.

    Often, screams are equality are poor attempts by liberals to get others to support behavior we simply wont, because its wrong.

    Take gay relationships. No, they aren't equal as straight relationships. No, we won't support them.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 4:08 p.m.

    Re: ". . . the right for women to kill and be killed in battle, equal to men. The lawyer can hardly oppose this."

    Here's a lawyer opposing it. Combat is simply not an appropriate forum in which to conduct experiments in political equality.

    Combat has but a single exigency -- rendering the enemy ineffective and incapable of inflicting harm, by threat or display of superior and overwhelming violence, if possible, by unflinching application of superior and overwhelming violence, as necessary.

    Contemplative sociopolitical discussion may be, and should be, illuminated by combat necessity. But, beyond logistic support, and the setting the bounds of acceptable violence in combat engagements, such discussions cannot hope to meaningfully intervene in the physical correspondence of combat, given the enemy's inalienable and inevitable vote in the process.

    Just as courts have wisely recognized their inappropriateness as a forum for deciding political questions, wise politicians recognize equal inappropriateness of combat as a forum for such questions, or as a laboratory for social engineering.

    The not-so-wise politician should initiate planning for a militarily defeated America.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 10:14 p.m.

    @procuradorfiscal
    "The not-so-wise politician should initiate planning for a militarily defeated America."

    That would be impossible. We spend 5x as much as second place China, have the highest gun/person ratio in the world, and have no world powers less than an ocean away from us.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 10:23 p.m.

    If you are against equality, what do you stand for?

    Inequity.

    I choose to stand for something else...

  • George Bronx, NY
    Feb. 6, 2013 10:46 p.m.

    Sad that the article writer has such a rudicous narrow view of why people choose to engage in secular marriage, Fortunatly he does not get to define for the rest of us why we are married. What a sad and myopic world he has created for himself.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Feb. 6, 2013 10:49 p.m.

    @chris b
    I think you mean no you will not support them.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 11:00 p.m.

    Talk about your straw man arguments. The authors attempt at defining secular marriage borders on comical.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Feb. 6, 2013 11:56 p.m.

    The world is evolving and moving on, and society is no longer willing to allow the self-appointed Morality Police to dictate how the rest of us should live. It's no real surprise that Deseret News repeatedly chooses to respond to this by pouting and making straw man arguments...

  • DougS Oakley, UT
    Feb. 7, 2013 5:48 a.m.

    Equality? How do you make the apple equal to the orange? You couldn't even get all apples or oranges equal to each other. Why keep trying to mix oil and water? Men and women are different.. Viva la difference!

    As for homosexual marriage.. Show me one that can produce off-spring on lts own.. Marriage was meant for "family" and two do not make a family.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2013 6:17 a.m.

    "Maybe there is more to my reluctance than the accumulation of prejudice."

    No, actually, that's pretty much all you've got. Everything else you offer is empty hand-waving.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    Feb. 7, 2013 7:21 a.m.

    I think; for anything to be sacred it has to have a purpose. Hope for the future.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Feb. 7, 2013 7:24 a.m.

    Chris B
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Here is a harsh reality for liberals. No, we aren't equal. Exactly 0 women have ever played in the NBA or NFL. And no, its not because they discriminate.

    ======

    Lifting the "ban" doesn't force women into combat roles - it only removes a pseudo barrier.
    Before - a woman could not even TRY, this just opens the opportunity.
    The same rules now apply, regardless of race, gender, religion and sexual orientation.

    You probably are against female cops and Highway patrol officer too.

    If you really don';t like women in combat --
    Enlist in the military.

    I grow ever so tired of opinions from men who never "manned" up for the job themselves.

    As for gay marriage --
    You all fought against legal Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships.
    But by refusing to compromising, you upped the anti to all-or-nothing.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Feb. 7, 2013 7:40 a.m.

    "You know, I was married for 23 years to the love of my life and he died 6 years ago. I think of all the wonderful years we had and the wonderful fringe benefits of having 3 beautiful children. I don’t miss the sex, and to me that’s kind of what this boils down to. I don’t miss that… I mean I certainly miss it, but it’s certainly not the aspect of that relationship, that incredible bond I had with that human being, that I really really genuinely wish I still had. And so I just think to myself: how could I deny anyone the right to have that incredible bond with another individual in life. To me it seems almost cruel.

