Quantcast
Faith

Mormon Parenting: The conjugal and revisionist views of marriage

Comments

Return To Article
  • Ricardo Carvalho Provo, UT
    April 19, 2013 6:18 a.m.

    Would anything written here prevent a gay couple from taking a conjugal approach to marriage? We know plenty of heterosexuals who have taken a revisionist view based on the number of divorces and affairs that exist (though I am not sure the authors would claim that all divorces are a result of the revisionist view). We have so little experience with gay marriages that we cannot really comment on their persistence.

  • ontheotherhand Highland, UT
    April 19, 2013 7:24 a.m.

    Brilliant. While I agree with you, I'm still left wanting more explanation as to why homosexual marriage only fits into the revisionist view of marriage. (Similar to the first comment.)

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    April 19, 2013 7:43 a.m.

    I guess you missed the part about a "man and a woman" in the paragraph describing traditional marriage.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 19, 2013 7:56 a.m.

    Marriage can be viewed, as it has since history began, as an exclusive commitment between a man and a woman"

    Would this characterization have been made in the context that existed in Utah prior to 1890?

    Kind of hard to condemn gay marriage while accepting that polygamy was once acceptable, if one contends that "since history began" that marriage is an "exclusive commitment between a man and a woman"

  • Jones Salt Lake City, UT
    April 19, 2013 8:13 a.m.

    Exactly how does gay marriage fall into the category you define as "a bond in which fidelity is subject to one’s own desires — a bond which one leaves when emotional fulfillment is no longer found."

    That is your initial premise, and it seems a pretty shaky one.

  • Rynn Las Vegas, NV
    April 19, 2013 8:16 a.m.

    Although the ideal is obviously a traditional marriage where Mom is married to Dad, sometimes it just doesn't work out that way. But every divorce situation is different.

    Obviously some marriages end for petty reasons that could have been avoided.
    But other times it's abuse. That abuse doesn't have to be physical. It can be emotional or psychological abuse
    .
    In those situations, both partners have to be on board to improve the marriage in order for it to be saved. If only one partner is willing to compromise, and the other partner stands firm in their "It's my way or the highway" belief, the marriage will be an unhealthy one. And when a marriage like that continues, what does it teach children? It teaches them that marriage is about abusing your spouse. Or allowing your spouse to abuse you.

    There are examples of children whose parents have remarried and their environments are so much healthier. The kids are excelling at school and are happy because they're no longer in a toxic household.

    I realize that's not the case with all divorces.
    My point is that every divorce story is unique.

  • keyboarder College Station, TX
    April 19, 2013 8:15 a.m.

    Carvalho said "We have so little experience with gay marriages...", but advocates of gay marriage report both in the media and the courts that there is enough experience to deem it as appropriate and suitable for family life as traditional marriage. So which is it? On one side society is supposed to let marriage be redefined because we don't know enough to say anything about it, then on the other side we're supposed to let marriage be redefined because experts show that relationships and children are just as well with gay partners. I think the article is responding to the definite assertions made by gay-marriage advocates, even though Carvalho is correct in pointing out those assertions can't possibly be trusted since we (i.e. society) do not have enough experience with it. We shouldn't redefine marriage and societal relationships based on such wishy washy ideas.

  • Wacoan Waco, TX
    April 19, 2013 8:22 a.m.

    George (the speaker quoted) and coauthors Girgis and Anderson in “What Is Marriage” give a more complete definition of traditional marriage than that included in the article. Physical union has potential to procreate. Homosexual union, no matter how loving and committed, cannot. According to empirical evidence they cite, gay couples live according to the revisionist definition. Their marriages do not include fidelity. Why should it when physical union has not and cannot produce children whom are protected by sexual fidelity between parents? A better question is can gay marriage harm society by delegitimizing traditional marriage. The authors answer affirmatively. Parenthetically, the authors do exclude polygamy as a form of traditional marriage as JoeBlow suggests although I would disagree with his conclusion.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    April 19, 2013 8:24 a.m.

    Why is not in the opinion section? I find it humerious that they would. be so bold as to claim others are revisionist when nothing they claim has any factual bases.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 19, 2013 8:29 a.m.

    Gays are going to marry, so quit fretting about it already. There's important stuff going on today.

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    April 19, 2013 8:37 a.m.

    The married homosexual couples that I know have marriages that are every bit as strong, loving, committed as any other good marriage. The authors show their provincialism when they lump all homosexual marriage into one category. As for what's best for children let's ask ourselves is it better for a child to be adopted by a loving homosexual married couple and be cherished or to become the ward of the state and be bounced from one foster home to another?

  • tomof12 Provo, UT
    April 19, 2013 9:07 a.m.

