Quantcast
Opinion

In our opinion: Faulty gay marriage reasoning

Comments

Return To Article
  • jrp7sen Logan, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 2:06 a.m.

    1) Rights are not supposed to be voted on. That's why they are called rights.

    2) The voters in California, Connecticut and Iowa that did vote against the rights of the minority are now supporters of gay marriage. Connecticut is one of the most liberal states and support is above 60% now. Same for California as the latest polls suggest.

    3) The definitions for marriage has changed. Multiple dictionaries based in England have changed the definition of marriage to keep up with the times, just like they change the definitions to many words over time.

    4) Nobody is being "forced" to do anything. The American people are realizing and coming to terms with the truth that there is nothing wrong or bad about gay marriage and therefore opinions are shifting. Over 10 foreign countries have had gay marriage for over 4 years, the Netherlands for 12 and they're reporting a drop in divorce. States here at home report the same.

    5) Every man deserves the chance to be a father and husband. Every woman a mother and wife. Your cruel opinion will not change that.

    6) Love will always prevail and hate always fails. Disney taught us that, c'mon now.

  • EternalPerspective Eldersburg, MD
    Oct. 1, 2013 4:50 a.m.

    This article provides a firm statement to support the notion that gay rights is not civil rights or an equality fight, but a matter of personal choice that should not be imposed upon government organizations, private businesses, and religious institutions as the same type of discrimination as racial, gender, etc.

    But, that is exactly what has happened in this country and many others around the world. Suddenly being gay is being equated as a right of birth and so many are rushing to protect as an unalienable human freedom that cannot be refuted. But, where is the Science that emphatically proves people are born gay with no choice in the matter?

    Certainly someone could have same sex attraction for a variety of reasons, but does that justify the act of homosexuality and its accompanying lifestyle as a civil rights issue? Too many people act without thinking because they believe the lies that come from many sources. Their hearts are in the right place but they know now what they really support.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 4:52 a.m.

    "Instead, marriage is society’s institution for the creation and nurturing of children."

    Under that standard, my husband and I have no right to be married (we have been married 44 years, and are well past the time when we are able to have children). Even if our marriage is still recognized, I would be ineligible to re-marry if my husband died since I am now unable to procreate. Men and women, even of childbearing age who are infertile would be ineligible to marry. That is wrong.

    The DesNews got it wrong in this editorial.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Oct. 1, 2013 5:36 a.m.

    One word: baloney.

    "...an effort to force every state...into accepting the view that it is right and proper for a man to marry a man..."

    Balderdash.

    Nobody expects Mormons to accept that it is either right or proper to drink alcohol -- yet alcohol is legal in all 50 states.

    Similarly, nobody is forcing ANYONE to accept that it is either right or proper for someone to marry another person of the same sex. But these folks have a RIGHT to do so, whether or not you believe it's the proper thing for them to do.

    "By what reasoning?"

    Very simple: equal protection under the law, as provided by our US Constitution.

    " A same-sex marriage solemnized in Maryland, for example, will not be recognized under Virginia law."

    States will not be allowed to continue ignoring the Full Faith and Credit clause of our US Constitution indefinitely.

    " in only four of those states...have the voters themselves assented to the redefinition of marriage. "

    Our US and state constitutions protect people against the tyranny of the majority. Those constitutions are doing their job.

    "Judge Jacobson’s faulty reasoning is not likely to stand."

    Ya wanna make a bet on that?

  • isrred South Jordan, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 6:51 a.m.

    "The definition of marriage is not a matter of rights or equality for adults. Instead, marriage is society’s institution for the creation and nurturing of children."

    haha wow. Talk about faulty reasoning.

    Furthermore, your editorial conveniently fails to mention that the decision said that not-performing same-sex marriages is a violation of the New Jersey STATE constitution:

    "This unequal treatment requires that New Jersey extend civil marriage to same-sex couples to satisfy equal protection guarantees of the New Jersey Constitution as interpreted by the New Jersey Supreme Court...Same-sex couples must be allowed to marry in order to obtain equal protection of the law under the New Jersey Constitution."

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 7:12 a.m.

    "We, the thirteen members of the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission,
    unanimously issue this final report, containing a set of recommendations to the
    Governor and the Legislature of the State of New Jersey. After eighteen public
    meetings, 26 hours of oral testimony and hundreds of pages of written
    submission from more than 150 witnesses, this Commission finds that the
    separate categorization established by the Civil Union Act invites and encourages
    unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children.

    This is the same message that racial segregation laws wrongfully sent. Separate
    treatment was wrong then and it is just as wrong now.

    The Commission is compelled to issue its final report now because of the
    overwhelming evidence that civil unions will not be recognized by the general
    public as the equivalent of marriage in New Jersey with the passage of time."

    New Jersey Commision's report on Civil Unions

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 7:17 a.m.

    Editors, you're flogging a dead horse. There is simply no rational, evidence-based , legally defensible reason to make the argument that same-sex couples should be denied the same rights you take for granted.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 7:18 a.m.

    Cont.

    "Since the Commission issued its February 2008 report, a similar commission in
    Vermont has issued a report detailing how the Vermont civil union law – in
    effect since July 1, 2000 – still does not provide the legal, medical and economic
    equality of marriage. Nearly a decade later, civil union couples in Vermont
    report the same obstacles to equality that New Jersey civil union couples face
    today.

    The Commission has also heard additional evidence that a marriage law in New
    Jersey would make a significant difference in providing equality and dignity to
    same-sex couples and their children.

    Equally important is psychological harm that same-sex couples and their children
    endure because they are branded with an inferior label.

    Based on research and my years of working with gay people who have
    experienced stigma or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, ...second-class citizenship, now institutionalized in some states in the form of civil unions, contributes to increased rates of anxiety, depression and substance-use disorders in marginalized populations.3"

    New Jersey Commision's report on Civil Unions

    It would appear that the "faulty reasoning" is with the DN Editors

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 7:27 a.m.

    @EternalPerspective;

    It's time to grow up and learn that you're not the center of the universe any more. If the government grants you benefits for your relationship, it should grant other citizens the same benefits for their relationships.

  • OldDaveJersey Trenton, NJ
    Oct. 1, 2013 7:36 a.m.

