Quantcast
Faith

Hawaii's largest faiths oppose same-sex marriage bill

Comments

Return To Article
  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 7:08 a.m.

    I have a good friend who is Jewish and therefore does not eat pork. That is all. He doesn't have anti-ham rallies, try to make bacon illegal, or protest outside of restaurants that serve pork. He just doesn't eat pork. Imagine if members of all religions just lived their religion instead of trying to legislate their religion.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 7:19 a.m.

    "Hawaii's largest religious denominations have come together in opposition to a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in the Aloha State."

    And fortunately, because we live in a constitutional republic and not an authoritarian theocracy, their opposition will have only marginal relevance to the issue.

    Please, folks, don't attempt to go down the road of claiming that your religion is an adequate reason to deprive your fellow citizens of their rights. You _never_ win and you only end up damaging your religion.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Oct. 15, 2013 7:23 a.m.

    "A January 2013 Honolulu Civil Beat poll found that 55% of Hawaii voters were in favor of same sex marriage, while 37% were opposed."

    "An August 2013 QMark Research poll found that 54% of Hawaii residents were in favor of same-sex marriage, while 31% were against."

    The people of Hawaii favor same-sex marriage by a 20% margin over those opposed.

    Get over yourselves, Hawaiian religious conservatives. The population of your state wants same-sex marriage.

  • Crusader Layton, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 8:12 a.m.

    For the life of me I cannot figure out why anyone would care if consenting adults want to get married.

  • Ronnie W. Layton, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 8:19 a.m.

    @Crusader, @FatherofFour

    It matters because of the kids. I believe history has proven the best place for child to grow up is a home with a mom and a dad. A recent studied show children of lesbian/gay parents in Canada were 1/3 less likely to graduate from high school. If they can get married, can they adopt just like a heterosexual couple? It gets messy real quick.

  • Red San Antonia, TX
    Oct. 15, 2013 8:43 a.m.

    Crusader,

    It matters because they put clauses into these silly bills that force other people to marry homosexuals and if they don't they are punished.

    What if homosexuals wanted to get married in the LDS Temples? Where do the homosexuals want the line drawn?

    Most people can handle the fact the homosexuals want to get married, but they now want to force the rest of the world to accept them wherever they want to go.

    That is the abuse of the whole situation. Homosexuals are not content with anything. You give Homosexuals and inch and they want to take a thousand miles.

    It is worth the fight to draw a line in the sand and say enough.

    Remember the Alamo!

  • The Skeptical Chymist SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 8:45 a.m.

    @Ronnie W

    Even if I accept the results of the Canadian study that you quote, does this give us the right to prevent people from marrying the person they love?

    Will you also want to prohibit alcoholics from marrying because they have a higher risk for abusing their children? What about people who don't finish high school? Their children definitely do worse in their education than those whose parents completed college. Should high-school dropouts be prohibited from marrying?

    If the Canadian study is correct, it is just the beginning of what should be studied. If it is true, why is it that the children of these parents have a lower graduation rate? Are the parents disproportionately poor? Are their children teased unmercifully by the children of heterosexual couples in high school, and see the only escape as dropping out? There are too many unanswered questions here to justify preventing same-sex couples from enjoying equal rights.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Oct. 15, 2013 8:46 a.m.

    @ Ronnie W: The Canadian study you reference is extremely flawed and doesn't really prove what it claims to prove.

    Single people in Hawaii - gay or straight - can adopt children and Hawaiian law does not clearly prohibit adoption by unmarked gay couples.

    Red Bundy - a mass murderer - got married and fathered a child while in prison. Both of the guys who comprised the Hillside Strangler duo got married while in prison.

    Your argument has no solid foundation on which to stand.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 8:51 a.m.

    Fortunately, they're just religions, and not the larger society.

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Oct. 15, 2013 8:51 a.m.

    @Ronnie W. --

    "It matters because of the kids."

    If you were truly motivated by a concern for kids, then you would also want to ban the marriages of poor people, of uneducated people, of drug addicts, and of murderers. We KNOW that poverty, ignorance, addiction, and crime affect kids.

    So -- do you want to ban these types of marriages?

    If not, then "the kids" aren't really what you're worried about.

    "A recent studied show children of lesbian/gay parents in Canada were 1/3 less likely to graduate from high school. "

    No it didn't.

    That researcher compared UNMARRIED gay couples to MARRIED straight couples. At the very most he showed that stable homes are better for kids than unstable ones. And we already knew that. His findings had NOTHING to do with gender or orientation.

    "If they can get married, can they adopt just like a heterosexual couple?"

    Unmarried gay couples can ALREADY adopt "just like heterosexual couples" in most states. In Utah, SINGLE gay people can adopt -- but NOT gay people in committed relationships. How does that make any sense at all?

    Marriage is GOOD for kids. And that includes gay marriage.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 9:25 a.m.

    Re: "Get over yourselves, Hawaiian religious conservatives."

    So, Utah's irreligious liberals should also get over themselves, as the vast, vast majority of Utahns oppose gay marriage, right?

    Yeah, I thought not.

    It's funny how liberals are all for free speech and freedom of association, and freedom to petition leaders for redress of grievances, and freedom of political thought -- UNLESS those people happen to disagree with some liberal dogma.

    In which case, liberals HEAVILY favor of the Taliban approach, instead.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 9:34 a.m.

    "What remains unclear is whether the faith groups opposed to the bill are united in an effort to put the marriage question before voters."

    --- The US Constititution applies to all American citizens. Religious citizens do not get to vote on whether people they don't like can hvae the same rights they enjoy.

    "...more than 20 years ago when the state's Supreme Court ruled that not issuing a marriage license to a gay couple violated the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection."

    --- And yet here we are, 20 years later and discrmination against LGBT couples is still going strong.

    "a reaffirmation of our position in relation to same-sex marriage and religious liberty issues."

    --- That's right. Individual liberty doesn't matter.

    The 1998 Constitutional Amendment violates the rights of LGBT Hawaiians.

    @Red (good name choice since you put out a "red" herring).

    Mormons don't even have to marry unworthy straight couples in their temples, what makes you think they could be forced to marry a gay couple?

  • Ronnie W. Layton, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 9:41 a.m.

    @Contrariusester

    A quote from the study

    "[The Study] was able to isolate and analyze hundreds of children living with a gay or lesbian couple (either married or in a “common law” relationship akin to cohabitation).
    ...children of married opposite-sex families have a high graduation rate compared to the others; children of lesbian families have a very low graduation rate compared to the others; and the other four types [common law, gay, single mother, single father] are similar to each other and lie in between the married/lesbian extremes."

    I don't claim that the current laws make sense. I am saying though, personally, I don't believe a gay couple should be able to adopt. Just like I don't think a house where there is drug abuse, extreme poverty or violence should be able to adopt. I think history history has proven, having a mom and a dad is the best situation to raise a kid.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Oct. 15, 2013 9:46 a.m.

    Sorry - my last post should have said "unmarried gay couples." (Stupid autocorrect - lol!)

    @ Red: Name on state or country where same-sex marriage is legal and same-sex couples have attempted to force a church opposed to same-sex marriage to perform a same-sex wedding ceremony.

    (And the law Hawaii is looking to pass has a provision that very clearly protects churches from having to perform same-sex weddings.)

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Oct. 15, 2013 9:47 a.m.

    @procuradorfiscal --

    "So, Utah's irreligious liberals should also get over themselves, as the vast, vast majority of Utahns oppose gay marriage, right?

    Yeah, I thought not."

    You're forgetting this annoying little thing called the US Constitution.

    In order to be good legislation, any law MUST conform to the US Constitution. If it is unconstitutional, it doesn't matter **how** many people support it -- it's still an invalid law.

    Fortunately, same-sex marriage complies with the US Constitution. It's absolutely REQUIRED by the principles embodied in the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution. Further, states which don't allow gay marriage and don't recognize gay marriages from other states are violating the Full Faith and Credit clause of that same constitution.

    "It's funny how liberals are all for free speech and freedom of association, and freedom to petition leaders for redress of grievances, and freedom of political thought -- UNLESS those people happen to disagree with some liberal dogma."

    Try again. We're all for free speech, etc. -- and very especially INCLUDING the principles of the US Constitution.

    Read it -- you might actually like it.

  • DEW Sandy, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 9:48 a.m.

    I say get those outsiders (including liberals) leave the islands and have those native polynesians have their own country back the way it was.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 10:00 a.m.

    Oh my, lets hear yet again why the foundations of family and the definitions of marriage, centuries old, are incorrect because they favor following a normal pattern of nature. The unnatural always want to think their impulses are the norm and should be "respected." So let's hear it all again about "rights" and so forth.

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Oct. 15, 2013 10:22 a.m.

    @Ronnie W. --

    "was able to isolate and analyze hundreds of children living with a gay or lesbian couple (either married or in a “common law” relationship akin to cohabitation)."

    Ronnie, the study used 2006 Canadian census data. But gay marriage was only legalized in Canada in 2005.

    So:

    1. there would have been very very few married gay couples in the sample at all; and
    2. any married gay couples would have been married for at THE VERY MOST one year.

    So -- as I said previously -- what Allen really studied was unmarried couples compared to married couples. IOW, instability vs. stability.

    "I don't believe a gay couple should be able to adopt."

    As I and other people have already pointed out, gay couples can ALREADY adopt -- with or without marriage.

    Denying marriage to gay couples won't change that.

    @DEW --

    "I say get those outsiders (including liberals) leave the islands and have those native polynesians have their own country back the way it was."

    You do realize that some Polynesian cultures are famous for their laxity concerning sexual mores -- right?

    Some Polynesian cultures have even recognized and honored "third gendered" people for centuries.

    Soo....

  • Ronnie W. Layton, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 10:27 a.m.

    @Contrariusester

    "It's[same-sex marriage] absolutely REQUIRED by the principles embodied in the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution"

    Just your interpretation of it. Show me where it says gay/lesbian couples must be allowed to marry.

  • vangroovin West Jordan, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 10:36 a.m.

    Who are we to change God's laws? He has given us laws so that we can be happy forever. And then there are those who try to manipulate those laws to fit their personal desires. We are free to do what we will, free to choose whatever path we will, free to interpret or manipulate eternal laws as we will, but we are not free to choose the consequences of those choices. Whether we see and/or experience the consequences now or not doesn't change Truth.

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Oct. 15, 2013 10:42 a.m.