    The revisionist attitude is indeed widespread, and the intellectual forefront of the same-sex marriage movement often espouses it explicitly. But the real perplexity lies in the idea of a same-sex couple that openly embraces the heteronormative conjugal model. They could, in principle, tell themselves that leaving their same-sex spouse would be a grave moral and spiritual error, unless that spouse was abusive or sexually involved outside the marriage. Although I've never encountered, it is not inconceivable that some self-identifying gay/lesbian people could start advocating for sexual abstinence before same-sex marriage, especially when they come from a background (like a Mormon one), where abstinence is the standard. They could even say: "I would never acquire children, if I thought that it would be a disadvantage to them not to have both a mother and a father, but since the APA and a few other such organizations have stated in their amicus brief to the Supreme Court that mothers and fathers *as such* have no significant value, I'm going to have kids too." I don't find this hypothetical scenario watertight, but it is the one we must respond to.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    April 19, 2013 9:09 a.m.

    The thing about faith is that it involves 'mysteries', such as marriage is between a man and a women, something that no amount of research, claims, or otherwise is ever going to prove. It is a thing of the heart and of the spirit, a prompting that comes from God. The world was 'flat' for centuries and no amount of effort to prove otherwise turned a head. Eventually, the truth was borne out. Gay marriage will take a century, or until the universal God of all mankind returns, before that truth will once again be noted as a 'mystery' without debate, just as it is no longer debated that the world is round.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 19, 2013 9:14 a.m.

    Obviously the issue of homosexuality and gay marriage are lightning rods.

    Here is a bit of a side issue.

    Based on many comments, here and in the past, it is obvious how strongly some feel against homosexuality (even leaving the gay marriage issue out the equation.)

    Is the environment in your home such that one of your kids could tell you that they were gay?
    Or do they feel that it would bring too much shame and disappointment to the family based on things said around them.

    Or do you feel that it would be impossible for you to have a gay kid because of their upbringing?

    Personally, I think these are bigger issues than whether or not you support gay marriage.

    Things to think about.

  • JaeDL West Valley City, UT
    April 19, 2013 9:14 a.m.

    Homosexual relationships cannot, by definition be "Traditional". Traditional marriage is the optimal situation to create and raise children. Homosexuals cannot create children (hope that's not a surprise). Ideally, all children would be raised by their own mother and father. With this in mind, adoption would only happen in rare situations of orphaned children. Because of sin and immorality, this is not the case. Sin and immorality destroys marriages. Sin and immorality destroys chastity and as a result children are created and brought into this world in less than ideal cirumstances. The ideal is harder to find than it should be. Nevertheless, we should all want and strive for the ideal in our own lives and as a society. This is what will make our society stronger and create a better tomorrow. We cannot let sin an immorality determine our world and our future when we can do something about it.

  • jimliddle Dayton, NV
    April 19, 2013 9:59 a.m.

    "Marriage can be viewed, as it has since history began, as an exclusive commitment between a man and a woman, which forms a physical and an emotional and a spiritual bond distinguished by its comprehensiveness and its fidelity."

    That's a pretty modernized version of traditional marriage. For most of the history of the institution, marriage has been the transfer of custodianship of a woman from her birth family to her husband's family. Expectations of fidelity rested principally upon the woman. That we have now created an expectation of symmetrical fidelity is obviously to be lauded. Meanwhile, excluding homosexual couples from the institution is becoming increasingly self-evidently unjustifiable. Another generation should pretty much relagate this bigotry to the ash heap where lie anti-miscegenation laws (another non-traditional variation on marriage that the institution has survived just fine, thank you).

  • Ralph Salt Lake City, UT
    April 19, 2013 10:08 a.m.

    "Marriage can be viewed, as it has since history began...."

    Wut?

    Have you done any actual historical research into the institution of marriage?

    Does your "since history began" begin about 150 year ago?

    Goodness that is arrogant and ignorant.

    Since history began, indeed!

  • Bobster Boise, ID
    April 19, 2013 10:32 a.m.

    I enjoyed this article and felt it provided valuable and important ideas on the importance of preserving and promoting in every way possible traditional marriage.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    April 19, 2013 10:32 a.m.

    Missing background

    Princeton Prof. Robert George is a conservative and involved in conservative organizations.

    The NYTimes article was primarily about the couple's (both prominent NY residents) about their house decor, not their marriage.
    The NY Times quoted the couple. Its somewhat a leap to infer that the Times was extolling the circumstances of their marriage isn't it?

    Past LDS Church leaders deviated far from traditional marriage, a subject never discussed...

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    April 19, 2013 10:56 a.m.

    "...Last week saw a setback for the forces of maximum freedom. A representative of millions of gays and lesbians went to the Supreme Court and asked the court to help put limits on their own freedom of choice. They asked for marriage.

    Marriage is one of those institutions — along with religion and military service — that restricts freedom. Marriage is about making a commitment that binds you for decades to come. It narrows your options on how you will spend your time, money and attention.

    Whether they understood it or not, the gays and lesbians represented at the court committed themselves to a certain agenda. They committed themselves to an institution that involves surrendering autonomy. They committed themselves to the idea that these self-restrictions should be reinforced by the state. They committed themselves to the idea that lifestyle choices are not just private affairs but work better when they are embedded in law."

    (David Brooks, "Personal Freedom Loses One")

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    April 19, 2013 10:57 a.m.