    Two rather blatant bits of misinformation in the article. First, last year the NJ State Legislature DID vote, by significant majorities in both houses, to recognize same-gender marriage; only a veto by Gov. Christie has prevented it from going into effect. Second, Judge Jacobson's decision was NOT predicated on the notion that Windsor requires states to change their marriage laws. It was based on the simple fact that the NJ Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2006 that NJ law had to provide for equal treatment of same-gender couples under the law ... something that the state-instituted Civil Union Review Commission found could not be achieved by civil unions, a reality that has become transparently obvious following Windsor. If states choose not to provide for equal treatment under the law, they don't have to at this point (though I hope that will change) ... but for those who feel constitutionally compelled to ensure equal treatment for same-gender couples, same-gender civil marriage is the only option states have.

  • The Skeptical Chymist SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 8:27 a.m.

    The Deseret News claims that there is an ongoing effort to force every state and every individual in every state to accept that it is right and proper to have same sex marriages. This is incorrect.

    No one could ever hope to effect such a change in attitudes. The ongoing effort is to force the states to recognize that it is wrong and discriminatory to forbid same-sex couples from obtaining the comfort of a legally sanctioned marriage. The majority of the population in one state or all the states may continue to feel that same-sex marriages are wrong, against God's law, or whatever. Those in favor of same-sex marriage don't really care what other people think of them. They just want the right to marry. They are not attempting to force every individual to accept that it is right and proper to allow men to marry men or women to marry women. They simply want the right to marry the person they love.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Oct. 1, 2013 8:30 a.m.

    @EternalPerspective --

    "But, where is the Science that emphatically proves people are born gay with no choice in the matter? "

    1. Where is the science that emphatically proves people are born straight?

    2. Where is the science that emphatically proves people are born Mormon?

    Do you have to be "born" Mormon in order to deserve equal treatment? Is it okay to discriminate against Mormon converts, who obviously chose their religion?

    Did you "choose" to be straight?

    "does that justify the act of homosexuality"

    Nobody needs to "justify" the act of homosexuality. Homosexual acts don't harm anyone. Therefore, they are none of your business.

    "Too many people act without thinking because they believe the lies that come from many sources."

    What lies? Please name them.

    And please be specific.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 8:57 a.m.

    If you have to misconstrue the truth to make your point, perhaps there is a problem with the point you are trying to make?

    Marriage is not required for the bearing of children, nor is bearing children required for marriage.

    Many couples who cannot have children through "natural" means are able to have children through assistive technologies. Many individuals or couples adopt children. Many couples with children divorce and remarry bringing children from one relationship into another.

    If marriage is so important to children, than children should not be disadvantaged based on the gender of their parents.

    The arguments put forth in this editorial have been examined numerous times and have been found to be wanting. The desire to pick a random reason to disadvantage one group over all other groups while not extending that random reason and disadvantage to other groups is called animus. You cannot disadvantage a group because you do not like them.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 8:58 a.m.

    The LDS church takes the correct approach in separating the sin from the sinner. We can and should love everyone. But we should always disapprove and not support sin. No one is forced to commit sin or immoral acts. That is always a choice.

    It is not discrimination to not allow gays to marry just as it isn't discrimination to not allow two brothers to marry.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 9:02 a.m.

    Courts have the power to overturn unconstitutional provisions, even if a majority of New Jerseyians opposed same-sex marriage (which is hardly clear).

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Oct. 1, 2013 9:06 a.m.

    People who believe in the philosophies of man will claim that homosexual sex is a right and that those who believe otherwise should be censored by the government until those who don't accept homosexual sex are "converted". Photographers are being forced to accept samesex sex. They are being sued if they refuse to photograph a "marriage" between two people who believe and practice samesex sex.

    Read "The Family: A Proclaimation to the World" and pay strict attention to the 2nd paragraph, which tells us that gender is not something that we choose, but that we are men and women because that is a characteristic of our spirit.

    It is not surprising that those who reject Deity have no qualms about rejecting God's definition of marriage, which is the union of a man and a woman.

    It is not surprising that judges, who bow to political pressure, or who are themselves involved in samesex sex, would legislate from the bench and try to change society.

    Government cannot give out rights. God have given us unalienable rights, none of which allows anyone to change his or her sexual identity because of any kind of "attraction".

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 9:19 a.m.

    Can we not find another dead horse to beat for awhile? Please?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 9:20 a.m.

    Sorry. Gay marriage is fine. Instead of seeking every possible way to derail it, let's get it together and move ahead. We've got important stuff to deal with.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Oct. 1, 2013 9:33 a.m.

    I agree with the Deseret News editorial board. The respect that the law provides marriage is because it is procreative -- something that other unions lack. It is society's way to send a message that men should be responsible for their procreative actions. As such, it is a liberal value.

    Anyone, straight or gay can marry anyone else provided they are of the opposite gender. If we give marriage benefits to two people in one kind of Non-procreative union simply because they self-identify as being homosexual, then it is discrimination to not give other non-procreative unions (brother-brother, brother-sister, two straight roommates, two best friends from high school, someone and his duck). Their unions should get the same standing under the law or else then they are second class citizens.

  • Lightbearer Brigham City, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 9:36 a.m.

    An excerpt from the decision:

    "The Lewis Court held that the New Jersey Constitution required the State to either grant same-sex couples the right to marry or to create a parallel statutory structure that allows those couples to obtain ALL the same rights and benefits that are available to opposite-sex married couples. The New Jersey Legislature chose the latter option when it adopted the Civil Union Act. Since the United States Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor [...] invalidated the Defense of Marriage Act, several federal agencies have acted to extend marital benefits to same-sex married couples. However, the majority of those agencies have not extended eligibility for those benefits to civil union couples. As a result, New Jersey same-sex couples in civil unions are no longer entitled to all of the same rights and benefits as opposite-sex married couples.... This unequal treatment requires that New Jersey extend civil marriages to same-sex couples to satisfy the equal protection guarantees of the New Jersey Constitution ... Same-sex couples must be allowed to marry in order to obtain equal protection of the law under the New Jersey Constitution."

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Oct. 1, 2013 10:13 a.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi --

    "The respect that the law provides marriage is because it is procreative"

    Riiiight. That's why marriage between infertile couples is banned.

    Oh wait.

    Tekaka, you know perfectly well that some forms of marriage in Utah are ONLY legal if the couple is infertile. IOW, NONprocreative. And since these explicitly nonprocreative marriages are legal, you can't use infertility to deny other marriages.

    "Anyone, straight or gay can marry anyone else provided they are of the opposite gender. "

    Anyone, black or white can marry anyone else provided they are of the same race.