    And someone made the comment that this is not about equality. Well yes it is about equality. And why in the world would be not allow those equal rights for individuals who are truly committed to one another in life to be able to show that in the way of a marriage....."

    (R-Washington State Representative Maureen Walsh explaining her vote to support same-sex marriage)

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Feb. 7, 2013 7:48 a.m.

    You know you don't have to look very far to see the research that marriage and the purpose for marriage has changed over the last few hundred years. "The purpose" for marriage is no longer to have a family. It may well be a consequence or a goal of marriage but it's no longer the purpose. "The purpose" of marriage in modern times is love. Marriage allows two people who love one another to commit themselves to the each other in a formal way. To the author love and sex are not the same thing. Sex may be apart of a marriages love but it certainly isn't the same thing, so to equate a secular marriage with sex is just plain wrong.

    To DougS... Marriage was meant for family so basicly if you can't produce a family you don't have a right to marriage..you really don't want to open up that can do you? Besides like the research shows, todays marriages are not "menat" for families, they are "meant" for love.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2013 8:29 a.m.

    DougS
    "Equality? How do you make the apple equal to the orange? You couldn't even get all apples or oranges equal to each other. Why keep trying to mix oil and water? Men and women are different.. Viva la difference!

    As for homosexual marriage.. Show me one that can produce off-spring on lts own.. Marriage was meant for "family" and two do not make a family."

    _________________

    Doug, Equality come with choices. Both sexes will have the right to choose. There will still be limitations on who can serve on the battlefront, but taking away the right of women to choose is wrong, especially since they are serving, fighting and dying right now. Give those few who want to and can pass the test the choice. What is wrong with that?

    Gays want the same marriage that older couples can receive. These couples cannot bear children yet are given all the rights and privileges that a couple who can are given. Or they want the same marriage that a couple who is infertile has...or a couple who decide not to have children are given. Why can't gays have these kinds of marriages?

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2013 8:40 a.m.

    Chris B
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Here is a harsh reality for liberals. No, we aren't equal. Exactly 0 women have ever played in the NBA or NFL. And no, its not because they discriminate

    -----------

    Chris, you must be very young. Anne Meyers signed with the Indiana Pacers in 1979. Please get your mind around the idea that equality = choice and opportunity.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Feb. 7, 2013 9:06 a.m.

    Dear author, thank you for your view. It's wrong.

  • Bloodhound Provo, UT
    Feb. 7, 2013 9:18 a.m.

    The mania for equality has produced some incredibly stupid ideas over the last few years. The inability to tell the difference between men and women is simply one manifestation. Throw out the words "choice," "equality," and "non-discriminatory" and reason goes out the window for many people. I have no doubt it is just a matter of time before liberals will want laws passed to protect pedophiles and thieves. They will argue that anyone who doesn't approve of pedophiles working with children is a hater and anyone who doesn't believe thieves should be hired by banks is closed minded. Simple insanity! The madness of political correctness.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2013 9:54 a.m.

    @Lane Myer,

    Your female hero who signed a contract never played one second in an NBA game.

    Sorry. Fail.

  • DougS Oakley, UT
    Feb. 7, 2013 10:12 a.m.

    Mariage is all about Love? To me, Love is more than sex. Homosexual relations are all about sex. They have been doing it for years without marriage even mentioned. What grounds would they use in the event of "divorce"?

    I really don't see where "choice" has anything to do with equality except, perhaps, to an empty mind so infused with indoctrination that "choice" is whatever they have been taught.

    BTW.. I served 21 years in the Navy and feel somewhat qualified to comment on women in combat situations. What was your experience for comment?

  • glendenbg Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2013 10:28 a.m.

    200 words aren't enough to give this op-ed the fisking it so richly deserves.

    That the author believes our society reduces marriage to nothing more than private sexual acts demonstrates his misunderstanding of society, not society's misunderstanding of marriage. Does any married person posting here really believe their marriage is nothing more than private sexual acts? Does any committed couple married or not really believe that? Of course not. Marriage is about love, commitment, mutual caring and nurturing, building and sharing a life together. Mallat reducing relationships to nothing but sex is the party offering a limited view, not contemporary society.