    @Ronnie W. --

    "Show me where..."

    Show me where it says that blacks and whites must be allowed to drink at the same water fountains.

    SCOTUS has stated many times that marriage is a basic civil right:

    -- Loving v. Virginia: "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man'..."
    -- Zablocki v. Redhail -- "the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals"
    -- Skinner v. Oklahoma -- a person, being cut off from "marriage and procreation," would be "forever deprived of a basic liberty."
    -- Turner v. Safley -- invalidated a prohibition on marriages by prison inmates under privacy rights
    -- Meyer v. Nebraska -- the liberty protected by the 14th Amendment "without doubt…denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to ... marry, establish a home and bring up children..."

    The Equal Protection Clause: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    Marriage is a basic civil right, and the Equal Protection Clause guarantees the equal application of rights to all citizens.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Oct. 15, 2013 11:34 a.m.

    To "Kalindra" England has already seen a case where a gay couple are planning on suing the Church of England to force them to perform a marriage ceremony. See "Gay couple may sue Church of England to wed in church" in the Washington Post.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 11:34 a.m.

    Re: "Fortunately, same-sex marriage complies with the US Constitution. It's absolutely REQUIRED by . . . the Constitution."

    That would be UNfortunate, indeed.

    Same-sex marriage is not, of course, compliant with the US Constitution. The Constitution, in fact, says nothing about marriage, same-sex or otherwise, and its drafters would be horrified to see such an interpretation of their work.

    And, of course, nothing in Equal Protection law requires states to abandon traditional marriage for the brave new gender-preference-blind world LGBT activists advocate, either.

    Traditional-marriage laws have, of course, been universally upheld by all by corrupt, activist, partisan juridical decrees and 4-odd, deep-blue states. They will likely continue to be.

    What IS fortunate is that LGBT activism hit its high-water mark, and will do nothing but recede in the future, prevented from collapsing entirely only by that tiny cabal of self-interested jurists that disingenuously pushed it to this point.

    The inevitable defeat of the bill giving rise to this discussion is proof.

  • 2 tell the truth Clearwater, FL
    Oct. 15, 2013 12:03 p.m.

    Re: "Hawaii's largest faiths oppose same-sex marriage bill"

    So what? Does America no longer have freedom of religious beliefs ... for ALL?

    Doesn't the 1st Amendment guarantee that these faiths cannot be 'established' over any other faith?

    MY faith is fine with it.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 12:04 p.m.

    "Whether we see and/or experience the consequences now or not doesn't change Truth." I love that sentence. People have tried for a long time to make that same argument about climate change in Utah. And they get absolutely nowhere with it. At least climate change is based on science; you're making your point based on mythology. God has given us beer, according to a quote mistakenly attributed to Ben Franklin, because he wants us to be happy. To me it's as valid a statement as any here.

  • 2 tell the truth Clearwater, FL
    Oct. 15, 2013 12:07 p.m.

    @ Ronnie W.

    Re: "It matters because of the kids."

    What kids? There are none in my marriage, just like there aren't any in my youngest sister's TWO heterosexual marriages, nor in two of my nephew's heterosexual marriages. Is having kids a requirement of marriage now? If so, when did that come to be?

    Re: "I believe history has proven the best place for child to grow up is a home with a mom and a dad."

    You can "believe" that if you want to, but there are several studies showing that any kids do just as well in a same-sex headed home. What matters is the parenting skills involved. But (again!) the topic is marriage, not parenting.

    Re: "If they can get married, can they adopt just like a heterosexual couple?"

    Ronnie, single people can adopt. And, once again, the topic is marriage, not making/raising kids.

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    Oct. 15, 2013 12:13 p.m.

    @Contrariusester "Marriage is a basic civil right"

    OK, but the definition of marriage is man and woman. That's what it always meant. It is the natural way, the biological way. Just because you try to redefine marriage does not make it so. And the authors of the constitution did not ever envision "gay marriage" and would roll over in their graves to hear you say that it is "constitutionally required."

    Are some gay couples better parents than some straight couples? Undoubtedly so! But "gay marriage" as a whole is bad for society. It may be gradual but it will harm society, just as abortion on demand has done, and thus, there is a compelling interest to ban it.

  • 2 tell the truth Clearwater, FL
    Oct. 15, 2013 12:21 p.m.

    @ Ronnie W.

    Re: "Show me where it says gay/lesbian couples must be allowed to marry."

    It's in the exact same place where it says heterosexual couples "must be allowed to marry". (The words don't say that, of course, but the Equal Protections Clause demands it. And no, that's NOT just our interpretation. What part of equal don't you understand?)

    Meanwhile, the SCOTUS has declared - on 14 separate occasions - that marriage is, indeed, a "fundamental human-/civil-right".

  • 2 tell the truth Clearwater, FL
    Oct. 15, 2013 12:22 p.m.

    @ vangroovin,

    Re: "Who are we to change God's laws?"

    This isn't ABOUT your god's laws. It's about the secular laws that govern the country.

  • rlsintx Plano, TX
    Oct. 15, 2013 12:31 p.m.

    There are laws of the land, and there are God's laws.
    We all are subject to the first in mortality.
    We are blessed by the second in eternity.

    If you're worried about the first somehow negating or mocking the second, rest assured that the first not having matched the second, won't matter in the hereafter and it will all be about the second set of laws.

    Some get their rewards in this life, and some in the next.

    Relax, and let the spiritually disobedient according to the second laws have their day in the sun while you teach your family and children to be in line with the second set of laws.

    Those totally focused on proving their "rights" via the first set of laws so obsessively aren't listening to you anyway; just go live your own life and be a good example. Nothing is gained by legislating against them anyway other than creation of a spirit of contention.

  • Ronnie W. Layton, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 12:33 p.m.

    "It's in the exact same place where it says heterosexual couples "must be allowed to marry". (The words don't say that, of course, but the Equal Protections Clause demands it. And no, that's NOT just our interpretation. What part of equal don't you understand?)"

    It really doesn't say anything about marriage there. In fact, doesn't really say anything about marriage in the Constitution(Heterosexual or otherwise). Therefore, it should be left up to the states(10th Amendment).

    "but there are several studies showing that any kids do just as well in a same-sex headed home. "

    Not the studied I mentioned. It clearly showed a difference between the two in terms of graduation rates.

  • Contrariusest Nashville, TN
    Oct. 15, 2013 12:56 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701 --

    "England has already seen a case where a gay couple are planning on suing the Church of England"

    England has a state church. We don't.

    Aren't you glad we have separation of Church and State?

    @procuradorfiscal --

    "The Constitution, in fact, says nothing about marriage"

    Multiple SCOTUS courts have affirmed that marriage is a basic civil right guaranteed by the Constitution.

    They know more about the Constitution than you do.

    "The inevitable defeat of the bill giving rise to this discussion"

    Ya wanna bet?

    ;-)

    @RG --

    "the definition of marriage is man and woman."

    According to you.

    "That's what it always meant."

    No it isn't.

    Same-sex marriages have been recognized since even before Roman times. They have been recognized in multiple places and times throughout human history.

    "It is the natural way"

    Homosexual activities are recorded in many, MANY nonhuman species. There is nothing unnatural about them.

    "But "gay marriage" as a whole is bad for society. "

    Why? Be specific.

    @Ronnie W. --

    "It clearly showed a difference between the two in terms of graduation rates."

    No it didn't. At most, it only showed a difference between married couples and unmarried ones.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 1:33 p.m.

    @RG;

    A same-sex union was known in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] ancient Mesopotamia,[3] in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history.[4] These same-sex unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed. [5]

    Same-sex marital practices and rituals were more recognized in Mesopotamia than in ancient Egypt.[6] In the ancient Assyrian society, there was nothing amiss with homosexual love between men.[7] Some ancient religious Assyrian texts contain prayers for divine blessings on homosexual relationships.[8][9][9] The Almanac of Incantations contained prayers favoring on an equal basis the love of a man for a woman and of a man for man.[10]

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Oct. 15, 2013 1:52 p.m.

    To "Contrariusest" you just lke to argue don't you, it doesn't matter if it is on topic or not.

    The point was that Kalindra challenged somebody to find a case in any state or COUNTRY where gays were suing a church to force them to perform a marriage ceremony.

    SO, the question is do you agree or not agree that there is at least 1 case in the world where a gay couple has or is about to sue a church to force them to perform a gay marriage?

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 2:30 p.m.

    RE: Contrariuser "The population of your state wants same-sex marriage."

    God is a majority. He does not condone the practice of homosexuality, but condemns it in several places in the Bible.

    The "cafeteria Christians" continue to pick and choose by majority vote which teachings of the Bible they will hold and which they will reject.

    The O. T. Holiness code had different types of commands. Some were related to dietary regulations or to ceremonial cleanliness, and these have been done away with in the N. T. (Col. 2:16-17; Rom. 14:1-3). Others were moral issue that are timeless. I.e.. incest, child sacrifice, homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, and the like, are still abominations before God.

    Ephesians 6:2,3. Honor your” Father and Mother”],which is the first commandment with a promise.
    God distinguishes father and mother(not significant other) from all other persons on earth, chooses them and sets them next to Himself, occupying the highest place in our lives next to God..

  • Marco Luxe Los Angeles, CA
    Oct. 15, 2013 2:48 p.m.

    Might I point out the illogic in the claim "history has proven, having a mom and a dad is the best situation to raise a kid."

    I've used that type of comforting illogic with a similar claim. Probably said in Congress @1860: history has proven that the best, and properly the only people to hold the franchise are white land-owning men.

    See the logical error? Stop claiming that history has proven anything. Such claims only perpetuate the many prejudices found throughout history, and chain us to a dark past.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 3:17 p.m.

    Re: "Stop claiming that history has proven anything."

    I decline to acquiesce.

    History HAS proved, time and time again, that having a mom and dad IS the best situation in which to raise children. EVERY time in history when the traditional nuclear family has broken down, chaos has been the result. How else would it become the norm in EVERY human culture?

    The same holds today, in places such as India, Brazil, and sub-Saharan Africa, where the AIDS epidemic has taken such a familial toll. Or in Darfur and Bosnia-Herzegovina, where murder has taken a similar toll. Or in inner-city America, where deranged liberal welfare-state policy has destroyed the family as an institution.

    The family IS the most important institution in the world. Its destruction will bring only bad things to society. ANYTHING that threatens it should be shunned.