    "Marriage can be viewed, as it has since history began, as an exclusive commitment between a man and a woman."

    Starting right off with a blatant falsehood doesn't bode well for the rest of the article.

    As others have already pointed out, this claim simply isn't true. "Marriage" has actually been redefined many times throughout history -- and any expectations of "exclusivity" usually fell much more heavily on the woman than on the man.

    As for the mis-characterizations of gay marriages:

    1. Remember, more than 100,000 gay couples in the US are ALREADY raising children. Any claims that child rearing is irrelevant in gay marriage are obviously false.

    2. In countries and states where gay marriages and/or gay registered partnerships are already legal, the divorce rate for gay couples is usually the same as, and often even lower than, the straight divorce rate.

    It would be nice to see more fact-based articles printed in this paper, and less hysteria and hyperbole.

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    April 19, 2013 11:08 a.m.

    @Contrarius
    Lebanon, TN

    "It would be nice to see more fact-based articles printed in this paper, and less hysteria and hyperbole."

    Yes it would be nice. And not 'cherry picked' facts that constantly denounce gay marriage, cohabitation, etc. Fair, balanced articles. And by fair .. I definitely don't mean FAIR - we're talking non-biased here.

    You can't start off with a 'truth' and pick what you want that fits it. You start with what's there and that reality IS the 'truth'.

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    April 19, 2013 11:40 a.m.

    "On one side society is supposed to let marriage be redefined because we don't know enough to say anything about it . . "

    The reality is that every couple defines marriage in their own way already. The far right just chooses to place tremendous, all-defining emphasis on gender. I'm a straight married guy, but my role and my wife's role in marriage might be very different from your role in your marriage. Many of you here would have more of a problem with a monogomous, long-term gay couple than you would with a swinging married couple. Weird.

    "Physical union has potential to procreate. Homosexual union . . cannot. (Gay) marriages do not include fidelity. Why should it when physical union . . cannot produce children whom are protected by sexual fidelity between parents?"

    Wow, is that easy to shoot down. What about sterile hetero couples? I'm adopted. My parents could not procreate. Did my parents therefore have no compelling reason to remain sexual fidelity? Good thing no-one told them. What about couples who don't want children? Do their marriages have less meaning than yours? The arrogance is astounding.

  • Free Agency Salt Lake City, UT
    April 19, 2013 11:56 a.m.

    To those first two commentators who ask why same-sex marriage would necessarily fit into the category of "revisionist" marriage ("a bond in which fidelity is subject to one’s own desires — a bond which one leaves when emotional fulfillment is no longer found"), I can answer that quite easily.

    It fits there because the Eyres *would have it so.* And presumably because their church would have it so too.

    In short, it serves to categorize any two partners of the same-sex as "them." And this is how "they" are.

    It seems the church and its spokespeople will do anything to hold onto their one-size-fits-all doctrines, rather than getting to know people as individuals. Maybe it allows them to sleep better at night, knowing their faith is the "absolute right one." But thankfully, more and more people *are* getting to know gays as individuals.

    Ironically, two Mormon missionaries came to my door just yesterday, and I tried to explain as hospitably as possible why I wasn't interested. I wish I'd had this article then. It would have spoken perfectly for me.

  • bribri86 Phoenix, AZ
    April 19, 2013 12:44 p.m.

    I get my truth from God, not 'facts' from man, not 'numbers' from articles. This "one size fits all" church is just that. It requires conformity to God's laws, not God conforming to whatever others think He should do. When I get my truth from God, it's consistant and is true from generation to generation. If anything varies, it's usually because man screwed up, not God. And so it is with this marriage debate. Conformity with man, or conformity with God. I side with God.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    April 19, 2013 12:53 p.m.

    It is so tragic to read some of the pro-gay-marriage proponents on these posts. It is clear that common sense, research, history, morals or any form of logic will never make a dent with people who just don't want to hear the truth or face it. It is incredible the way these people manage to twist everything to support their own conclusions. Similar attitudes existed in other societies in history which are now extinct as a result. When evil is thought good and good evil, there is very little time left for any civilization.

    I commend the Eyres for standing up for the truth in a world full of perversion.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 19, 2013 12:56 p.m.

    "1. Marriage can be viewed, as... a physical and an emotional and a spiritual bond distinguished by its comprehensiveness and its fidelity. This is often called the conjugal view...

    2. Marriage can be viewed simply as a loving emotional bond distinguished by its intensity — a bond in which fidelity is subject to one’s own desires — a bond which one leaves when emotional fulfillment is no longer found. This is often called the revisionist view."

    It is insulting to then suggest that same-sex marriage can only count as the latter, as if same-sex couples have no desire for fidelity in life-long bonds.

  • minot minot, ND
    April 19, 2013 1:08 p.m.

    What if for some reason you marry someone for eternity,are reasonably happy, but find a true "soul" mate? Are you expected to be with that person for eternity? Is it fair to your spouse?

  • RyanG USA, UT
    April 19, 2013 1:13 p.m.