    Not to put too fine a point on it, Mallat is simply wrong when he claims marriage is the celebration of intimate sexual intercourse.

    Mallat also creates a false dichotomy between the creation of family and equality. Equality is nothing more the realization that men and women may be different but those differences do not make them unequal. There are not substantive differences between straight and gay couples. Their relationships are about mutual support, love, caring, nurturing and building a life together, which may or may not include raising children.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Feb. 7, 2013 10:44 a.m.

    glendenbg's eloquence and thoughtfulness on this issue is unsurpassed. I would simply add that women are currently in combat, serving with bravery and distinction. The change in status simply means that they now can receive pay and rank advancements for doing what they're already doing.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Feb. 7, 2013 10:52 a.m.

    @doug
    Luckily Doug you do not get to decide for others what their relationship is or is not. Your self serving definition of homosexual relationships is at best reductive to the point of absurdaty .

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2013 11:01 a.m.

    Homosexual relations are all about sex. - DougS

    So why are they advocating and fighting for life-long monogamy in marriage?

    FYI? Didn't Britney spears have a 48 hour marriage?

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2013 11:07 a.m.

    DougS

    I am the parent of a Marine. I know the Navy is pretty much totally integrated with the exception of the SEALS, but there should be a chance for some outstanding woman to be able to rise to that level - if she wants to. To hold back a woman from any achievement just because of a preconcieved notion about what a woman can or cannot do is so 1950's.

    And homosexual relationships are not purely about sex. You need to get to know a few gays. They are exactly the same as you are except they are attracted to people of their same sex. That attraction is not just physical. That attraction is emotional, just as your attraction to your spouse is (or should be) more than wanting to have a physical relationship with a person. If it were merely about sex, why get married? Why want to declare to your family and society that this is the person you are committing to for the rest of your life?

    Choice and oppotunity makes the difference in equality. One could say women were equal when they were given the right to vote but they had few choices. It's imporving.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 7, 2013 11:26 a.m.

    @dougs
    Since you do not get to define for the rest of us what marriage or a family is I will make a deal with you doug, if you can show me where any state or federal law states that marriage is for the sole purpose of "producing off spring," and that the off spring must be the result of the marriage "on their own" and that "two do not make a family," we can talk about whether there is any proof that homosexual relations meet your self serving definition of marriage.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Feb. 7, 2013 12:04 p.m.

    Everyday --
    I wake up, turn on the computer, open up the Deseeret News,
    and I'm reminded of the movie "Pleasantville".

    Only - it's for R-E-A-L

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    Feb. 7, 2013 12:56 p.m.

    Anyone arguing against women in combat roles hasn't been paying attention to how wars are fought. There is no "front line" anymore. Anyone in Afghanistan is on the "front line". Right now, women are fighting and dying along with their male counterparts. But because women aren't allowed "combat" roles, when they want to advance their career, say to work at the FBI or CIA, and apply for a job that requires "combat" experience, they are denied because, technically, they can't have that experience. In reality, they have all the skills of their male counterparts.

    Allowing women into "combat" roles is not the same as mandating it. There are already a set of physical requirements that exclude those unfit. Women who want to, would have to meet those standards. Anyone putting forward arguments about women being physically smarter, is trying to obfuscate this point.

    And to Doug, you have got to be kidding me. Just look at your argument: 'Gays only want sex, that's why they're fighting for marriage.' That's like saying immigrants are all lazy and that's why they're taking our jobs.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2013 1:01 p.m.

    @Bloodhound
    "I have no doubt it is just a matter of time before liberals will want laws passed to protect pedophiles and thieves. "

    As a liberal I find this statement offensive and ignorant. If you can't tell the difference between consentual relationships between homosexual adults and pedophiles then you have a problem.

    @DougS
    "Homosexual relations are all about sex."

    That's completely wrong. It's quite clear you don't know any gay couples.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Feb. 7, 2013 1:29 p.m.

    Re: "To hold back a woman from any achievement just because of a preconcieved notion about what a woman can or cannot do is so 1950's."