    The burden's on those suggesting we embark into some brave new world that violates the old rules to show their self-centered desires won't threaten the family.

    That burden has NOT been carried.

  • Contrariusest Nashville, TN
    Oct. 15, 2013 3:24 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701 --

    "Kalindra challenged somebody to find a case in any state or COUNTRY where gays were suing a church to force them to perform a marriage ceremony."

    1. The "gays" in question -- Barrie Drewitt-Barlow and his partner -- don't appear to actually have sued anyone for anything. They have **threatened** to do so, but I can't find any record of an actual legal case.

    2. Britain's gay marriage law very specifically exempts the Church of England from performing gay marriages, so these guys are unlikely to get far.

    3. According to Drewitt-Barlow, his local church is actually very supportive of his desires. It's the higher-up establishment that is against him.

    4. The situation in the US would be entirely different in any case, since we have separation of church and state. In fact, experts discussing Drewitt-Barlow's threatened case have opined that this may force the Church of England to separate from the government, rather than actually forcing them to perform the ceremony.

    @sharrona --

    "God is a majority. "

    Our country is not a theocracy.

    "Others were moral issue that are timeless."

    Stoning adulterers was a moral issue. Are you ready to pick up some rocks?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 3:37 p.m.

    To "Marco Luxe" how about this. Studies have proven that it is in the best interest of a child to be raised by their biological mother and father.

    The studies also have shown that once a nation adopts gay marriage that the overall marriage rate decrease, the number of children born out of wedlock will increase, and the the attitude towards marriage will change from something that is desireable to something that is not desireable.

    So, what should society provide for their children. Should we give them second rate homes, or should society strive to give them the best possible situation for growing up?

  • NT SomewhereIn, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 4:01 p.m.

    @vangroovin

    Sounds a lot like something i heard a couple of Sundays (or Saturdays) ago. In agreement, I think I'll stay on the safe side and stick with God's laws/truths.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 4:15 p.m.

    To "Contrariusest" thanks for proving my point about you correct.

    Despite the fact that the gays want to sue the Church of England, you cannot bring it to yourself to say that you agree, and that there are gays willing to sue a church to force a gay marriage.

    Your side track on the laws in england are a distraction.

    The fact is that as of August of this year, they are actively persuing a law suit that would overturn the law protecting churches, and would allow them to sue the Church of England.

    So again, Kalindra and you are wrong. Kalindra didn't think that gays would sue a church to force a marriage, and you can't bear to admit that I am right.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 4:19 p.m.

    "Studies have proven that it is in the best interest of a child to be raised by their biological mother and father."

    Then, why aren't all of you fighting to outlaw divorce for parents? Of the 2.5% of the population that are gay, only 30% of them might want to raise a child. That is .75% of the population! While up to 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce! And ALL children in gay unions are wanted and planned for!

    ----------
    "The studies also have shown that once a nation adopts gay marriage that the overall marriage rate decrease, the number of children born out of wedlock will increase, and the the attitude towards marriage will change from something that is desireable to something that is not desireable."

    Totally flawed studies (if you are talking about Scandinavia). Those studies were taken BEFORE gay marriage became legal and Scandinavia has been suffering from these decreases for decades.

    Again - if you are only looking for the "best possible situation" for children, you need to outlaw marriage for alcoholics, murderers, child molesters - rather than worry about .75% of the population that might want to parent.

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Oct. 15, 2013 4:24 p.m.

    @ RedShirt
    "So, what should society provide for their children. Should we give them second rate homes, or should society strive to give them the best possible situation for growing up?"

    Are you suggesting we should take the children from single parent families and give them to married straight couples? because single parent families, along with those families that struggle in poverty, dangerous neighborhood, are also not the best possible situation.

    Bottom line, the children are already with same gender couples can not be taken away, when these couples want to get married to take care of each other for the rest of their lives and to take care of their children, for some reasons, they are denied such right, along with its legal protection and benefit, it would only hurt those children in the end.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 4:25 p.m.

    NT: I think I'll stay on the safe side and stick with God's laws/truths.

    _____________

    You have every right to stick with your God's truths. Are you thinking that all citizens should stick with your God's truths too, or are the allowed to believe as they may? Should our country pass laws that limit citizens from expressing their beliefs because someone else does not believe that their God will be happy with the results? Is that how warped we have become?

    Is it possible to support the "traditional family" and allow our government to grant the same rights and privileges to others who have different beliefs? I think so.

  • Contrariusest Nashville, TN
    Oct. 15, 2013 4:34 p.m.

    @procuradorfiscal --

    "History HAS proved, time and time again...."

    No it hasn't.

    "How else would it become the norm in EVERY human culture?"

    That's easy. Only around 5% of the human population is LGBT. Therefore, same-sex marriages will *always* represent a small minority of total marriages, regardless of whether one is objectively "better" or not.

    "ANYTHING that threatens it should be shunned."

    Fortunately, same-sex marriage doesn't actually threaten anything, aside from a few prejudices.

    @Red --

    "Studies have proven that it is in the best interest of a child to be raised by their biological mother and father."

    No they haven't.

    Studies have proven that it is best for a child to be raised in a stable home. NO studies have proven that the genders or orientations of the parents have any effect.

    "once a nation adopts gay marriage that the overall marriage rate decrease, the number of children born out of wedlock will increase, and the the attitude towards marriage will change from something that is desireable to something that is not desireable."

    Baloney. They have never shown any such thing.

    And if you wish to pursue your claim, I'll be happy to respond further. ;-)

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 4:44 p.m.

    "God says so, so there!"

    LOL.

    Prove your god even exists, then we can talk.

  • BYU Track Star Los Angeles, CA
    Oct. 15, 2013 5:11 p.m.

    At Ronnie W.
    Your position that Gay Marriage hurts Children? I have a concern about that. Earlier this year the Gay Marriage issue was brought before the 9th Circuit Court and your same issue was brought up. The defense,the Pro-8. Were not able to show Children were harmed by Gay-Marriage, or Lesbian Marriage for that matter. But, I agree with you, Having a couple raise there kids together is best...Laws should be in place to make Divorce much harder to obtain.

  • Utes Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 5:29 p.m.

    You are all debating the wrong thing. This isn't about the "right to marry". It is about the "government recognition of certain marriages".

    Nobody is proposing that police and SWAT teams show up to a private ceremony where two gay people are performing their own marriage.

    People ARE proposing that the government recognize certain marriages. I happen to support the government recognizing marriage between a man and a woman only, and granting civil unions to all others who have performed their own private marriage so that the right to benefits remains.

    Disagree with me if you want, but that is the issue - what does the government recognize? The issue is NOT whether a private marriage ceremony between certain people should or should not happen.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Oct. 15, 2013 6:30 p.m.

    @ Redshirt1701: Ah yes - the Church of England case.

    The English law allowing same-sex marriage requires churches that wish to perform same-sex marriages to opt-in - while specifically prohibiting the Church of England from doing so. The Church of England is prohibited by law from performing same-sex marriage even if they want to. The only way to address this is by challenging the law in the Courts.

    This potential case is not about forcing the Church of England to perform same-sex marriages, but allowing them the same opportunity other churches in England have of making that decision for themselves.

    So, technically, this does not meet the parameter of what I am asking - a church that has been sued to force them to perform same-sex marriages, not a lawsuit to allow them to perform same-sex marriages.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 7:03 p.m.

    Re: ". . . why aren't all of you fighting to outlaw divorce for parents?"

    Well, maybe not outlaw. There are certain abusive marriages that ought to end in divorce, for the sake of the children.

    But, make divorce a lot harder to obtain than it is now? Require children to be represented by a guardian ad litem, as a party in divorce actions? Put some teeth into the no-fault definition of "irretrievably broken?"

    Yeah, there's some real merit to things like that.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 7:25 p.m.

    @Utes Fan;

    Can you please provide a valid reason why the government should recognize your marriage and not mine? I'll bet you can't. Civil Unions are a denigration of the relationships of those forced to enter into one when they can't enter into marriage.

    "From the Bar’s perspective, civil unions are a failed experiment.
    They have shown to perpetuate unacceptable second-class legal
    status. Members of the Bar Association tell me more stories of the
    countless additional hours of work that must go into representing
    gays, lesbians, bisexual clients and their families.12

    By creating a separate system of rights and by injecting language
    and titles not understood or easily incorporated into existing real
    life events and transactions, the civil union law has failed to fulfill
    its promise of equality.14"

    From the results of New Jersey's commission on Civil Unions.

    Why should we accept 2nd class status?

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Oct. 15, 2013 8:12 p.m.

    Contrariusest,

    What I have seen has not been the historical recognition of homosexual marriage but very limited recognition of what we might today call civil unions. Actual marriage (full powers and rights) is not something I have seen in history. If you have, please cite.

    Please don't use the Roman Emperor stuff. When you are the most powerful person on the planet, you can do what you want and call it what you want without much fear of anyone denying you.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 10:35 p.m.

    Ranch Hand may have given a possible solution to the problem

    "A same-sex union was known in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] ancient Mesopotamia,[3] in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history.[4] These same-sex unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire."

    Provide all the legal protections and benefits through same sex unions and don't call it marriage.

    After all marriage is the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. Two men or two women do not fit "marriage". Call it a union and there would be much more harmony and acceptance and less divisiveness. Elton John is one who does not think it is necessary to call it marriage.

  • Marco Luxe Los Angeles, CA
    Oct. 15, 2013 11:44 p.m.

    Rocket Science is halfway there. I don't care what the government calls it as long as it is equal. Civil unions for all [or none] or marriage for all [or none]. Churches can call it sealing, holy matrimony, covenant marriage, sacramental betrothal or late for dinner; I don't care, and neither should you or the government. If tradition bound thinking won't let you share the word marriage in civil law, you don't have anyone to blame but yourselves when, acting to uphold America's constitutional values, the law turns all marriages into civil unions. Thereafter, poof, non-church civil unionized couples will be destined to burn as adulterers and fornicators. If you give the power over the repose of your eternal soul to the government via nomenclature, you deserve what you get.

  • Marco Luxe Los Angeles, CA
    Oct. 15, 2013 11:52 p.m.

    Procurador contintues a plea to history to prove his ideal of a family, but that 1950s false concept of family was never universal nor timeless, no matter how comforting a narrowly defined ideal feels.