    Quote: "Marriage can be viewed, as it has since history began, as an exclusive commitment between a man and a woman" the Eyres HAVE to know that this is not true. Throughout history and the world around marriage is a diverse institution.

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    April 19, 2013 1:18 p.m.

    Hey, Cats:

    It is so tragic to read some of the anti-gay-marriage proponents on these posts. It is clear that common sense, research, history, morals or any form of logic will never make a dent with people who just don't want to hear the truth or face it. It is incredible the way these people manage to twist everything to support their own conclusions. Similar attitudes existed in other societies in history which are now extinct as a result. When evil is thought good and good evil, there is very little time left for any civilization.

    You see what I did there? Guess what; the sky is not falling, letting Neal and Bob get married isn't going to end civilzation, and morality isn't all about who you sleep with. And please reconsider using the word "logic" without actually employing.

  • Trust Logic Brigham City, UT, 00
    April 19, 2013 1:23 p.m.

    @Truthseeker
    Very interesting article you referenced. (David Brooks, "Personal Freedom Loses One")

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    April 19, 2013 1:47 p.m.

    @bribri86

    "When I get my truth from God, it's consistant and is true from generation to generation."

    Like polygamy, priesthood ban, word of wisdom becoming doctrine, and the other truths that are consistent?

    @Cats

    "It is incredible the way these people manage to twist everything to support their own conclusions."

    The irony is stunning.

  • Free Agency Salt Lake City, UT
    April 19, 2013 2:21 p.m.

    @bribri

    First off, you're not "getting your truth from God." You're getting what you believe to be true from your own beliefs about God. Nothing wrong with that, we all have beliefs. But please let's not present it as though you've got a direct telephone line to God and anyone who has different beliefs has somehow gotten the wrong number.

    Second, your very own church believes in ongoing revelation, rather than one set piece of knowledge. (That's why the Mormon Church has never had any problem accepting, e.g., new scientific discoveries.)

    In short, there isn't any one-size-fits-all, even in your church, since life is dynamic and keeps revealing itself continually in new ways. I think even your church would agree with that.

    The validity of gay love and marriage can be just as revelatory as any other ongoing discoveries. I'm not saying you should accept that idea automatically. But from the Mormon perspective of ongoing revelation, shouldn't you (and all other Mormons) at least be open to that possibility?

  • Debbie G Cedar City, UT
    April 19, 2013 2:21 p.m.

    This is such a sad article to read. To abandon your spouse and children,is a still a tragedy in society today. Why not be honest to your vows that you took with your first spouse, the commitment you made to your children to be there for them always.
    To all those that work at their relationship with their spouses, I salute you. You work at it each day, and make it work. Thanks to those real brave ones. You are out there.Thank you for setting the real example.

  • MoJules Florissant, MO
    April 19, 2013 3:00 p.m.

    Gays want marriage, straights don't. What is wrong with this picture? OK, there are straights that do want marriage and gays that do not. But it is funny that those who run with the same crowd and ideas have differing desires about marriage, it all depends on if they are same sex or the opposite sex. Let's first get all these male and females that have children outside of marriage to marry first. After that, no, still don't agree with gay marriage, I believe in the Bible.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    April 19, 2013 3:44 p.m.

    Wacoan
    “(Gays’) marriages do not include fidelity. Why should it when physical union has not and cannot produce children whom are protected by sexual fidelity between parents?”
    LDS4
    Does that logic apply to senior citizens who marry and the infertile/sterile as well?

    JaeDL
    Sin and immorality destroys chastity and as a result children are created and brought into this world in less than ideal cirumstances. The ideal is harder to find than it should be. Nevertheless, we should all want and strive for the ideal in our own lives and as a society.
    LDS4
    Kids of traditional families are blessed by the legal protections and benefits coming from their parents being legally married. Why make the lives of kids’ in same-sex families even harder by withholding legal marriage from same-sex couples?

    MoJules
    no, still don't agree with gay marriage, I believe in the Bible.
    LDS4
    Doesn’t 1 Cor. 10:29 condemn the idea of using ones morals to infringe upon the rights of others? Gays in CA had the right to marry prior to Prop. 8. Supporting Prop. 8 is therefore unbiblical.

  • MapleDon Springville, UT
    April 19, 2013 3:48 p.m.

    Thanks to the Eyres for this well-thought and explained piece. I applaud them for standing up for morality and God.

    It will be interesting to see how long it takes for the majority of LDS people to be in favor of same-sex marriage. We've been conditioned for decades to just get along and to hold back on standing firm on any opinion for fear of offending someone else. Many LDS...and I do mean MANY...are caving on this issue.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    April 19, 2013 3:49 p.m.

    @Cats

    "common sense, research, history, morals or any form of logic will never make a dent with people who just don't want to hear the truth or face it."

    I agree with you.

    I am amazed, for instance, at people who claim that "marriage" has always had one definition -- or people who claim that homosexuality felled the Romans -- or people who claim that *any* society has *ever* fallen due to homosexuality. And there's this guy in another thread who believes that preschool children will somehow "turn" gay because of diversity education in their classrooms. It astounds me how many people wilfully ignore reality.