    People tried that argument in Loving v Virginia. It didn't work then, and it doesn't work now.

    "...it is discrimination to not give other non-procreative unions"

    Here we go again.

    Look up the "harm principle". An increased risk of harm to others has always been a legitimate legal reason for restricting personal freedoms.

    The short version -- polygamy and incest cause a high risk of harm to others. Therefore it is in the interest of our government to keep them illegal.

    Gay marriage does NOT cause a high risk of harm to others. Therefore there is no excuse for government to keep it illegal.

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    Oct. 1, 2013 10:36 a.m.

    EternalPerspective: " But, where is the Science that emphatically proves people are born gay with no choice in the matter?"

    Here's an interesting thought--where is the science to support the notion of race? Biologically, race doesn't exist. Seriously, Google it. I know it seems contrary to what one sees, but there is more genetic variation within people of one "race" than there is between people of different "races." If you're looking for scientific proof, than there is not justification for civil rights based on race. It's a cultural construct, and as such, it is very real. Whether or not homosexuality is proven to be inborn (though I believe most concede now that people are likely born gay), it is certainly a cultural construct with very real implications. One isn't born Mormon, but one has a civil right not to be discriminated against if they are Mormon. While many people still don't think it's moral, more and more Americans are recognizing there's no Constitutional rationale for excluding gay marriage. Just like many think Mormons are immoral, but recognize there rights to practice.

  • Daniel Leifker San Francisco, CA
    Oct. 1, 2013 10:41 a.m.

    If you go to a dinner party and want to throw a hand grenade into the conversation, ask whether a man should be legally allowed to marry his father. (No danger of procreation there.) Even the most liberal advocates for same-sex marriage seem to choke on this question. But the point is that almost everyone believes in drawing the line somewhere: marriage should be allowed for some people but not for others. We can argue where that line should be drawn, but only the fiercest of libertarians would argue for erasing the line completely. And it looks like we'll be arguing over this line for years. By the way, my understanding is that child-parent marriages are illegal even in states that allow same-sex marriage, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a test case come before some court in my lifetime.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 11:07 a.m.

    Can anyone give a reason without religious beliefs being used as an excuse?

    If not than there really is no argument against it in a Country that is Not a theocracy.

    Incest is a different story, it does cause harm, to not see the difference is poor analytical skills.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Oct. 1, 2013 11:08 a.m.

    @Daniel --

    "...I wouldn't be surprised to see a test case come before some court in my lifetime."

    Multiple US courts have *already* ruled on incest -- including adult incest.

    One US case from 2005 -- A couple was convicted of incest (adult siblings), and their parental rights were terminated. They contested the constitutionality of anti-incest laws all the way up to District court level. The court reaffirmed the constitutionality of anti-incest laws.

    Here's a few brief excerpts. When the quotes refer to "Lawrence", that's the SCOTUS decision overturning sodomy laws. Emphases mine.

    ----------

    "Allen (Allen Muth) moved to dismiss the criminal complaint against him, on the basis that Wisconsin's incest statute was unconstitutional insofar as it sought to criminalize a sexual relationship between two consenting adults."

    “Because we have already concluded that THE STATE HAS A COMPELLING INTEREST IN PROHIBITING INCEST, we reject Muth's challenges ....”

    "The ultimate question then is...whether Muth is a beneficiary of the rule Lawrence announced. He is not. ..."

    "Certain varieties of sexual conduct clearly remain outside the reach of Lawrence, things like prostitution, public sex, nonconsensual sex, sex involving children, and certainly incest, a condition universally subject to criminal prohibitions."

  • Taxonman Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 11:48 a.m.

    @Mike Richards

    I'm sorry Mr. Richards but your entire comment is off topic and comes off as very hate-filled. It is not about "homosexual sex" or "samesex sex". It is about the marriage of two people who love each other and want the same government recognized contract that you are allowed to have with a spouse.

    The issue is between the equal treatment of human beings by their government, not between a Mormon god and the misinterpretations of the bible and "spiritual doctrine". Please go back and educate yourself on the subject before you insult and support the unequal treatment of other people that are equal to you on every level.

  • OldDaveJersey Trenton, NJ
    Oct. 1, 2013 11:49 a.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi -- There is nothing in US civil law or relevant Supreme Court decisions to suggest that civil marriage is fundamentally tied to procreation. Civil marriage in the US, in fact, exists in the form of certain benefits granted to couples, to promote the stability and health of families ... be they composed of just the couples themselves, the couples plus biological children, or couples plus kids from adoption, previous relationships, surrogacy, etc. And those reasons apply just as strongly to families built around gay couples as to those built around straight couples.

    Also, I am not aware of any scientific research that suggests that there are people who can only enter into healthy, successful marriages with siblings, children, ducks, etc. (I was also not aware that ducks could give consent.) In contrast, homosexuals can enter into healthy, successful marriages but ONLY with people of the same gender ... a very different situation.

  • aislander Anderson Island, WA
    Oct. 1, 2013 11:55 a.m.

    The arguments against same sex marriage are entirely based in theocratic dogma and therefore ludicrous in our secular nation. The only people "forcing" anyone to accept their point of view are those who insist that THEIR religious beliefs be forced onto everyone else...that according to their religious beliefs SSM is immoral, and therefore law abiding tax paying gay US citizens must be denied the equal treatment under civil law that our Constitution requires. NO ONE has produced one single shred of legally sustainable argument against same sex marriage. Even the anti-gay teams of lawyers and experts have been unable to produce one shred of legally admissible harm caused by same sex marriage. Their case rests entirely on religion and/or animus.

    The "photographer" and "cake-baker" arguments are entirely other legal issues, ALL businesses must comply with state and local discrimination laws, and many jurisdictions prohibit for profit businesses open to the public from denying service on the basis of sexual orientation as a condition of doing business in that jurisdiction.

    The arguments FOR same sex marriage are very strong. The arguments against are so weak and require so many logic gymnastics as to be non-existent.

  • Liberal Today Murray, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 12:04 p.m.

    By the current thinking, incest should be completely legal between homosexual consenting adults. There no danger of genetically impaired offspring from homosexual couples, and society shouldn't limit what adults can choose to do if it doesn't hurt society. So yes, fathers can marry sons and mothers can marry daughters, once they are of age.

    The only problem is that we have to discriminate against heterosexual incest to keep from producing impaired children. But I guess it is okay to discriminate against heterosexuals. They have inherent privileges, like whites have inherent privileges. You can't take away their ability to have offspring, so discriminating against their marriages is the next best thing.