    Throughout human history, a mom+dad+kids idea of a family didn't exist. There were clans and a patriarch or chief with dominion over all the children. Even now,some existing societies have no role for fathers other than sperm donors, as the mother's brother is the patriarch of her family, so the kid's "dad" is actually their uncle. Upper class Victorian England had nearly no role for natural parents; the roles were taken up by paid caregivers and boarding school staff. Kibbutzniks were likewise raised collectively by specialist care-givers.

    Fact: there is variety in nature and in human nature. There always will be, so it seems it must be part of Gd's plan. Searching to enshrine in stone "the best" family is a fools errand.

  • jrp7sen Logan, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 1:08 a.m.

    "Largest faiths" mean nothing in 2013. The most religious state in the union is Mississippi and it's on the verge of going below 50% religious. The least religious state is one of the New England states, and it's like 9% religious. LOL

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 6:40 a.m.

    @Rocket Science;

    Why should we accept second class citizenship? Do we not pay taxes like you do? Do we not bleed red when we're cut? Or is it that we're just inferior to you and don't deserve the same legal benefits that you enjoy?

    Marriage has never been "one man/one woman" in the history of this world. As I pointed out, historically, marriage (yes, the great M word) has included same-sex couples.

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Oct. 16, 2013 7:20 a.m.

    @RedShirt --

    "Kalindra and you are wrong. "

    Nope.

    First, this British couple has apparently not actually sued anyone. They haven't actually tried to force anyone to do anything -- they've only complained loudly.

    Second, Kalindra never actually made a claim. She issued a challenge, which is a different critter. Challenges CAN'T be right or wrong, because they aren't claims of fact.

    Third, I never made any such claim either.

    Fourth, from Kalindra -- "This potential case is not about forcing the Church of England to perform same-sex marriages, but allowing them the same opportunity other churches in England have of making that decision for themselves."

    Fifth -- It's a silly thing to argue about anyway. Anyone can sue for anything. That doesn't mean the church is actually in peril.

    @Twin --

    "Actual marriage...If you have, please cite."

    Ranch already cited several. I'll note just two:

    1. Assyrian religious texts include specific blessings for same-sex unions.

    2. Martial and Juvenal (ancient Romans) mention gay marriages, complete with religious rites, as being "not uncommon". Same-sex marriages weren't outlawed there til roughly 300 AD.

    And remember, back in the "olden days" MOST marriages were performed as "civil" ceremonies.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 8:18 a.m.

    To "Lane Myer" where is your proof that those studies are flawed? I have read them, and they seem to have done a good job getting unbiased data. Just because you don't like the results of the study do not make it invalid. Where is your proof. Without proof, it is just your opinion.

    To "Kalindra" so then you agree that there are gays suing to force the Church of England to perform gay marriages. You are also wrong about the laws prohibiting the Church of England from performing gay marriages. It is against the Church's doctrine to recognize gay marriages. Read the article "Church of England gives up fight against gay marriage" in the UK Telegraph. There we have quotes from their Church leadership stating that gay marriage is not recognized by their church.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Oct. 16, 2013 8:32 a.m.

    "Fortunately, same-sex marriage complies with the US Constitution. It's absolutely REQUIRED by the principles embodied in the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution."

    Any gays can get married, but they have to follow the same standards as the rest of us: they have to be in a procreative relationship (e.g. two people of opposite genders). Non-procreative relationships, two gay men, two roommates, a man and his elderly mother, a fraternity, a sorority, everyone in the Acme Widget Corp. family cannot get married because they are not in a procreative relationship.

    The equal protection clause is based on Biblical passages that the laws should treat the politically weak in the same way as the politically powerful. So the fact that there is an equal protection clause means that we already are a religious theocracy according to the reasoning of many people here.

  • ParkCityAggie Park City, Ut
    Oct. 16, 2013 8:44 a.m.

    Hey Utah, obsess much? Why is his even news here? Why would Utah be so interested in who the State of Hawaii wants to allow to get married? Case in point, the fact that Des News would publish this. What is the motive other than the fact that they knew most of their readers would be interested. So I ask again, obsess much?

  • shardy IRVING, TX
    Oct. 16, 2013 8:52 a.m.

    To Redshirt: "The studies also have shown that once a nation adopts gay marriage that the overall marriage rate decrease, the number of children born out of wedlock will increase, and the the attitude towards marriage will change from something that is desireable to something that is not desireable."

    What studies have shown this? I would be very interested to know where they are and I would like to be aware of them. Citation(s)? I would be very interested to know of such studies.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Oct. 16, 2013 8:56 a.m.

    Contrariusiest,

    The Assyrian example is same sex unions (which I had already noted there were examples of).

    Though there appear to be limited examples of Roman marriage rites, these do not appear to have been legal marriage and they do not appear to have been widely accepted/recognized.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 9:10 a.m.

    To "shardy" see "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia" in the Weekly Standard. If the studies are not enough for you, listen to a Lesbian Activist declare what the goal is of gay marriage.

    See the video in "Lesbian Activist’s Surprisingly Candid Speech: Gay Marriage Fight Is a ‘Lie’ to Destroy Marriage" at The Blaze.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 9:28 a.m.

    "Any gays can get married, but they have to follow the same standards as the rest of us: they have to be in a procreative relationship (e.g. two people of opposite genders). Non-procreative relationships, two gay men, two roommates, a man and his elderly mother, a fraternity, a sorority, everyone in the Acme Widget Corp. family cannot get married because they are not in a procreative relationship."

    ----------
    Balderdash!! That is a bunch of fiction. If that were true, older couples who cannot procreate would not be able to be married. Infertile couples would not be able to marry. Both are allowed to marry anywhere in the US, so your diatribe is false.

    If you believe we are a religious theocracy, which church is leading us? Why do you want the US to be run like Iran? Why are you against citizens worshipping how, where, and what they may (or may not)? Isn't a theocracy against the 13 articles of faith?

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Oct. 16, 2013 9:32 a.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi --

    "they have to be in a procreative relationship "

    No they don't.

    Procreation has never been a prerequisite for marriage in our society. Infertile people, even prisoners on death row, are allowed to marry.

    @shardy --

    "What studies have shown this? "

    None.

    Redshirt is referencing a ridiculous 2004 article about the Netherlands by a guy named Kurtz.

    Reality check:

    1. unwed mothers in the Netherlands have been increasing on a smooth parabolic curve since the 1970s -- looooong before registered partnerships. There's a graph of this at procon.org .

    2. the change in unwed mothers before and after legalized partnerships was the **same** in European countries that didn't have partnerships.

    3. Scandinavian countries with partnerships **already** had higher rates of unmarried cohabitation than other European countries, BEFORE the partnerships.

    4. heterosexual marriage rates actually **increased** in Scandinavian countries that legalized partnerships. As of 2004 (the date of Kurtz's article), Denmark had its **highest** marriage rate since the 1970s. Other Scandinavian countries with partnerships also had higher marriage rates than before the partnership laws.

    @Twin --

    re: Assyrians and Romans:

    You are applying modern distinctions that ancient people didn't even have. Don't expect them to adhere to your modern definitions.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 9:43 a.m.

    "Reports of the death of marriage in Scandinavia are greatly exaggerated; giving gay couples the right to wed did not lead to massive matrimonial flight by heterosexuals.

    Currently there are nine European countries that give marital rights to gay couples. In Scandinavia, Denmark (1989), Norway (1993), Sweden (1994), and Iceland (1996) pioneered a separate-and-not-quite-equal status for same-sex couples called "registered partnership." (When they register, same-sex couples receive most of the financial and legal rights of marriage, other than the right to marry in a state church and the right to adopt children.) Since 2001, the Netherlands and Belgium have opened marriage to same-sex couples.

    Despite what Kurtz might say, the apocalypse has not yet arrived. In fact, the numbers show that heterosexual marriage looks pretty healthy in Scandinavia, where same-sex couples have had rights the longest."

    Redshirt - Your study has been proved to be flawed. In fact, only 2 countries in Scandenavia had gay marriage when he wrote his piece. Now, almost all of them do. A little research by you to see if your study was worth reprinting would have saved a lot of time by the rest of us.

  • Breathe Deep Eagle Rock, ID
    Oct. 16, 2013 9:52 a.m.

    Family Research Council: July 2012. New Study On Homosexual Parents Tops All Previous Research. In a historic study of children raised by homosexual parents, sociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin has overturned the conventional academic wisdom that such children suffer no disadvantages when compared to children raised by their married mother and father. Just published in the journal Social Science Research,[1] the most careful, rigorous, and methodologically sound study ever conducted on this issue found numerous and significant differences between these groups--with the outcomes for children of homosexuals rated "suboptimal" (Regnerus' word) in almost every category.

    Conclusion
    The articles by Marks and Regnerus have completely changed the playing field for debates about homosexual parents, "gay families," and same-sex "marriage." The myths that children of homosexual parents are "no different" from other children and suffer "no harm" from being raised by homosexual parents have been shattered forever.

  • Impressionist Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 10:22 a.m.

    The churches have the right and yes, even the obligation, to get and stay involved in the homosexual marriage process. I believe they will win and the state will remain as before.

    Marriage is between a man and a woman, and the other possibilities, which are many, need to be controlled and voted against at every opportunity.

    'Tail.

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Oct. 16, 2013 11:16 a.m.

    @Breathe --

    Marks and Regnerus are both well-known laughingstocks in the scientific community.

    Mark Regnerus --

    He compared **unmarried** single lesbian mothers (and defined them as any mother who had ever had any sexual relationship with another woman) to **married** straight couples and then claimed he had found a difference between gay families and straight ones. Seriously.

    An internal audit by the journal that published his study concluded that its review process was faulty in failing to find "significant, disqualifying faults" with the study before they published it. According to the auditor, the paper "should never have been published."

    Loren Marks --

    The same internal audit that trashed Regnerus' study also found that Marks didn't perform a "true meta-analysis of the studies" as he claimed, but merely "wrote summaries of the results".

    In 2010 Marks was forced to admit **in pretrial court depositions** that: 1. he didn't even READ all the research he had summarized; 2. he had cherry-picked his data; 3. his religious convictions about gay marriages predated and influenced his study. (and more)

    Further, Marks only "analyzed" 59 of the 130+ studies reviewed by the APA in their decision to SUPPORT gay marriage. I wonder why??

    Hmmm.....

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 11:46 a.m.

    @Redshirt
    So you blame declining marriage rates on gay people wanting to marry. Maybe the people who are devaluing marriage are the ones saying "you can have civil unions, you don't need marriage".