    @bribri86

    "When I get my truth from God, it's consistant and is true from generation to generation."

    So....you practice the polygamy espoused in the Bible, right? You'd marry your brother's widow if he died, and you'd marry your wife's servant if she was infertile, right? You'd buy slaves as the Bible told you, right? And, of course, you would kill any children who dared to talk back to their parents -- right?

    These are things that the Bible tells you to do. And God's truth is consistent.

    Right?

  • dr.bridell mclean, VA
    April 19, 2013 3:49 p.m.

    i'm intrigued by what the Eyres say here.....good clear delineation of the two opposite camps in this debate over what marriage is and what it should be.
    I would also love to hear more of how they view the dramatic trend toward cohabitation--instead of marriage--and making how we define it almost irrelevant!

  • bribri86 Phoenix, AZ
    April 19, 2013 3:54 p.m.

    @LValfre

    "Like polygamy, priesthood ban, word of wisdom becoming doctrine, and the other truths that are consistent?"

    Yep

    Polygamy - Abraham, Issac, Jacob, David, Solomon, all practiced God commanded Polygamy.
    Priesthood ban - Groups of people have always been restricted to have the priesthood. Moses' time only the Levites held the priesthood and that lasted on down through the time of the Savior.
    Word of Wisdom - I hope you're not telling me that smoking and drinking is 'healthy'. You'll need to clear that comment up.
    Other truths that are consistant - yes sir, see you're already getting the picture. Good job!

  • bribri86 Phoenix, AZ
    April 19, 2013 4:15 p.m.

    @Free Agency

    "First off, you're not "getting your truth from God."

    Exactly how do you know I don't recieve revelation and inspiration from God? I'm guessing you are assuming when you to say I don't get revelation or inspiration from God. Else, how would you know except you recieved revelation or inspiration from God.

    "Second, your very own church believes in ongoing revelation"

    Not sure what you're saying here unless you mean when the Book of Mormon talked about Horses and the scientific community made fun of us, right up until they found remains in the La Brea Tar Pits. Oops.

    One size fit's all God does work, the 'all' just needs to fit with God for it to work.

    ...

  • LCinLaguna Laguna Beach, CA
    April 19, 2013 6:33 p.m.

    Phppf! Is this a joke?

    Historically, marriage has been a legal arrangement with many different cultural and personal motivations. Did you just make this up?

    I am so sorry to read another small minded justification of why marriage one way is the better than another way. This should definitely be in the OPINION section.

    ...and above all, I have no respect for people who judge another's intentions and commitments and then define them as "evil."

    This is why we have little voice when we try to explain why "traditional" marriage is worth protecting.
    If you are going to defend something, then defend it. Stop with the self righteous babble.

  • bribri86 Phoenix, AZ
    April 19, 2013 7:34 p.m.

    @amazondoc

    You're funny. You make it sound like if it's in the bible (or not) we are supposed to do everything it says. Hopefully you'll learn that many stories in the Bible also show the weaknesses of men and women as well as what not to do.

    What the Bible teaches me is that God works His business His way. If the Bible told me to be mindless and just follow the book, I would expect that to be the theme of the Bible. Noah, build an ark, Moses at the red sea, build an ark, Lot trying to leave Sodom and Gomorrah, build an ark, Mary and Joseph heading to Bethlehem, build an ark. It doesn't do that. And all the world can cry till it's blue in the face that God is dead, or delays His coming, or is not interested any more in man. I'll wait patiently until he decides to act. He will work his work, His way, in His time. Nothing you or I can do to change it.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    April 19, 2013 9:03 p.m.

    First, marriage has never been exclusively "a commitment between a man and a woman" since history began. Same sex marriages have been known in ancient Rome, Greece, China, Native Americans, etc. Please get your facts straight.

    Secondly, if gays and lesbians were allowed to marry the right people to begin with (people of their own gender) then they would never have to "abandon their families and children" in the first place, would they!

    Thirdly, you can equally say that calling bigotry good and love evil correctly describes the scripture you quote.

    Fourth, marriage, for same gender couples is good for society as well because it also helps provide stabililty for those families and their children.

    Please, please stop promoting this bigotry.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    April 19, 2013 9:26 p.m.

    Wacoan says:
    Waco, TX

    "... gay couples ... Their marriages do not include fidelity.

    How would you know? My partner and I have been together (faithfully) for nearly 15 years now. I have heterosexual relatives who couldn't manage that.

    Additionally, I know many heterosexual couples who either couldn't or wouldn't have children. Should they have been denied marriage since they didn't have children? Marriage is NOT about children.

    @JaeDL;

    I hope this doesn't come as a surprise, but I (a homosexual) am perfectly capable of creating children if I wanted. All I'd need is a willing woman. Lesbians only need a sperm donor. This is the same manner many infertile heterosexual couples use. Bigotry is also immoral and a sin and yet, you're letting it rule your world.