    After that, we will need to restrict the number of heterosexual marriages allowed in the country so we don't have too many children and can control the population. Then do it world wide. China had it right.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Oct. 1, 2013 12:09 p.m.

    @Taxonman,

    May I respectfully disagree with you philosophy. Tekakaromatagi's post said it better than I ever could. "Self-identify" was used in his post. "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" addressed that "self-identity".

    Those who decide that their phyical body is the wrong sex have used "self-identity". They have decided that God was wrong and that they are right. I disagree with their "right" to tell God that He made a mistake. I disagree with them when they use their philosophy to overule His doctrine. I disagree with any court that elevates "self-identity" to a civil-rights issue. As Tekakaromatagi stated, everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Those whose philosophies are different, whether they are individuals or whether they are judges, are changing the natural order that God decreed to an unnatural order that suits their "self-identity". Changing the natural order will bring nothing but heartache to society. Silly and selfish judges think that they have the "right" to recreate society in their image.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    Oct. 1, 2013 12:23 p.m.

    The Deseret News editorial board is correct.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 12:23 p.m.

    @Mike Ricards;

    Sorry buddy, but "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" addressed that "self-identity" isn't law nor does it apply to anybody other than LDS members.

    Your religion does not get to dictate to other American citizens what their family looks like or how it is made up. Regardless of your beliefs in what "god" wants or doesn't want.

  • Jeffsfla Glendale, CA
    Oct. 1, 2013 12:28 p.m.

    We have to end this discussion soon. I am sorry people have chosen a religion which includes evangelizing their beliefs both in words and in laws. If we are truly to be a free nation, a true "melting pot", free from others religions, we must remove these discriminatory laws from our books once and for all. You all know this is only common sense, a very American virtue.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Oct. 1, 2013 12:40 p.m.

    @Liberal Today --

    "By the current thinking, incest should be completely legal between homosexual consenting adults. There no danger of genetically impaired offspring from homosexual couples, and society shouldn't limit what adults can choose to do if it doesn't hurt society. "

    Nope.

    Remember, the harm principle is about the increased RISK of harm -- not the certainty of it.

    Some rare individuals may be able to drive drunk and never have an accident. But that doesn't mean that drunk driving should be legalized.

    Similarly, some rare individuals may be able to partake in incestuous relationships without harming society. But that doesn't mean that incest should be legalized.

    "The only problem is that we have to discriminate against heterosexual incest to keep from producing impaired children."

    You don't seem to understand the legal definition of "discrimination".

    "In Constitutional Law, the grant by statute of particular privileges to a class arbitrarily designated from a sizable number of persons, where no reasonable distinction exists between the favored and disfavored classes."

    Laws again incest are not arbitrary, nor do they deny privileges to any class where "no reasonable distinction" exists. Therefore, anti-incest laws are not discriminatory.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Oct. 1, 2013 12:46 p.m.

    To "Contrariusier" again with the lie that polygamy is dangerous.

    I am still waiting for you to find a study where the people doing the study look at groups that are NOT muslim, or FLDS, or part of another religious group that treats women and children poorly.

    No, the studies that you will try and quote do not meet that criteria, and are heavily biased because they are looking at marriages in cultures that mistreat women. Please find a study on polygamy where the women enter into it because they love the man and want to form a polygamist union.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Oct. 1, 2013 12:50 p.m.

    @Ranch,

    I'll also have to respectfully disagree with you. God is the Father of all of us. He spoke through prophets anciently and he speaks through prophets today. Of course you understand that concept. You were once a missionary for that Church.

    No argument that relies on the philosphy of man can ever overrule that doctrine of God. He does not give one doctrine to one group of people and another doctrine to other groups. He has told us that his word is eternal and that he will never change his mind because of political pressure from those children who have abandoned the things that they once taught and who have aligned themselves with groups who deny His existence.

    Government has no right to change religious doctrine. They are openly attacking religious doctrine. They are telling Americans that they, not God, will define "family" and "marriage". They are telling Americans that they do not believe in the 1st Amendment which starts with a prohibition against government meddling in religion.

    God has every right to define "marriage" and "family". You have every right to disregard His doctrine. He still cares about you.

  • Taxonman Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 12:55 p.m.

    @Mike Richards, Ranch is correct, "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" only applies to those who choose to believe in Mormonism. No one else. When gay marriage does eventually happen and everyone is treated closer to equal, you won't be forced to gay marry someone (nor will your chosen religion be required to perform the ceremony), just like those who aren't Mormon won't be forced to comply with what your chosen religion requires of its members.

    It's always sad to read that people that honestly believe in a god or creator thinks that he or she didn't create things just the way they are. Who is to say that gay and lesbian people weren't created that way?

    Currently, homosexuality has been observed in over 1500 animal species (and counting) all over the planet. The argument now is incredibly unlikely that every species chose that "self-identiity" as you called it.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Oct. 1, 2013 12:56 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701 --

    You said: "again with the lie that polygamy is dangerous."

    Sorry, Red, but it ain't no lie.

    One small example -- from the Canadian court decision reaffirming their polygamy ban:

    -- "Women in polygamous relationships are at an elevated risk of physical and psychological harm. They face higher rates of domestic violence and abuse, including sexual abuse" .

    -- "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."

    -- "Polygamy's harm to society includes the critical fact that a great many of its individual harms are not specific to any particular religious, cultural or regional context. They can be generalized and expected to occur wherever polygamy exists."

    You said: "Please find a study on polygamy where the women enter into it because they love the man and want to form a polygamist union."

    Again -- the harm principle is about the increased RISK of harm -- not the certainty of it.

    Some rare individuals may be able to partake in a polygamous relationship without causing harm -- but that doesn't mean that polygamy should be legalized.

    If you believe otherwise, show us your evidence.

  • Ariz Madison, AL
    Oct. 1, 2013 1:10 p.m.

    The idea that the states that allow same sex marriage are doing so only due to force to the courts is a myth. For the most part it has been done through representative processes. In those cases where it hasn't, there have been other mechanisms for the people to counter the courts' action. Most states have done so through legislative or popular votes (MN, RI, DE, VT, CT, NY, NH, MD, WA, ME). Iowa and Massachusetts are the only states where this isn't true and both of those state have had ample opportunity to amend their state's constitutions since their courts weighed in on the issue. California is the only state where federal courts have intervened in what has otherwise been internal state business.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 1:40 p.m.