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 12:55 p.m.

    Tekakaromatagi: "Any gays can get married, but they have to follow the same standards as the rest of us: they have to be in a procreative relationship... Non-procreative relationships... cannot get married..."

    As has been pointed out to you multiple times on these boards, Utah law specifically requires certain couples (first cousins) to be non-procreative as a mandatory precondition for marriage. Your argument fails even in one of the most traditional family-oriented conservative states.

    Tekakaromatagi: "So the fact that there is an equal protection clause means that we already are a religious theocracy according to the reasoning of many people here."

    Just because something appears in scriptures does not make it uniquely religious. Behavioral codes such as prohibitions on murder or lying have clear secular, rational bases and do not require a deity for validation. Same for equal protection.

    procuradorfiscal: "Yeah, there's some real merit to things like that."

    A rare moment of agreement. And yet how much money and effort has been expended nationwide to repeal divorce laws in the last decade? How many propositions or referenda have been on ballots to limit divorce? Compare that to the gay marriage opposition. QED.

  • andyjaggy American Fork, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 1:03 p.m.

    Gays are destroying marriage... last I checked we were doing a pretty good job of that ourselves. Maybe if we focused the same amount of energy on strengthening our marriages instead of trying to keep gays from marrying we might actually do some good.

  • Kaladin Greeley, CO
    Oct. 16, 2013 1:49 p.m.

    Here's what it really boils down to for us. Homosexuality is a sin. Sorry, those of you that don't believe in God are getting indignant and are going to ask me to prove there is a God. I will not be able to "prove" it to you. But you will see. Does the fact that you live in sin mean God does not love you? Of course not. I have my sins and am working on those and believe that through repentance I can be forgiven. So why is the LDS Church so outspoken in its fight against homosexual marriage? Because we believe that gender is an eternal principal, as is marriage, as is procreation. Procreation will continue through the eternities and so only a man and a woman can be married. We don't see things as on this life only. We have an eternal perspective. That's why this is important to us. We fight against falsehoods that seek to lead God's children astray.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    Oct. 16, 2013 3:17 p.m.

    It is in the best interests of governments to regulate sexuality. The United States regulates sexuality, and has done so for its entire existence.

    Some of that regulation is accomplished by punitive laws that criminalize some sexual acts(jail time for rape or sexual abuse of a minor); some has historically been accomplished by laws that merely proscribe certain acts; some has been accomplished by government's refusal to recognize certain sexual relationships as desirable or even valid.

    The argument over same-gender marriage takes one aspect of one set of laws (the refusal of one state to recognize the relationship of marriage between two people of the same gender) and treis to make that a cause celebre of the civil rights movement.

    It is absolutely true that government encourages (and should do so) marriage between opposite genders because that is what is best for the raising of children; indeed it is essential for the conception of children.

    It is not good for a society to grant the benefits of traditional marriage to a union that cannot conceive children under any circumstances.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 3:37 p.m.

    @Kaladin;

    Thanks for the warning. I'll not hold my breath though.

    @Jeff;

    Then you MUST ban the elderly from marrying, the non-fertile from marrying, etc. (As has been pointed out so many times before).

  • JeffreyRO555 Auburn Hills, MI
    Oct. 16, 2013 4:47 p.m.

    It is a very odd thing to see people of Christian faith decry legal same-sex marriage, about which the Bible is silent, but these same people support legal pre-marital sex, legal adultery and legal divorce, about which the Bible is very clear: all three are forbidden. Very odd indeed!

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Oct. 16, 2013 5:58 p.m.

    Contrariusiest,

    Sorry but that sounds a bit like a dodge. What we are talking about are examples of marriage recognized and legal. The examples you cited appear to be neither.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    Oct. 16, 2013 7:50 p.m.

    @ Ranch: You suggest that it has been pointed out many times that I "MUST ban the elderly from marrying, the non-fertile from marrying, etc."

    I'm sorry, but this demand sounds a little like a sixth grade child who, when not getting some desired object, insists that no one else should ever be allowed to have (you fill in the blanks).

    Do you mean that, because the principle reason for governments to grant special benefits for marriage is to encourage proper procreation and child rearing, all couples not apparently able to procreate "MUST" be "banned" from marriage ever after, because otherwise it would be unfair to homosexuals?

    I acknowledge that such an "argument" has been presented many times before, and I have never seriously addressed it. Why? Because I don't take it seriously. It's not an argument, it's a tirade.

    @ JeffreyR0555: What Christians are you referring to? As a Christian who "decries homosexual marriage" (my Bible is not silent about it--which translation are you reading?) I certainly do not "support legal pre-marital sex, legal adultery and legal divorce." Neither do any of the Latter-day Saints that I know. Is it different in Michigan?

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Oct. 16, 2013 7:55 p.m.

    The writers of this article should have contacted a group that really believes in religious freedom like the Becket Fund. The fact that the ACLU feels that a religion can be reclassified as a "public accomadation" and be forced to violate its principals is disturbing.

    Equally disturbing is that the current exemption provides no protection for the religious views of non-clergy. In fact, treating the right of clergy to follow their religion differently than non-clergy is slightly questionable. Wedding photographers should clearly be allowed to not do something they religiously object to. I am less than convinced the government should ever by able to force a photographer to do anything, but clearly not if it violates said photographers religion.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 6:11 a.m.

    @Jeff;

    It isn't a "tirade" (see merriam-webster) to ask you to be (1) consistent, (2) honest or (3) both.

    Your argument: "It is not good for a society to grant the benefits of traditional marriage to a union that cannot conceive children **under any circumstances**.", and your exceptions: "except straight couples who cannot conceive children **under any circumstances**", is inconsistent.

    So let's move on to option (2), honesty. Let's be honest and admit you have an animus towards LGBT couples being married. If that weren't the case, then you would be (1) consistent with your argument above and your exception would not be allowed either.

    @JPL;

    Our country has already been down that road in the 60's and we decided that we didn't want businesses to practice bigotry. I don't think that has changed in recent years.

  • eastcoastcoug Danbury, CT
    Oct. 17, 2013 6:21 a.m.

    I find it just as objectionable to be forced to marry gay couples in my church's temples as I do for people of my faith to impose their will that there be no gay marriage. Therefore, if the majority of the people want gay marriage, they can have it, but they can't force my church to perform gay marriages.

    Fair is fair...you let us practice our religion and we allow gay marriage.

    But let's be honest about this. All we're doing is drawing the boundary of what we condone one notch over. Today it is gay marriage, but if we are truly allowing others to "marry whoever they love", then we are also opening the door for polyamorous relationships, polygamy, polyandry, marrying minors, etc. If there is no rationale for today's boundary, there is no rationale for ANY boundary at all. Who's to say that 2 parents is the ideal?

    I'd love to hear Father of Four et al describe just exactly what is an ideal marriage and what kind of research they would accept. Must be hard with those 4 kids with no rules at all in the household...

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Oct. 17, 2013 6:33 a.m.

    @Kaladin --

    "Sorry, those of you that don't believe in God are getting indignant "

    This isn't just a matter of religious vs nonreligious. Remember, many denominations (Christian and otherwise) are already happy to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.

    @ Jeff--

    "The United States regulates sexuality..."

    But **only** when the state has a compelling interest. "Compelling interests" arise when people are very likely to be significantly harmed -- for example, rape or incest.

    The state has no compelling interest in regulating homosexuality. Nobody has been able to come up with evidence that people are very likely to be significantly harmed by gay marriage.

    Would you like to try? I warn you, even the lawyers who presented DOMA and Prop 8 to SCOTUS failed to do so.

    But go ahead, give it your best shot.

    "It is not good for a society to grant the benefits of traditional marriage to a union that cannot conceive children under any circumstances."

    Like infertile marriages. Like marriages of convicts serving life terms in prison. Like marriages of old folks.

    Society sanctions nonprocreative marriages **all the time**. It's both illogical and hypocritical to allow one but not the other.

  • The Scientist Provo, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 7:01 a.m.

    Only 41.31% of the people in Hawaii are religious (about 8% less than the US at large).

    18% are Catholic, 13% Protestant, 5% are LDS, and 5% are an eastern faith.

    The largest "faith" group in Hawaii is "None", And my guess is most Nones in Hawaii do not oppose same sex marriage.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Oct. 17, 2013 7:28 a.m.

    @Twin --

    "The examples you cited appear to be neither."

    Do you know enough about ancient Assyrian and Roman marriage customs to distinguish between "recognized and legal" marriages and others? Please cite your sources.

    @Jeff --

    "It's not an argument, it's a tirade."

    It's actually the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution -- which guarantees equal rights for **all** citizens, and bans discrimination (arbitrary preferment).

    If you permit some types of nonprocreative marriage, then, legally, you must permit other types of nonprocreative marriage -- unless you can show that the government has a compelling interest in treating some differently than others.

    Can you?

    @John --

    "the ACLU feels that a religion can be reclassified "

    When churches offer services to the general public -- for instance, renting out a pavilion -- then they must follow the laws of the jurisdiction they are operating in. Simple.

    Remember, the ACLU has defended groups like Westboro Baptist Church, polygamists, and the KKK in court. They DO believe in freedom of religion.

    "Wedding photographers should clearly be allowed..."

    Allowing religious exemptions to antidiscrimination laws would open up all sorts of problems. Your religion against serving women?? Fine, no women at your hospital!

    Discrimination is against the law. Period.

  • BobDog Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 9:21 a.m.

    This whole situation is sickening.

    Believe as you will as to what government must do.

    If I am a private business, I get to decide whom I serve. Let me lose the sale if I want to.

    If I am a church, I get to decide who comes in and who gets what rites.

    It is too, too bad that we have lost the ability in this Country to be able to express an opinion in the public square without others with contrary opinions declaring holy war against our livlihoods and our safety. 1933 Germany anybody?

  • Kaladin Greeley, CO
    Oct. 17, 2013 10:55 a.m.

    @Contrariuser
    I am not talking about other religions. My comment was strictly about the LDS faith.

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 11:25 a.m.

    The only problem with the folks who are citing the opinion polls saying Hawaiians favor same sex marriage is that when asked twice by ballot in California the state by a pretty good margin voted against same sex marriage. That however apparantly carried no weight with the pro same sex marriage crowd and especially with the courts. So let's face it. You get the right judges and you can have anything you want in this world.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Oct. 17, 2013 11:41 a.m.