    @bribri86;

    Are you sure?

    @Cats;

    Common sense? Not so much.

    @MoJules;

    According to the bible, you're the property of your husband.

  • EarlyBird70 Draper, UT
    April 19, 2013 9:54 p.m.

    I recently finished reading the book the Eyres referred to in their article. Since the article is a synopsis of an approximately 100 page book, it cannot present all the arguments in favor of the conjugal view of marriage. But the pro-same-sex-marriage arguments given here miss the point. The point is, marriage is not arbitrary. To understand this, one must understand why marriage exists at all. It exists because human existence depends on coital reproduction. No other "sexual" contact will produce offspring. Coitus is only possible between the complementary sexes. And the resultant offspring are unable to care for themselves. Marriage exists to ensure the best liklihood of survival, which includes a long period of education. Anything that does not support this end is not, and cannot be marriage. Same sex unions are by nature barren, and by providing an empty counterfeit to marriage, detract from the strength of actual marriage. Divorce, and especially no-fault divorce has the same effect, albeit in a different way. We need to return to judgment in divorce cases to buttress marriage.

  • bountifulmomofsix BOUNTIFUL, UT
    April 20, 2013 7:30 a.m.

    Very good article. Thank you for having the courage to stand for traditional marriage.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    April 20, 2013 7:41 a.m.

    @bribri --

    "You make it sound like if it's in the bible (or not) we are supposed to do everything it says."

    Ahhh. So how do you know when God really means it? How do you know which things you should listen to, and which ones you can safely ignore? Everything in there is God's Word, right?

    For instance -- those rules I mentioned -- the ones about killing children who talk back, buying your slaves, marrying your brother's widow, and also the one about killing all adulterers -- all those rules are in the very same books as the bit about "lying with men" (Leviticus and Deuteronomy). These are not merely suggestions -- these are holy laws given straight from God to Moses.

    God specifically said: "You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees." (Leviticus 18:4) and "‘Keep all my decrees and all my laws and follow them.’" (Leviticus 19:37)

    How is it that you listen to only one of these laws, and not the others? You said God was consistent, right? So if these were God's laws in the Bible, shouldn't they still be laws to you now?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    April 20, 2013 9:20 a.m.

    @EarlyBird70;

    Nonsense, complete and utter.

    Marriage isn't necessary for "coital reproduction". Procreation would continue to occur with or without marriage. There's no worry about the human race going extinct due to lack of "it".

    You're the one missing the point. Marriage creates a familial bond between partners (gay or straight) whether or not they plan to reproduce, whether or not they can/cannot reproduce. Hence we have elderly couples marrying after the death of a spouse. These couples can't reproduce - should they be denied marriage?

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    April 20, 2013 1:33 p.m.

    EarlyBird70
    (Marriage) exists because human existence depends on coital reproduction. No other "sexual" contact will produce offspring. Coitus is only possible between the complementary sexes. And the resultant offspring are unable to care for themselves. Marriage exists to ensure the best liklihood of survival, which includes a long period of education. Anything that does not support this end is not, and cannot be marriage. Same sex unions are by nature barren, and by providing an empty counterfeit to marriage, detract from the strength of actual marriage.

    LDS4
    Since marriages involving women over 50 or so don’t produce offspring, such marriages are likewise “by nature barren, and by providing an empty counterfeit to marriage, detract from the strength of actual marriage.”
    The same is true for marriages involving sterilized individuals, death-row inmates, those medically determined to be sterile, those with congenital diseases whose offspring will likely die before reproducing, etc... Until such couples are likewise denied marriage, denying marriage to same-sex couples is hypocrisy. Same-sex couples who adopt kids meet your definition's intent by raising kids, educating them and sending them into the world to reproduce and benefit mankind.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    April 20, 2013 10:16 p.m.

    It is futile to convince someone living a certain lifestyle, deviant or otherwise, to do anything but defend their position. However, none of the pro gay marriage people will answer the call to allow polygamists, bigamists, polyandrists, prostitutes, or any other form of marriage their constitutional rights to marry or do what they want. If gay marriage advocates are what they say(not bigots) , without being hypocritical, they would gladly attach their names to these other forms of 'marriage'. I doubt any will, for this isn't about that. It is only about validating something on a political level what can't be validated on a personal level.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2013 8:21 a.m.

    bandersen
    ... none of the pro gay marriage people will answer the call to allow polygamists, bigamists, polyandrists, prostitutes, or any other form of marriage their constitutional rights to marry or do what they want.

    LDS4
    I'll answer that call. Polygamy between consenting adults isn’t immoral. It’s biblical. Polyandry could occur when a polygamist wife takes a second husband. Under polygamy/polyandry, written permission would need to be obtained from all existing spouses before another could be brought in, as is done in business when someone is made a partner. Just as people can be partners in multiple businesses, individuals can be partners in multiple families. Our laws would have to protect all parties while allowing maximum freedom.