    Some posters believe that God is irrelevant in this discussion. They would have us believe that they can use their "philosophy" about what a "family" is and what "marriage" is to change society to fit their ideas. That has been going on since the beginning of time.

    Those who reject God have always told us that God is irrelevant. They have always told us that their philosophy is greater than His wisdom. What they are doing is making excuses for their lifestyle. They don't want anyone to remind them that "family" and "marriage" are not theirs to define or to change.

    No one is required to believe in God and no one is required to listen to His prophets. However, no one is exempt from the consequences of rejecting God's doctrine about the family and about marriage. No one will be exempt from the destruction that follows when people use their philosophy to change God's doctrine. People, even judges, are free to be as foolish as they want to be.

  • OldDaveJersey Trenton, NJ
    Oct. 1, 2013 1:41 p.m.

    @Mike Richards -- the US government has no interest in changing religious doctrine. Civil marriage, which is the topic being discussed, is completely separate and distinct from religious marriage. And, as per the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, if you want to have discriminatory laws and have them hold up in court, you have to be able to justify them using NON-religious arguments. You seem to have no interest in doing so.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Oct. 1, 2013 1:43 p.m.

    To "Contrariuser" still waiting.

    That Canadian court case involved the FLDS polygamists, which do not treat their women much better than cattle.

    Try again. Find me the unbiased study. Quoting a court case that involved a violent religious group is not an unbiased study.

    All the Canadian court and the studies that you would like to quote show is that the FLDS religion and Muslims as a whole mistreat women and children.

    Again, it is only a matter of time before polygamy is accepted like gay marriage. Right now Brazil and the Netherlands have endorsed polygamy in civil unions. Jsut like way Gay Marriage started.

  • One of a Few Layton, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 1:58 p.m.

    The law prohibits many forms of discrimination between classes but sanctions many forms of discrimination that apply to all classes. Thus same sex marriage is found constitutionally protected as to to prohibit it would be a form of discrimination between classes but incest will not be allowed, as it is a form of discrimination that applies to all classes. Similarly discrimination against polygamy is allowable as it applies to all classes. Likewise, for those who want to marry their dog or the neighbor's 5 year old child, discrimination against these classes is allowable because these types of marriage are not allowed for anyone. Once you identify a class of people who can marry, you can't then tell them who they can marry, except to limit it to 2 consenting individuals within the class of people who are allowed marry. I think that is the starting point for legal review. What LDS, inc. accurately fears and foresees is that once gay marriage is allowed, societal pressure will come to bear and force religious organizations to change. The law won't force this because of the 1st amendment but society may just as it did with racial discrimination.

  • Liberal Today Murray, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 2:26 p.m.

    @ Contrariuser

    If a man marries a man, who happens to be his son, what is the risk of what danger? Don't see how the fact that it is father/son is any different than 2 men of 18+ years difference who are unrelated.

    Same for 2 women.

    On top of that, you speak of people who love each other. Who loves more than parent and child? Who would be more compatible?

    Again, where is any risk of harm? If homosexual adults are okay to marry, there is no reason to restrict related homosexual adults from marrying.

    You often rebuke those who you see as intolerant as being the fuel for violence, but where is your tolerance?

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Oct. 1, 2013 4:17 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701 --

    "still waiting."

    You're the one who made the claim about loving polygamous families, Red. You make the claim, you get to prove it.

    "Find me the unbiased study."

    I've already shown you many unbiased controlled studies proving my point.

    " Right now Brazil and the Netherlands have endorsed polygamy in civil unions. Jsut like way Gay Marriage started."

    ONE Brazilian notary has chosen to recognize ONE threesome, with very specific stipulations that their union did NOT apply to any other cases. That was the action of a single notary, and it is being widely contested. It is very much NOT a countrywide policy.

    The notary herself has stated: "By registering them, I only confirmed that they recognize themselves as a family". "I don't confer rights to them. That is up to a judge to decide."

    "Ms da Silva, who is president of the Commission for the Rights of the Family within the Institute of Lawyers, says the union will not be allowed to remain in place. "

    Specifically referring to that threesome: "It has not, however, set any precedence, and higher Brazilian courts have not permitted the practice."

    In re Netherlands -- no room here. Next post!

  • E Sam Provo, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 4:31 p.m.

    I'm curious: what reasoning in favor of marriage equality would you not regard as flawed?

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 4:37 p.m.

    The 'faulty reasoning' was inherent in the first bizarre step in a direction that defies civilized thought and nature. As if anyone actually thought Gay marriage was just about granting civil unions. How naive can Americans be! When someone wants to prove that something they've done is wrong, the last thing in the world is an admission that it is. It is called pride, a fixture of human nature.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Oct. 1, 2013 4:41 p.m.

    @Red --

    Polygamy is still banned in the Netherlands.

    However, they do have a civil contract referred to as a "cohabitation agreement". As wikipedia reports: "It has been compared to marriage, but merely governs the so-called property relationships between two or more people who are cohabiting. It does not necessarily imply a marriage-like (or sexual) relationship exists".

    I could probably draw up a similar contract allocating property rights right here in the US. It wouldn't be a marriage.

    @Liberal Today --

    "If a man marries a man, who happens to be his son..."

    1. We don't write laws based on individual cases, any more than we legalize drunk driving just because one drunk driver might be able to drive safely.

    2. Adult father/son relationships are still strongly influenced by their relationships when the son was NOT adult. IOW, undue influence.

    "...2 men of 18+ years difference who are unrelated."

    The unrelated older man did not raise the younger one.

    "...you speak of people who love each other. "

    You need to fill TWO criteria to justify marriage. 1. love, desire, and commitment; 2. no significantly increased risk of harm compared to other forms of marriage.

    Incest fails #2.

  • JeffreyRO555 Auburn Hills, MI
    Oct. 1, 2013 6:00 p.m.

    Conservatives are like small children being told it's time for bed. They fight change, but eventually they succumb. We all just need to be patient with them, as their feelings and viewpoints catch up to the rest of the world's reality.

  • From Ted's Head Orem, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 9:27 p.m.

    I don't like the reasoning behind the DesNews stand on gay marriage, even as I agree with their stand against it. Fundamentally the argument against gay marriage is a religious one and yet so many try and use reason (or selected facts) to support their opposition view. While it means being criticized and suffering derision at the hands of the "critical thinkers", that's what has to happen if one is true to their religious beliefs that all homosexual intimate relations are sinful and a blight on our nation. Attempting to legitimize as much via marriage won't change that it's still a sin according to the LDS Church.