    As the article indicates, there has been a long period of discussion over this issue that started in Hawaii over twenty years ago. The arguments of my friends in the Catholic and LDS churches in particular have been thoroughly considered. An increasing majority of people are not convinced by them. They feel they only hurt our fellow citizens in the Gay community. I think our time would be better spent seeking reconciliation rather than engaging in stalling tactics that serve no purpose.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Oct. 17, 2013 12:19 p.m.

    @BobDog --

    "If I am a private business, I get to decide whom I serve."

    Not quite.

    Discrimination has been illegal for decades. Refer to Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

    "declaring holy war against our livlihoods and our safety. "

    Safety??

    It's gay people who have been harmed throughout this country's history -- not straights. Gay people are still **eight times** more likely to be the victims of violent crimes than straight people are.

    "1933 Germany anybody?"

    1950s and 60s USA, anybody?

    @Kaladin --

    "My comment was strictly about the LDS faith."

    You said: "those of you that don't believe in God "

    Do you really believe that Mormons are the only people who believe in God?

    @SCfan --

    "when asked twice by ballot in California the state by a pretty good margin voted against same sex marriage."

    Popular support matters -- but the US Constitution matters more.

    @eastcoast --

    " If there is no rationale for today's boundary, there is no rationale for ANY boundary at all. "

    Of course there is. It's called the harm principle.

    Polygamy and incest carry significant increases in the risks of harm compared to other types of marriage.

    Gay marriage does not.

  • John Sun Houston, TX
    Oct. 17, 2013 12:22 p.m.

    @SCfan
    “when asked twice by ballot in California the state by a pretty good margin voted against same sex marriage”

    In June, Supreme Court struck down a key part of Voting Right Act, you know why? Because the number used by DOJ’s attorney, who defended the law, was old, not current, it “carried no weight” as you said.

    The public opinion on same sex marriage has evolved very fast. Of course a decade ago majority of people opposed same sex marriage, even in California. But time has changed and people have changed. Now poll after poll show that majority of American people support marriage equality, including Hawaii. When we discuss this issue today, we need to face the reality, not the past.

  • ConservativeSmasher Anaheim, CA
    Oct. 17, 2013 1:44 p.m.

    @ Contrariuser

    "Of course there is. It's called the harm principle.

    Polygamy and incest carry significant increases in the risks of harm compared to other types of marriage.

    Gay marriage does not."

    How does polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage increase the risk of harm.

    I see no harm in polygamous marriage at all.

    If marriage is a right for gays, then it's a right for polygamists too.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Oct. 17, 2013 3:42 p.m.

    @ConservativeSmasher --

    Incest is obvious -- for one thing, there's a 30-40% chance of genetic defects in offspring from first degree relatives (parent/child incest or sibling incest).

    Regarding polygamy, here's excerpts from just one judge's conclusions from a 2011 court decision (Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia).

    -- "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 (also) has negative impacts on society flowing from ... poverty associated with the practice. It generates a class of largely poor, unmarried men who are statistically predisposed to violence and other anti-social behaviour"

    -- "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."

    I can post much more data from tons of polygamy studies later on, if you're interested.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Oct. 18, 2013 9:09 a.m.

    To "Contrarius" are you still stuck on the opinion of a Judge that has no basis is reality?! What qualifications does a judge have to understand polygamy? Is he also a sociologist?

    I am still waiting for the unbiased study that uses the 40,000 polygamists in Utah that are not part of the FLDS church and are not Muslims.

    I have given you proof that when polygamy is entered into with the full consent of all parties involved, there is no abuse and few problems.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Oct. 18, 2013 11:06 a.m.

    @Redshirt1701 --

    "the opinion of a Judge.."

    Justice Bauman's opinions were actually based on a careful study of polygamy across multiple cultures, as he indicated in his decision.

    "qualifications..."

    He has the benefit of the entire Canadian government's expertise.

    I've already showed you two major reports on polygamy by Canadian researchers, covering multiple religions and cultures. For those who haven't seen them, they are:

    1. Polygamy in Canada: Legal and Social Implications for Women and Children -- a 280 page tome with tons of multinational details and references.

    2. Polygyny as a Violation of Human Rights Law -- part of a multinational report by the Canadian Department of Justice -- also has a lot of references.

    I'm sure he looked at others as well.

    Do you seriously believe that Supreme Court Justices DON'T do research into the subjects they issue rulings on??

    "the 40,000 polygamists in Utah that are not part of the FLDS church...."

    Most of them have ties to various fundamentalist offshoots. And according to a 2005 SLT article another 15,000 of your supposed 40,000 are independent fundamentalists. If I did produce studies of them, you'd just dismiss them as well.

    "I have given you proof..."

    LOL.

    Where???

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Oct. 18, 2013 12:38 p.m.

    @RedShirt

    ABC has a report "Hundreds of 'Lost Boys' Expelled by Polygamist Community" about LDS Fundamentalists expelled so-called "lost boys" to reduce the competition for brides. I would like to past the website in here, but this system does not allow me to so, you can easily google that report.

    There is also a documentary film "Sons of Perdition" on the same issue that provides more details. Maybe these proofs can answer your question about the harm of polygamy. Just think about those poor lost boys

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Oct. 18, 2013 12:42 p.m.

    To "Contrarius" you forgot the article "A Feminist Studies Mormon Polygamy And, Remarkably, Finds That It Liberated the Wives" in People Magazine, which contains an interview with Dr. Vicky Burgess-Olson who wrote her PhD thesis on polygamy. No only did the women consent to polygamy, but Dr Olson found that "polygamist wives had fewer, but healthier, children than monogamous wives".

    She studied a group that entered polygamy out of love and desire, and found that it benefitted them.

    Where is your unbiased research that will even look at the 25,000 polygamists that are not FLDS or independaent fundamentalists. I won't dismiss them if you can find one that isn't biased using FLDS groups, muslims, or other groups that are known for mistreating women and children. The problem is YOU have not found any like that. Find me one, and I will read it and let you know what I think. Until then, all you have ever found has been biased because it looks at happiness in abusive cultures.

    To "J.S." find me a study that looks at polygamy in groups that enter polygamy out of love, not polygamy in abusive cultures.

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Oct. 18, 2013 12:56 p.m.

    Do we need a study? If one man has four wives in polygamy, how can the husband, which has four wives, and one of the four wives, who only has 1/4 of husband, how these two people are equal? How can such arrangement not be against constitution? You do know that we live in America, where equal protection and equal liberty are guaranteed by constitution, right?

  • portlander Arlington, WA
    Oct. 18, 2013 1:59 p.m.

    Reply to Father of Four: I have a friend who is Jewish, who does not eat pork. He doesn't rally to force people into not eating pork. He also doesn't rally to force people to accept and respect his desire to not eat pork. He just doesn't eat pork!

    Imagine if all non-pork eaters just lived their lifestyle preferences without trying to legislate others into accepting their desired lifestyle choices?

    The argument seems to be a door that swings both ways!

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Oct. 18, 2013 4:05 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701 --

    "you forgot the article..."

    No, Red, I didn't forget anything. ;-)

    This thesis you're talking about wasn't proof of anything. It was a historical review of a few plural wives living more than 100 years ago.

    Even Dr. Burgess-Olson herself admitted that polygamy wouldn't work in modern society, and that she would never want to be a plural wife herself.

    "Where is your unbiased research..."

    As I said in my previous post, most of those 25,000 non-FLDS and non-independent fundamentalist polygamists belong to other fundamentalist groups.

    "The problem is YOU have not found any like that. "

    ROFL.

    Sorry, Red. You're the one who keeps claiming that a few benign polygamous marriages here and there can somehow magically overcome all the harm done by the millions of other polygamous marriages in this country and around the world.

    You made the claim, so you get to prove it.

    How can a few benign plural marriages make up for all those millions of others?

    Or do you seriously believe that we ought to legalize drunk driving just because one person out of thousands might be able to drive home safely while drunk?

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Oct. 19, 2013 2:07 a.m.

    Ronnie W.
    Layton, UT
    @Crusader, @FatherofFour

    It matters because of the kids. ... A recent studied show children of lesbian/gay parents in Canada were 1/3 less likely to graduate from high school. If they can get married, can they adopt just like a heterosexual couple? It gets messy real quick.

    ..... You cite a "study" that appeared in the DN, that was done by a mormon board member of NOM, a man known to be fanatically against equality. The data are from 2007.
    Every legitimate study shows that 2 women, on average, raise better kids than man/woman couples, but Gay couples who can now marry do so from love, not family pressure or pregnancy, so are likely to be very stable.
    ,,,,
    Red
    San Antonia, TX
    Crusader,

    It matters because they put clauses into these silly bills that force other people to marry homosexuals and if they don't they are punished.

    ... Not true, but if your business is open to the general public, you must serve everyone equally.

    What if homosexuals wanted to get married in the LDS Temples? Where do the homosexuals want the line drawn?

    --- Only mormon Gay kids would want to marry in the temple.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Oct. 19, 2013 6:28 a.m.

    @Lagomorph:

    "As has been pointed out to you multiple times on these boards, Utah law specifically requires certain couples (first cousins) to be non-procreative as a mandatory precondition for marriage. Your argument fails even in one of the most traditional family-oriented conservative states."

    "Porcreative" means that the couple can consumate their relationship in a biologically meaningful way. Whether or not they do, or whether or not the consumation is fertile is hard or impossible to detect. Anyone seeing them walking down the street would not know.

    Non-procreative means the oppositve. Two same gender roommates, two brothers, the boys down at the bar (if you are into polygamy), a man living with his aunt, army buddy are all non-procreative relationships. It is obvious to anyone seeing them walking down the street that the union will not and cannot produce children.

    By giving marriage a special status, as a society we say that men should be responsible for their procreative actions. We give our endorsement that the best environment for raising children is by their biological parents and that a child needs a father and a mother.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Oct. 19, 2013 6:44 a.m.

    @Lane Meyer:
    "If you believe we are a religious theocracy, which church is leading us? Why do you want the US to be run like Iran? Why are you against citizens worshipping how, where, and what they may (or may not)? Isn't a theocracy against the 13 articles of faith?"

    I did not say that it is a religious theocracy. I was applying the standard that many others have used on this site. I do not agree with the standard so I am like you. But others feel that if there is even the slightest influence of religion in someone's viewpoints and that those viewpoints are started in public that therefore, we have become a religious theocracy like Iran. Again, I disagree with that reasoning.
    ith that reasoning

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Oct. 19, 2013 6:50 a.m.