    Prostitution should be legal. If it's legal to pay a woman's rent and get sex, why is it illegal if the deal is explicit rather than implicit? The end result is still the same. Legalizing it will make it safer for the women and for the men due to mandated health checks.

    I don’t feel that the above are all necessarily moral. They should simply be legal for consenting adults.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    April 21, 2013 9:45 a.m.

    @banderson --

    "none of the pro gay marriage people will answer the call to allow polygamists, bigamists, polyandrists, prostitutes, or any other form of marriage their constitutional rights to marry"

    Once again:

    1. polygamy -- polygamy has very concrete, recognized dangers in our society.

    When a group of Canadian polygamists recently sued for marriage rights in Canada, British Columbia's Supreme Court ruled against them and reaffirmed the constitutionality of Canada's ban on polygamy. In the court's decision, the Chief Justice noted that "women in polygamous relationships faced higher rates of domestic, physical and sexual abuse, died younger and were more prone to mental illnesses. Children from those marriages, he said, were more likely to be abused and neglected, less likely to perform well at school and often suffered from emotional and behavioral problems."

    In contrast, there are NO concrete, recognized dangers from gay marriage.

    2. incest/pedophilia/bestiality -- children and animals are incapable of giving informed consent. Therefore, they can't sign marriage contracts. Informed consent is a bedrock principle of all our contract laws. It can't be removed.

    3. prostitutes -- there's no law against prostitutes getting married. In fact, many prostitutes probably ARE married.

  • Philippine Bonita Sammamish, WA
    April 21, 2013 10:13 a.m.

    @JaeDL, I couldn't agree with you more. Just because we can not acheive a utopian environment for every child born into this world is no reason to throw our hands up and quit trying.

    @Truthseeker, the author simply quoted the NY Times article. I agree with your second post quoting David Brooks. So why would homosexuals seek put an opportunity to relinquish their freedoms? Maybe, for the same reason that ANYONE commits to marriage, religion and military service, the hope that they will be respected by society for that commitment and that they might gain something from it. People often ask why any straight people would care if gays want to marry. One reason would be that many straight people do not approve of homosexual behavior. They care about what is conveyed to their children by society and they are not planning to give a gay marriage the respect that they would give a traditional marriage.

  • SilverbackedGorrilla South Jordan, UT
    April 21, 2013 4:44 p.m.

    The unfortunate reality is that the real arguement against gay marriage is a religous argument and if God is removed from the discussion there is no argument to be made, but that removes God from us as a nation. Additionally if SCOTUS should erase the current marriage line where will it be redrawn, certainly proponents of gay marriage can't deny an adult consentual polygamous marriage; what about two men and one woman, three men, seven women, Etc...? Once the judeo-christian line is moved there is no place to re-draw it hence the slippery slope of secularism makes it's own demise.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    April 21, 2013 6:02 p.m.

    @Free Agency

    "The validity of gay love and marriage can be just as revelatory as any other ongoing discoveries. I'm not saying you should accept that idea automatically. But from the Mormon perspective of ongoing revelation, shouldn't you (and all other Mormons) at least be open to that possibility?"

    The LDS belief of marriage in the Church is that if the couple is sealed and is faithful to the covenants they have made, their marriage will be eternal. That also includes the continuation of the seeds forever (children) Gay marriage in the LDS Church would be totally incompatible with what the gospel teaches about the eternal union of the family.

  • Wastintime Los Angeles, CA
    April 21, 2013 6:14 p.m.

    @SilverbackedGorilla

    Thank you for conceding that the only logical argument is religious-based. However when two denominations who both believe in God have opposing views on same-sex marriage (as is the case) how do you determine the winner?

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    April 21, 2013 10:44 p.m.

    Contrarius: How does a possible gay partner have 'informed consent' to a relationship that will never give a gay man the satisfaction of being with a women, bearing children with that women, and honoring the children of that union by giving them the highest form of marriage in the world's history, that being between a man and a women? So much for your version of 'informed consent', not to mention the difficulty of explaining to an adopted child why he/she can't marry a polgamist without sounding quite hypocritical ('Because it is just wrong' I'm thinking won't work).

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    April 22, 2013 9:04 a.m.

    @banderson --

    "How does a possible gay partner have 'informed consent' to a relationship.... "

    It sounds like you don't understand what "informed consent" means.

    "Informed consent" means that the person signing the contract fully understands and agrees to the terms of that contract. Adult, conscious gay men in full possession of their mental faculties are perfectly capable of giving informed consent to marriage contracts.

    Children and animals are not.

    "not to mention the difficulty of explaining to an adopted child why he/she can't marry a polgamist without sounding quite hypocritical ('Because it is just wrong' I'm thinking won't work)."

    Fortunately, nobody needs to resort to saying "it's just wrong" when it comes to polygamy.