    So let's stop kidding around and just say what we really think: We care more about heaven's laws and the consequences for an unrighteous nation that embraces the sin of homosexual intimacy than we do about equality as defined by the courts.

    But let's not stop here...let's go after all illicit sex, lying, cheating, stealing, etc etc. No, our message of repentance won't be very popular...but at least we won't be wasting our time trying to defend traditional societal practices.

  • Evo1 USA, FL
    Oct. 1, 2013 9:52 p.m.

    "Instead, marriage is society’s institution for the creation and nurturing of children."

    Really? When, and where, has that ever been exclusively true? No place or time of which I am aware. Marriage has far more often been about things such as cementing political or business relationships, expressing social status, protecting economic assets, and simply sharing the burdens and joys of life (yes, sometimes including children, but often not). Not even in the Bible is marriage described exclusively in the idiotically narrow way you wish it to be defined. No one is trying to force anyone to accept that gay marriage is "right." The only thing anyone is being forced to accept is that they don't have the right or authority to tell others what is right for them. Your religious freedom does not extend to imposing your bigotry on the lives of others.

  • Seek to understand Sandy, UT
    Oct. 1, 2013 10:03 p.m.

    I am heartened that most comments reject this faulty argument. We must treat people equally under the law, regardless of whether we believe in their choices or not. As an active LDS, it is so exciting to see the shifting in the thought-world about this and even more exciting to see the church coming along. Usually in the arenas of big social change, you have to wait for a generation of people to die off before the changes in thinking can really take hold. It is wonderful to see so many people changing their minds, realizing that we must honor love and that it is not our job to judge - after all, love is the first and great commandment and also the second. We will not be condemned for loving others, accepting and supporting them.

  • Evo1 USA, FL
    Oct. 1, 2013 10:27 p.m.

    Ted's Head, I wouldn't criticize you in the least for your statements. It's refreshing to see someone being honest about the subject rather than trying to invent idiotic reasonings like the Deseret News has. You have every right to your religious views. Even if I don't share them, I wouldn't denigrate you for them.

    At the same time you also have to accept though that you have no right to force others to live by your religious beliefs. You have no right to place your concerns for the "consequences for an unrighteous nation" above the freedoms of others. God does not call on his followers to create righteous nations, but to live righteous personal lives. It was not Lot's charge to save Sodom, but to live his own life righteously. Using government to force one's personal religious beliefs on others is not part of the set of principles on which this nation - or Christianity - was founded. There are countries where the majority legally imposes its religious dictates, like Sharia Law, on others, but this is not one of them. Given the persecution of the LDS Church, I would expect that you'd understand.

  • Marco Luxe Los Angeles, CA
    Oct. 1, 2013 11:04 p.m.

    May I suggest a better headline for your editorial?
    "Empty rhetoric in Deseret editorial is the final proof of an absence of any principled arguments against legal marriage equality".

    Feedback for editorial board in the hope you'll strive to do better work: utter fail, F.

  • aislander Anderson Island, WA
    Oct. 2, 2013 12:14 a.m.

    JThompson

    You are free to think we are foolish. My (Christian) church and many others support and perform gay marriages. From my point of view it is the non-affirming churches that are wrong on this issue. Fortunately the US Constitution allows both points of view, and certainly guarantees gay US Citizens equal treatment under civil law, including marriage law. 50 State gay marriage is inevitable, and that's a good thing.

    Even the lead anti-gay expert in the Prop 8 case had to testify while under oath that individuals, families and society as a whole will be better off with same sex marriage the law of the land. Don't trust me, read the transcript. You see, the anti-folks have nothing but lies, hate, division and their (in US civil law, totally irrelevant) interpretation of religion. The pro-marriage equality side has fairness, decency, simple human dignity the law and the Constitution on its side.

    I suggest that those who have such a problem with SSM should actually get to really know a few gay couples. You'll be surprised. We're not at all what you must think we are.

  • OldDaveJersey Trenton, NJ
    Oct. 2, 2013 5:50 a.m.

    @Ted's Head -- I would be curious to know if you realize that, by characterizing the argument against gay marriage as fundamentally religious in nature, you are in effect acknowledging you don't have a constitutionally valid argument against same-gender CIVIL marriage (emphasis on civil). It almost seems as if that is where you are going, in which case, I applaud you ... even if I disagree with you about the sinfulness of loving, committed same-gender relationships.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Oct. 2, 2013 6:52 a.m.

    Matthew 22:21 addresses this issue well: Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s. In other words, keep separate the religious and the civil issues.

    Religions have every right to determine who can be married under their auspices and to define morality as they see fit. People of faith have every right to preach and advocate the positions taught by their churches. Churches and people of faith do not have the right to impose their positions and views on secular society based solely on a "that's what God says or wants" argument.

    Secular laws determine familial relationships at law only, including the rights and responsibilities of parties to legal agreements (including marriage). A registered marriage brings into being a legal relationship between people who are competent to enter into a contract and who not otherwise legally related. It has no religious requirements or basis.

    Religious marriage and secular marriage are two separate, discrete entities -- religious marriage is God's and secular marriage is Caesar's, referring to the quoted scripture. They are defined and operate separately. That is how it should be, and stay.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Oct. 2, 2013 7:58 a.m.

    To "Contrarius" still waiting for the study that does not use groups that are violent towards women.

    FYI, the civil unions is how Gay marriage started. So, if we are seeing polygamist civil unions being legalized, doesn't that indicate that we are close to legalizing polygamy.

    But, that is just a tangent.

    The core issue is that there is no argument against polygamy. You can argue that islam and FLDS culture is harmful to women, but you cannot say that polygamy itself is harmful.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Oct. 2, 2013 8:33 a.m.

    @Contrarius:

    With regards to your constant rebuttals that SSM is not a slippery slope to polygamy, I am sure that you are confident, however, the ACLU disagrees with you. I also saw a website run by a polygamous group expressing gratitude to the LGBT folks for preparing the way for them to legalize polygamy.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Oct. 2, 2013 8:58 a.m.

    I married for love, not for sex.
    If you get married just for the sex, you're getting married for the WRONG reason!

    This applies regardless of orientation.

    Conservatives who keep making this an issue about sex, do not support "marriage"
    [2 people, who love and care for each other,
    who are committed to each other,
    who help and support each other,
    who share hopes, dreams, tragedies, and burdens,
    who fill loneliness, with friendship]

    -- they focus and look at marriage as one thing, and one thing only - sex.