    And to place an entire military unit and its important missions at risk, in a vain attempt to vindicate obviously-flawed liberal dogma, is so Obama-era.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Feb. 7, 2013 2:10 p.m.

    The argument that gay marriage will lead to pedophile/minor marriages is ridiculous. There's no correspondence between an agreement between two consenting adults and the exploitation of a child. One is an honorable contract, the other is a crime.

  • glendenbg Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2013 2:33 p.m.

    @procuradorfiscal - Your comment at 129 contains a huge assumption. We don't know that placing women in combat will put a unit or its mission at risk. What we know is that a great many women posses the physical skills and strength required for combat. What we know is that a great many women have served in almost every conceivable role in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    As Eric Samuelsen pointed out above, women are currently serving with distinction and the change will allow them to be recognized for what they're already doing.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Feb. 7, 2013 4:17 p.m.

    DougS you say "BTW.. I served 21 years in the Navy and feel somewhat qualified to comment on women in combat situations." ok, you also say "Homosexual relations are all about sex." Your basis for such an expert statement is..or are you simply stating an unsubstantiated opinion.

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    Feb. 7, 2013 5:41 p.m.

    Equality means treating like things alike. When two things are not alike, there is no inequity in treating them differently.

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    Feb. 7, 2013 5:46 p.m.

    "There are not substantive differences between straight and gay couples."

    The cohabitation of straight couples, in the aggregate, can reasonably be expected to produce children, whether their birth is intended or not. A gay couple will not produce children without taking special, intentional measures.

    That's a substantive difference.

  • cjf Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2013 6:53 p.m.

    Dear author,

    Thank you for your view. It is correct.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Feb. 7, 2013 7:14 p.m.

    @proud duck
    So rather then pretend that your comment has not already been addressed above why don't you actually try responding to the comments that have already challenged your assumptions? maybe offer a counter argument?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Feb. 7, 2013 7:35 p.m.

    You don't have to agree with the choices to support peoples right to choose. A test when all that is available is the correct answers is no test what so ever. Coerced correctness proves nothing.

    So long as you don't hurt others - you should have the right to live the life you choose - regardless of others approve or not. But when your choices impact the rights of others to choose - that is the rightful role of government to step in. You don't have to like others choices, but if those choices don't impact you or others, you have no right to limit others ability to choose.

    That was the plan. Coerced correctness never proves anything.

  • Linguist Silver Spring, MD
    Feb. 7, 2013 8:23 p.m.

    @DougS "To me, Love is more than sex. Homosexual relations are all about sex."

    With respect, I am a gay man. Love is about far more than sex for me as well. My committed relationship has lasted decades. Trust me: it is not "all about sex." I could do without sex. I would not want to do without love.

    Last month, the love of my life had the flu. Good partner that I am, I made chicken soup from scratch (hey, I am also Jewish!), mopped his forehead with a cold washcloth, and made him as comfortable as his condition allowed. Trust me: cleaning up the sick from a person you treasure is about love, not sex.

    We are together in good health and ill. And we were together struggling to pay our bills and the mortgage, till today, we are debt-free and still very much in it together. Trust me: you don't spend hours sanding floors together, painting walls, and planting gardens if it's "all about sex."

    Our relationship is every bit as much about love as any strong, committed longterm opposite-sex marriage could possibly be. It's about building a life together.

    Peace.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 8:24 a.m.

    "And to place an entire military unit and its important missions at risk, in a vain attempt to vindicate obviously-flawed liberal dogma, is so Obama-era."

    ----------

    Actually it started with the first Gulf War and has expanded into the two wars we have now. There is no real "front line" and women have been defending (with guns!) their role in the wars. It is time to make the policy match what is happening.Obama? Blame it on the Bushes!

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 9:18 a.m.

    Linguist
    Silver Spring, MD

    8:23 p.m. Feb. 7, 2013

    =============

    Thanks Linquist.

    As a heterosexual male,
    I couldn't agree with you more.
    Everything you described is precisely what a "real" marriage entails,
    and I've been trying to explain that distinction to the homo-phobes for years.

    Marriage is about Love, committment, sharing and caring.

    Your comment my friend, was so elequent and spelled it all out and explained it perfectly.

    Thank You.