    @Red,

    With regards to your assertation about religions in England being forced to administer marriages to non-procreative unions, the Sikhs in England (presumably after consulting with lowyers who are knowledgeable of English law) have stopped having holding weddings in their churches because of fear of lawsuits so you have a valid point.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Oct. 19, 2013 7:58 a.m.

    I would have more respect for the LDS position on same sex marriage if they just showed the same concern for the gun slaughter going on in this country. Gun violence is far more harmful to this society than same sex marriage. And, as to religious freedom, there is not much of that if you have your life taken from you.

  • labeau ELY, NV
    Oct. 19, 2013 10:56 a.m.

    Same people who believe in same sex marriage, are against polygamy, if one becomes legal, then why not the other? The same argument for same sex marriage can be made for polygamy. Neither of these type of marriages bothers me, how about you gay marriage advocates?

  • Free Agency Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 19, 2013 11:53 a.m.

    These churches just don't get it.

    They're free to believe whatever they like. But in America, they're *not* free to impose those beliefs on society in general.

    "Red," in making the slippery slope argument that gays will insist on getting married in, e.g., LDS temples, says "we have to draw a line in the sand." Which I assume means, stop gay marriages altogether.

    Aside from the fact that if non-Mormons can't get married in Mormon temples and certainly can't sue to be allowed that, how would gays get away with it?--let's draw another line in the sand.

    If we don't stop religions from demanding that American citizens who happen to be gay can't get married, what's to stop those religions from saying only Christians can get married? Only people of the same race can get married? Only people who speak fluent English can get married?

    Yes, that sounds absurd--but no more absurd than what's being postulated as the horrible things that will happen if two same-sex adults who love each other are allowed to marry.

  • Free Agency Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 19, 2013 11:59 a.m.

    Re: the gay adoption issue and "how kids turn out much worse with gay parents," I urge everyone to google and read "The Morality of Gay Adoption . . . Shmuley Boteach."

    The writer is an orthodox rabbi (I believe he's well-known in Utah).

    Rabbi Boteach's religion theoretically is against gay marriage and adoption. Yet, being the good Jew that he is, he lets his heart make the call.

    The article is beautiful. Please read it before making "statistical generalizations" (with questionable statistics, at that!) about how children fare with gay parents.

    There are many other articles online too about how children have thrived with loving parents who happen to be gay.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Oct. 19, 2013 12:59 p.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi --

    ""a man living with his aunt...are all non-procreative relationships."

    How, exactly, is a man living with his aunt obviously nonprocreative?

    And what about a couple who walks down that marriage aisle when they're each 70 years old? That marriage IS obviously nonprocreative -- yet entirely legal.

    And what about the man in prison for life with no conjugal visitation? Any marriage of his will very obviously be nonprocreative -- yet SCOTUS has been firm in preserving his right to marry as well.

    Yet again -- In this country we do not ban any given type of marriage just because it isn't procreative. We also do not automatically permit any given type of marriage just because it IS procreative.

    @labeau --

    "Same people who believe in same sex marriage, are against polygamy, if one becomes legal, then why not the other?"

    Please take the time to read through the recent posts in this thread. This topic has already been thoroughly discussed.

    Here's the summary:

    Polygamy and incest carry significant increases in the risks of harm compared to other types of marriage.

    Gay marriage does not.

    It's a very simple distinction.

  • I Choose Freedom Atlanta, GA
    Oct. 19, 2013 8:14 p.m.

    God will have the final say in this matter. And I know what He is going to say. And some of you are not going to like it. But, for now, you have the right to believe anything you want or you can believe in nothing at all. But all of our choices have consequences. And that includes yours.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    Oct. 21, 2013 8:02 a.m.

    To "Contrarius" but the study of historical polygamists that entered marriage is precisely the type of study that shows that polygamy can actually be a good thing.

    Yes the author doesn't think it would work in today's middle class society, but that was 40 years ago, and not part of the argument.

    The point is that she found that in polygamist marriages that were based on love, the women were taken care of, and the children were healthier.

    Where is your proof that polygamist marriages that are based on love and mutual concent are bad? You have proof that they were good historically.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Oct. 21, 2013 8:21 a.m.

    @RedShirtMIT --

    "...precisely the type of study..."

    No, hon.

    That anecdotal historical review was just that -- anecdotal. It completely ignored all the 14-year-old plural wives, the plural wives who were taken despite already being married to someone else, the plural wives who were too busy trying to survive to take enough time to write diaries, and so forth.

    "that was 40 years ago...."

    40 years is too long ago to be relevant, but 150 years ago isn't??

    LOL.

    "she found that in polygamist marriages that were based on love, the women were taken care of, and the children were healthier."

    She didn't find any such thing. All she found was that a select group of a few lucky women managed to lead relatively good lives compared to less lucky women.

    "Where is your proof that polygamist marriages that are based on love and mutual concent are bad? "

    I don't need any such proof, Red. We already know that the vast majority of polygamous marriages significantly increase the risk of harm to women and children. I don't need to prove anything about your hypothetical tiny minority of supposedly benign plural marriages.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    Oct. 21, 2013 9:51 a.m.

    To "Contrariusier" sorry, but you are still wrong.

    The historical evidence shows that when people entered marriages out of love and mutual concent, it is not bad on the women. At worst, the women missed it when the man was gone for too long. In many cases having a plural marriage was beneficial to the women becase there was 1 staying at home while others went out and had careers to not only support the family, but to benefit the community.

    Whenever it has been looked at, polygamy is a good thing when entered into by mutual love and concent.

    Where is your proof. So far you only offer you opinion. I have given you a doctoral thesis that shows that Polygamy is not harmful. You have only given biased studies that show that FLDS and muslim cultures are harmful to women and children.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Oct. 21, 2013 12:44 p.m.

    @RedShirtMIT --

    "The historical evidence shows..."

    That evidence of yours doesn't even show that the women (or the men) were actually in love at all, much less prove anything about the institution of polygamy.

    Or did I miss all those professions of love -- the ones that the author did NOT talk about?

    "Whenever it has been looked at,...."

    Really? Show us your evidence.

    "You have only given biased studies that show that FLDS and muslim cultures are harmful to women and children."

    We're not back to that, are we?

    Do you mean to tell me that you STILL haven't Googled the concept of controlled studies?

    Cmon, Red. Googling isn't difficult. Educate yourself.

    While you do that, I'll also remind you -- laws are written according to risk, not according to certainty. Drunken driving is illegal because it creates a high risk of accidents, not because it creates any certainty of them.

    Similarly, we've already seen that the vast majority of polygamous marriages create a significantly increased risk of harm for women and children. We don't need to prove that every single polygamous marriage is dangerous in order to justify keeping polygamy illegal.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    Oct. 21, 2013 2:01 p.m.

    To "Contrariusier" you still don't understand biased studies that use words to hide their bias. Controlled studies do not rule out bias. Apparently you are the one that needs to read up on controlled studies.

    If polygamy is so bad, why do they only look at cultures that are abusive to women and children.

    If you bothered to do a quick search on Google, you would find that the islamic nations have found that about 80% of women are abused in some countries.

    FLDS and simiar groups have similar statistics.

    So, tell us how the researchers expected to find women in non-abusive relationships when they only looked at cultures that are abusive?

    Until you can find a study that look at the tens of thousands of polygamists in the US that marry out of love and consent, I consider this over, and you to not know what bias is and how researchers can use it to their own advantage.

  • sjmoody Honolulu, HI
    Oct. 21, 2013 2:08 p.m.

    @FatherOfFour: As cute as your example is, that not the issue. To stick with the metaphor, the issue is that when these laws are passed, we concerned about an increase in litigation against Jewish delis for not selling ham. There are very weak protections for freedom of religious expression. If a bakery doesn't want to have their product on display at a wedding because it can be seen as the bakery actively supporting same-sex marriage, then that bakery should not be forced via litigation or other means to do so. That's the issue. States that have passed these laws are seeing an increase in legal attacks against people who refuse to do things that require their involvement in same-sex marriage ceremonies, because such refusal is now being called discrimination. This needs to be clear: It is the supporters of same-sex marriage who are trying to legislate their system of morality.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Oct. 22, 2013 7:30 a.m.

    @Red --

    "..read up on controlled studies."

    I made my living doing scientific research for years, Red. I'm well acquainted with the concept.

    ;-)

    "why do they only look at cultures that are abusive..."

    Because those are the cultures that practice polygamy, of course.

    Cultures that espouse equality for women uniformly reject polygamy.

    Guess why.

    "tell us how the researchers expected to find women in non-abusive relationships when they only looked at cultures that are abusive?"

    That's where the concept of CONTROLLED studies comes in.

    I've explained this to you multiple times before.

    One more time --

    In a controlled study of polygamy, researchers compare polygamous families with monogamous families ALL IN THE SAME CULTURE. When you do that, you have "controlled for" -- ruled out -- the effects of that culture on the marriages, because they all have the SAME culture. So if polygamous families are worse than the monogamous families they are compared to, you know the difference is from THE MARRIAGE and not from the culture.

    "I consider this over"

    Of course it's over. It's been over for a long time. I'm glad you've finally recognized that fact -- however belated your recognition may be.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Oct. 25, 2013 10:40 a.m.

    To "Contrariusier" you are still wrong, no matter how you justify yourself.

    The controlled studies that you keep looking at only control for marital status, not for violence within the culture.

    If you do a quick internet search, you find that within muslim cultures that there is a significantly higher rate of violence towards women and children when compared to other cultures.

    You have yet to show that outside of a violent culture that polygamy is harmful. I have given you proof that shows that when people enter into polygamy out of love and desire that there is no violence and it is beneficial to the women and the children they have.

    You keep dancing around the core argument, which is that when polygamy is entered into out of love that it is no more harmful than a marriage between 1 man and 1 woman.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Oct. 25, 2013 3:34 p.m.

    @RedShirtCalTech --

    "The controlled studies...only control for marital status..."

    That's simply incorrect.

    Obviously, marital status is actually the experimental variable in these studies -- not the control.

    In fact, these studies are indeed controlled for "violence within the culture". All of the families studied within one study live in the same culture -- therefore the studies are controlled for effects of culture.