    THAT'S why I'm against them, and for the civil rights of others.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Oct. 2, 2013 9:22 a.m.

    @Redshirt1701 --

    "still waiting for the study that does not use groups that are violent towards women."

    And I'm still waiting for the study that shows that polygamy even **exists** in groups that are not "violent towards women" in large enough numbers TO study.

    Where are all these supposed benign polygamists, Red? Are they just a figment of your imagination? If they aren't, where are they?

    Please point them out to us.

    "So, if we are seeing polygamist civil unions being legalized"

    But, in reality, we aren't. So it doesn't actually indicate anything.

    "The core issue is that there is no argument against polygamy."

    Riiiiight.

    The courts know that polygamy is harmful.

    Government legislatures know that polygamy is harmful.

    Social scientists know that polygamy is harmful.

    The United Nations knows that polygamy is harmful.

    Yet, somehow, Red insists on believing that there is no argument against polygamy.

    Uh-huh.

    @Tekaka --

    " the ACLU disagrees with you."

    I'm literally a card-carrying member of the ACLU (you're probably not surprised).

    I support the right of polygamists to fight for what they believe in. But that doesn't mean I think they're going to win.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Oct. 2, 2013 9:23 a.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" conservatives are not making this an issue about sex. That is what your ilk is doing.

    If it is good for 2 people to get married out of love in order to help and support eachother, do you support a group of 4 or 5 people to do the same?

    Are you saying that you are against liberals?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Oct. 2, 2013 9:59 a.m.

    @Redshirt1701
    Deep Space 9, Ut

    To "LDS Liberal" conservatives are not making this an issue about sex. That is what your ilk is doing.

    If it is good for 2 people to get married out of love in order to help and support eachother, do you support a group of 4 or 5 people to do the same?

    Are you saying that you are against liberals?
    9:23 a.m. Oct. 2, 2013

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

    Um, yes - you are.

    I don't care what other people choose to do.
    I have 1 wife, by choice, and we are happy in that arrangement.
    I support others freedoms how, where or what they may.

    For the record --
    The early LDS Church were the "liberals"...
    Un-orthodox marriages,
    Women's Rights,
    Freeing the slaves,
    Universal healthcare,
    Pro-immigration,
    Socialist/Communist economies,
    Bigger Federal Government,
    Centralized banking,
    etc.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Oct. 2, 2013 10:15 a.m.

    To "Contrarius" actually there is a sizeable polygamist population in Utah.

    According to the ChildBrides web site (ANTI-polygimst web site) estimates that there are 30,000 to 50,000 polygamists in Utah, and less than 12,000 are FLDS. That leaves 18,000 to 38,000 people to study in Utah alone. That is a significant number of people to study. Now, when you consider the rest of the US, you probably could another 40,000 or more.

    So again, the number of polygamists that could be studied are sufficient, so why is it that the only studies involve groups that are abusive to women?

    Where is the unbiased study? You keep citing cases and studies that just show that FLDS and Muslim marriages are not happy, but are full of abuse. Where is the study of a group that does not look at abusive groups?

    You keep dancing around the core problem, and that is the simple fact that nobody bothers to study the groups that marry out of love. So we really don't know what the effects of polygamy are on women and children.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Oct. 2, 2013 10:26 a.m.

    @Redshirt --

    "actually there is a sizeable polygamist population in Utah."

    But, Red, I've already shown you data about harms done by polygamists in Utah -- and you declared that somehow it didn't count, because supposedly those were all "bad" polygamists.

    So which is it, Red? Are Utah polygamists bad or good?

    Where are the good ones?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Oct. 2, 2013 11:17 a.m.

    To "Contrarius" you really are grasping at straws now.

    Let me connect the dots for you. Of the up to 50,000 polygamists in Utah, about 12,000 are from the FLDS type religious groups which abuse women. That means that there are up to 38,000 polygamists in Utah that most likely became polygamists because multiple women love one man.

    So far you have only found evidence that FLDS and Muslim religions mistreat women.

    Again, where is the study that looks at the non-FLDS and non-Muslim polygamists that marry for love?

    The studies that you hold on to look at polygamy in abusive cultures. That is like going to a concentration camp during WWII and trying to find Jewish people that support Hitler.

    Why should we accept the results of a biased study? Just looking at the groups that were studied I could tell you what the most likely outcome would be.

    I am still waiting for you to find the unbiased study that shows that when women who enter polygamist marriages out of love is a bad thing.

  • gmlewis Houston, TX
    Oct. 2, 2013 12:59 p.m.

    Elder Oaks once responded to the statement "You can't legislate morality" by replying that laws are precisely the product of legislating morality. It is immoral to lie, steal, murder, etc. Laws are based on the mores of that society.

    Civil rights are defined and regulated at the Federal level. It was appropriate for the Federal Government to create constitutional amendments protecting Civil Rights.

    Marriage should be defined and regulated at the State level. The question for each State is "Do the mores of the people of this state support Gay Marriage?"

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Oct. 2, 2013 3:43 p.m.

    @RedShirt --

    "...38,000 polygamists in Utah...."

    There are millions of polygamists all around the world, in multiple religions and cultures.

    Multiple studies have proven many harmful effects of polygamy based on these millions of polygamists.

    Yet you are trying to contradict ALL of those multiple findings, based on just a few thousand supposedly benign polygamists whom you claim MIGHT have become polygamists for love?

    And you can't even point out where these supposedly benign polygamists ARE?

    If you believe these groups are benign -- and that they somehow counteract all the harm done by all the other polygamous groups -- then you get to prove it yourself. He who makes the claim gets to prove it.

    "That is like going to a concentration camp during WWII and trying to find Jewish people that support Hitler."

    Nope.

    Please at least do a little Google searching. "controlled studies" "trials" and "bias" would be good terms to start with. You really, really need to learn about what controlled studies do.

    Controlled studies CONTROL for bias. The multiple controlled studies I've already shown you aren't actually biased, no matter how many times you might claim otherwise.

  • gary47290 Berkeley, CA
    Oct. 2, 2013 5:17 p.m.

    Deseret News has the facts of this case wrong. The NJ Supreme Court ordered the legislature to provide legal equality to same sex couples. The legislature opted by "Civil Union"

    A few year after, the legislature appointed a commission to review the status of civil unions, and that commission concluded that civil unions had failed in the stated purpose, to provide legal equality without the "m-word" for same-sex couples.