    As has already been explained multiple times, the practice of polygamy in cultures that are not perfectly egalitarian (i.e. all human cultures) leads to a known, proven high risk of abuse/mistreatment of women and children. And having a high risk to citizens is a cause for restricting legal privileges (it's the reason that drunk driving is illegal, for instance). Therefore, there is good reason for banning polygamy. The courts recognize this fact, as I've discussed before.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    April 22, 2013 9:52 a.m.

    bandersen says:
    "However, none of the pro gay marriage people will answer the call to allow polygamists, bigamists, polyandrists, prostitutes, or any other form of marriage their constitutional rights to marry or do what they want."

    ---

    Fact: Polygamists are already allowed to marry at least one person of their choice.
    Fact: Polyandrists are already allowed to marry at least one person of their choice.
    Fact: Prostitutes are already allowed to marry at least one person of their choice.
    Fact: GLBT couples are not allowed to marry at least one person of their choice.

    Philippine Bonita says:
    "...many straight people do not approve of homosexual behavior. ...and they are not planning to give a gay marriage the respect that they would give a traditional marriage."

    Do you even see the bigotry of that?

    @bandersen;

    Sorry, but being with a woman wouldn't provide "satisfaction" for a gay man.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    April 22, 2013 1:15 p.m.

    @Ranch Hand

    "Fact: Polygamists are already allowed to marry at least one person of their choice.
    Fact: Polyandrists are already allowed to marry at least one person of their choice.
    Fact: Prostitutes are already allowed to marry at least one person of their choice.
    Fact: GLBT couples are not allowed to marry at least one person of their choice."

    I think the argument that can be presented is “if supporters of gay marriage wish to extend marriage benefits to GLBT couples thus changing the definition of marriage then what is to prevent the definition from further being changed to include the number of consenting partners in a marriage? And later on down the line the minimum ages of the consenting marriage partners?”

    You may quote existing laws about polygamy but not that long ago there were also laws on the book regarding homosexuality. Making an inclusion by allowing GLBT couples but denying polygamists the right to marry multiple consenting legal age partners is hypocrisy wouldn’t you agree?

    The marriage definition as it is now defined prevents all this from happening.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    April 22, 2013 3:13 p.m.

    @Amazon

    "How is it that you listen to only one of these laws, and not the others? You said God was consistent, right? So if these were God's laws in the Bible, shouldn't they still be laws to you now?"

    The Bible is divided into two sections the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament contains the Law of Moses and all its details. When Christ came he fulfilled the law and it had an end. If you read the NT you see many scriptures which support that. Rom 7:6, Matt5:17, Luke 16:16 John1:17 Acts13:39 Rom3:28 Rom6:15 Gal 2:16 Gal 2:19 and even more

    Those Old Testament laws of Moses are null and void to Christians with the exception of the Ten Commandments.

  • GD Syracuse, UT
    April 22, 2013 6:35 p.m.

    Courts shouldn't be deciding marriage issues. Nine people vs millions.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    April 23, 2013 8:34 a.m.

    @zoar --

    "The Bible is divided into two sections the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament contains the Law of Moses and all its details. When Christ came he fulfilled the law and it had an end."

    But Bribri told us that God's laws are consistent and unchanging from generation to generation. Now you're saying that God's laws changed, even within the Bible itself. Was Bribri wrong?

    I can certainly understand how God's laws *would* change with time and circumstance -- and, heck, the concept of continuous revelation would back that up -- but I'm trying to reconcile it with the claims that Bribri has made.

    And also -- if the Old Testament laws are no longer in effect, then why do so many Christians depend on the Old Testament when they condemn homosexuality?

    Incidentally, since we're talking about the New Testament -- Jesus himself never said a single word against homosexuality. In fact, one passage in particular (Matthew 19:12) is often interpreted as an indication of Jesus accepting that homosexuals are born that way, and advising them not to marry women.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    April 23, 2013 10:16 a.m.

    @zoar --

    "Making an inclusion by allowing GLBT couples but denying polygamists the right to marry multiple consenting legal age partners is hypocrisy wouldn’t you agree?"

    Nope.

    Public safety has always been a legally valid reason for restricting legal privileges. That's why drunk driving is illegal, for instance -- it causes a high risk of injury to other citizens.

    Likewise, polygamy in societies that aren't perfectly egalitarian (i.e. all human societies) results in a high risk of abuse and/or mistreatment to women and children. Heck, there's yet another article in the DN *today* about child labor abuses by the FLDS polygamists. The risks of polygamy are known, concrete, and proven.

    The courts understand this principle, and courts like the Supreme Court of British Columbia have already reaffirmed the constitutionality of Canada's polygamy bans for this reason.

    Polygamy does have concrete, proven risks to citizens. Homosexual marriage doesn't. No hypocrisy involved.

  • erichard COMANCHE, TX
    April 28, 2013 9:09 p.m.

    Remember the song, "Multiplication it's the name of the game"? Homosexuality is not a good survival strategy for a person on a planet of competing lineages. It always earns a "Darwin Award". Because it is not good for individual lineages, it is not a good strategy for a group (or tribe, race, etc.) either. Trying to FORCE groups to accept a bad survival strategy will inevitably backfire. Those groups and families that are committed to the survival of their genes will eventually completely segregate from those who do not care about this.