    This is not surpising. In Brown v Board, the US Supreme Court determined that separate is inherently unequal. The Civil Union law could not possible succeed with its purpose.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Oct. 2, 2013 6:11 p.m.

    @gmlewis 12:59 p.m. Oct. 2, 2013

    Marriage should be defined and regulated at the State level. The question for each State is "Do the mores of the people of this state support Gay Marriage?"

    ---------------------

    The United States Constitution provides at Article IV, Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

    While each state can decide the parameters for couples to marry within the state, they are (or should be) required by constitutional provisions to recognize marriages enacted in all states (whether or not the marriages in other states meet the requirements of the given state. Once legally enacted in any state, marriage is marriage in all the others because of the quoted Constitutional provision.

  • josegomez Spain, 00
    Oct. 3, 2013 4:59 a.m.

    In Spain, there are no problems with this, there is a difference what a civil marriage to a religious one, and exiten churches and religions that accept same-sex marriage, which I have also respected as the law of the country, as articles of Faith says. Now my concern is I see, every time, no more lds who divorce and family breakdown leads to trouble and, in my case, I am a divorced father lds that I have custody of my children, my question: I am not family because I have not a woman beside me and just educate my children? is difficult now to find a woman who joins lds a family with children that are not yours, I have seen members of my age who have remarried, ended in divorce again, this worries me a lot of something that is happening between lds.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Oct. 3, 2013 5:19 a.m.

    @gmlewis;

    The "mores" of society change over time. Constantly. We should not be enacting laws based on old reasoning. When we find irrational laws based on old reasoning (you can't fish in Utah from the back of a horse!) those laws should be repealed.

    Refusing to allow LGBT couples to marry based on old mores is also irrational.

  • UTMC Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 3, 2013 5:58 p.m.

    In February 2012 the New Jersey Senate voted with two Republicans to legalize full marriage equality for gay people, Christie vetoed that bill. In your opinion piece you say that the NJ legislature didn't see fit to change marriage laws. That is factually inaccurate.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Oct. 4, 2013 8:06 a.m.

    To "Contrariuserer" you really don't understand bias do you.

    The studies may claim to be controlled, but are not really controlled. Yes they look at poligimist and non-poligimist people within those groups, but they do not compare them to polygamist groups that marry out of love.

    You say I don't know where these polygamists are, yet I stated that in Utah alone there are up to 38,000 polygamists that marry out of love, not religion. That is just Utah. How many more are there scattered throughout the US?

    Using your argument nobody should be allowed to marry or have children because there are groups that abuse women and children.

    So again, when are you going to get the unbiased study. Just admit that there are not unbiased studies, and go on you way. Realize that thanks to gay Marriage, Polygamy will be legalized at some point.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 4, 2013 11:50 a.m.

    Contrarius
    You need to fill TWO criteria to justify marriage. 1. love, desire, and commitment; 2. no significantly increased risk of harm compared to other forms of marriage.

    KJK
    Here's one for ya...We know that women who give birth after the age of 40 have a much higher risk of children being born with Down's Syndrome. Should women be banned from marrying once they turn 40 until they go through the change? Incestual marriages likewise have increased risks of having kids with problems. Why are women in their 40s allowed to marry, but 1st cousins not allowed to?

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Oct. 6, 2013 9:56 a.m.

    @Ranchhand:
    "Refusing to allow LGBT couples to marry based on old mores is also irrational."

    Strengthening traditional marriage is society's way to say that the best environment to raise a child is by the child's father and mother in a stable home. It is a really good way to fight poverty. When society decides that fighting poverty is not important then I guess you can have your legalization of marriage. Just before the revolution breaks out and capitalism collapses because of its excesses.

    In the meantime, marriage is for unions which are procreative.

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Oct. 6, 2013 3:54 p.m.

    The nation's dispute over the definition of marriage is rapidly turning into an effort to force every state, and every individual in every state, into accepting the view that it is right and proper for a man to marry a man, or for a woman to marry a woman.

    NO ---you do not have to like it, just as no one has to like mormons, but everyone has to let them live and be free.

    The definition of marriage is not a matter of rights or equality for adults. Instead, marriage is society’s institution for the creation and nurturing of children. Judges must stop thwarting the views of those states and individuals who favor policies that protect this important institution.

    NO --- this is a purely religious view and is completely in conflict with the marriage laws of the States, none of which requires procreation to grant a marriage license

    Pleasing the Old Guard may be a good short-term strategy for the DN, but to our children and grandchildren, you are coming off as living in the 19th Century

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Oct. 7, 2013 9:28 a.m.

    @RedShirt --

    "The studies may claim to be controlled, but are not really controlled. Yes they look at poligimist and non-poligimist people within those groups, but they do not compare them to polygamist groups that marry out of love."

    LOL!

    "Polygamist groups that marry out of love" are not a necessary ingredient for controlled studies, Red.

    PLEASE do that Google search. It really can teach you a lot about controlled studies. Really.

    "Using your argument nobody should be allowed to marry or have children because there are groups that abuse women and children."

    Nope.

    The argument is that the harm principle dictates that types of marriage which significantly increase the risk of harm compared to other types of marriage should not be legal. Polygamy and incestuous marriages significantly increase the risk of harm compared to other types of marriage. Gay marriage does not.

    Similarly, drunken driving significantly increases the risk of harm compared to sober driving. Therefore sober driving is legal, while drunken driving is not -- even though sober driving itself causes risk.

    Please, Red -- PLEASE educate yourself about controlled studies. You'll be doing yourself a big favor.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Oct. 7, 2013 9:46 a.m.

    @Kevin J. Kirkham --

    "Incestual marriages likewise have increased risks of having kids with problems. Why are women in their 40s allowed to marry, but 1st cousins not allowed to?"

    The risk of genetic defects is about TEN TIMES higher in incestuous marriages (up to 40%) than Downs syndrome is, even in older pregnancies (roughly 3% at its highest). They aren't comparable.

    @Tekaka --

    "Strengthening traditional marriage"

    Go right ahead and strengthen traditional marriage. Nobody here would oppose that.

    Strengthening traditional marriage does NOT mean opposing gay marriage. It is very possible to support both.

    "In the meantime, marriage is for unions which are procreative."

    Gay marriages are procreative in exactly the same ways that any other infertile marriage is. Are you going to outlaw all infertile marriages?