    Please at least do an internet search. Searching with the terms "controlled studies", "experimental variables", and "observational studies" will get you a lot of helpful info.

    "I have given you proof "

    No, you haven't. The only "proof" you've provided doesn't even mention the word love, much less prove anything about plural marriages based on love.

    And I'll also remind you yet again -- laws are written according to risk, not according to certainty. Drunken driving is illegal because it creates a high risk of accidents, not because it creates any certainty of them.

    Similarly, we've already seen that the vast majority of polygamous marriages create a significantly increased risk of harm for women and children. We don't need to prove that every single polygamous marriage is dangerous in order to justify keeping polygamy illegal.

  • worldtraveler Mesa, AZ
    Oct. 25, 2013 5:00 p.m.

    Over a hundred years ago, there were states, organizations, and individuals that legislated Mormons polygamous marriages were against the law. During that time many polygamous marrieds went to distant colonies to protect their families. I know, mine ended up in eastern Idaho. What is astounding is the persecuted has become the persecutor against another group wanting to marry. Is the hypocrisy palpable? Sure is.

  • worldtraveler Mesa, AZ
    Oct. 25, 2013 5:07 p.m.

    The slippery slope arguments used in earlier comments are getting so old and trite. Aren't people getting educated? Mormons will be forced to marry gays in their temples. Hmmm, are they being forced to marry non-Mormons or unworthies in the temple now? Nope. Give that one up folks.

  • worldtraveler Mesa, AZ
    Oct. 25, 2013 5:13 p.m.

    Well folks have used a faulty study done in Canada to suggest gays make worse parents than heteros. There have been so many studies done around the world that show otherwise. The largest study done so far by the Melbourne Univesity in Australia with over 500 children shows children are doing equally well or even better than children of hetero parents. Look it up and then drop the argument.

  • worldtraveler Mesa, AZ
    Oct. 25, 2013 5:24 p.m.

    Astounding, the ignorance of people. So you say marriage by definition is between a man and a woman. Hmmm, me thinks those folks need to do a bit more research than listening to Rush Limbaugh. The definition of marriage has been very fluid through history. Women were exchanged for property and/or livestock, women were property to dispose of, multiple wives to a man, multiple men to a woman, and...drumroll...same gender couplings were performed in a many nations. So when these people say we should be following the historical definition, I wonder, which one? One, yes, the one they want. Yep.

  • kianajanell HONOLULU, HI
    Oct. 26, 2013 6:30 p.m.

    The people of Hawaii has voted down same-sex marriage twice now. Dallin H. Oaks stated,"The prospect of same-sex marriage has already spawned legal collisions with the rights of free speech and of action based on religious beliefs. For example, advocates and government officials in certain states already are challenging the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to follow their religious beliefs and only place children in homes with both a mother and a father. As a result, Catholic Charities in Boston has stopped offering adoption services. Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions. Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public. Accrediting organizations in some instances are asserting pressure on religious schools and universities to provide married housing for same-sex couples. Student religious organizations are being told by some universities that they may lose their campus recognition and benefits if they exclude same-sex couples from club membership."

  • KingWenceslas Salt Lake City/Salt Lake, UT
    Oct. 27, 2013 11:54 p.m.

    I see some very valid reasons for marriage to consist of a man and a woman: natural procreation requires it; most children probably respond best to that environment; that's the way it's always been done. Does that mean married couples shouldn't adopt if they're not able to procreate naturally? Does that mean the single parents have no hope of rearing successful children? Should we never consider changing patterns, even if it makes one's life more meaningful? The most abhorrent argument against insisting that marriage be limited to one man and one woman is to look at those couples who fit the gender requirement and then inflict physical, mental and/or emotional abuse on the children they create together.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Oct. 28, 2013 8:40 a.m.

    To "Contrariuserer" explain how a controlled study that ONLY accounted for marriage type control for violence within a culture.

    Again, the problem is that they claim that plural marriage is bad because of the violence towards women and children, yet they never controlled for violence within the culture. They only looked at violent cultures. This is like claiming to have a controlled study on polygamy and only looking at plural marriages.

    The study did state that it was out of love and concent that the polygamist marriages were taking place. You missed the part where it was often the first wife that decided that a second wife was needed, and that the women often grew to be BFFs. The studies you provided only show that in violent cultures the women hate eachother from the begging and maintain that hatred.

    Again, where is the study that shows that when there is love and concent in polygamy that it is a bad thing. I am still waiting. There is proof that when love and concent are involved that polygamy is good.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Oct. 28, 2013 1:54 p.m.

    @RedShirtCalTech --

    "explain how a controlled study that ONLY accounted for marriage type control for violence within a culture."

    Once again -- marriage type was the variable, not the control. The studies were controlled for culture.

    PLEASE look up the concept of controlled studies. It is silly for you to continue making such ignorant statements when the facts are freely available to you.

    "The study did state that it was out of love..."

    No it didn't. It merely said that some of the wives occasionally claimed that they came to love each other long after the marriage had occurred. And the concept of "consent" would have been meaningless in a time when women had few legal rights to object.

    I liked this, though: "Bishops even stole the girlfriends of their young sons." Yup -- sounds like a great system. ;-)

    "where is the study that shows that when there is love and concent in polygamy that it is a bad thing. "

    Again, the study you want is irrelevant to the issue of legalizing polygamy. We already know that the vast majority of plural marriages significantly increase the risk of harm. The vanishing minority of possibly benign plural unions doesn't change that fact.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Oct. 28, 2013 3:13 p.m.

    To "Contrariuserer" now I get it, so then you are using studies that are not looking for violence. You are looking at studies that are using marriage as the variable, when they should be using violence as a variable.

    If they were controlled for culture, meaning violence within the society they are looking at, what was their control group? The control group for culture would have to be from a group outside of the violent cultures.

    Where is the study that shows that polygamy is bad when practiced outside of a violent culture? You have not given a study that looks at polygamy that way?

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Oct. 30, 2013 7:42 a.m.

    @RedShirtCalTech --

    "they should be using violence as a variable...."

    Again, Red -- please look up the concept of controlled studies. It is silly for you to continue making such ignorant statements when the facts are freely available to you.

    Violence is not a "variable" here. Again, marital status is the variable. A difference in violence between the study groups is the result.

    "Where is the study that shows that polygamy is bad when practiced outside of a violent culture?"

    Again -- the study you want is irrelevant to the issue of legalizing polygamy.

    Again -- laws are written according to risk, not according to certainty. Drunken driving is illegal because it creates a high risk of accidents, not because it creates any certainty of them. It doesn't matter if one driver out of a thousand can drive safely while drunk.

    Similarly, we've already seen that the vast majority of polygamous marriages create a significantly increased risk of harm for women and children. We don't need to prove that every single polygamous marriage is dangerous in order to justify keeping polygamy illegal. Your claimed vanishingly small minority of supposedly benign plural marriages is irrelevant to the overall risk.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Oct. 30, 2013 8:26 a.m.

    To "Contrariuserer" how is violence the variable when you study marriage within a violent culture. There is violence regardless of marital status. In all of the studies that you quote, violence towards women and children is a constant.

    Again, look up controlled studies and understand them. The control is only used as a point of comparison between two different groups.

    Where is the control group from a non-violent cutlture that would control for violence.

    Laws may be written according to risk, but they can also be written using faulty data or biased information.

    If polygamy is a vanishing minority, why is it that there are more polygamists now than there were 30 years ago. Why is it that there are now groups of Evangelical Christian Polygamists growing and becoming more prominant? If polygamy is dying why is it that Norway now allows polygamist civil unions along with Brazil. It looks like polygamy is growing.

    To summarize. Your studies do not have violence as a controlled variable, it is a constant and polygamy is growing.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Oct. 30, 2013 10:01 a.m.

    @RedShirtCalTech --

    "how is violence the variable .... "

    Again -- please look up the concept of controlled studies. It is silly for you to continue making such ignorant statements when the facts are freely available to you.

    Again -- violence is not a "variable" here. Again, marital status is the variable. A difference in violence between the study groups is the result.

    "In all of the studies that you quote, violence towards women and children is a constant."

    No it isn't.

    Violence increases with polygamy compared to monogamy -- it is not constant. Read the studies.

    "If polygamy is a vanishing minority..."

    Nobody has made any claim that polygamy is a vanishing minority. The "vanishing minority" is the very small number of supposedly benign plural marriages that you have still not shown us any evidence of.

    Again -- we've already seen that the vast majority of polygamous marriages create a significantly increased risk of harm for women and children. We don't need to prove that every single polygamous marriage is dangerous in order to justify keeping polygamy illegal. Your claimed vanishingly small minority of supposedly benign plural marriages is irrelevant to the overall risk.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    Oct. 30, 2013 10:56 a.m.

    To "Contrariusier" since you agree that violence is a constant, how do you know that in a loving relationship where polygamy is entered into out of love that violence increases?

    You have only found studies that show that in violent cultures women are abused. What about non-violen cultures? Or do you consider the mainstream western culture to be violent?

    You are still wrong. All we have seen is that violence incrases in situations where women are forced into polygamy.

    If violence is not a constant in all of the studies that you have, SHOW THE STUDY THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE a violent culture. I have been waiting for a long time for you to provide that. You have yet to provide that study.

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Oct. 31, 2013 9:11 a.m.

    @RedShirtMIT --

    Again -- please look up the concept of controlled studies. It is silly for you to continue making such ignorant statements when the facts are freely available to you.

    "since you agree that violence is a constant"

    Again -- violence is not a constant.

    Violence increases with polygamy compared to monogamy. Read the studies.

    "What about non-violent cultures?"

    Again -- polygamy occurs in oppressive cultures. Cultures that espouse equality for women universally decry polygamy.

    Guess why.

    "SHOW THE STUDY THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE a violent culture."

    Again -- the study you want is irrelevant to legalizing polygamy.

    Again -- laws are written according to risk, not according to certainty. Drunken driving is illegal because it creates a high risk of accidents, not because it creates any certainty of them.

    Similarly, we've already seen that the vast majority of polygamous marriages create a significantly increased risk of harm for women and children. We don't need to prove that every single polygamous marriage is dangerous in order to justify keeping polygamy illegal. Your claimed vanishingly small minority of supposedly benign plural marriages is irrelevant to the overall risk.

  • RedShirtUofU Andoria, UT
    Oct. 31, 2013 12:38 p.m.

    To "Contrariusiest" the problem is that you still have failed to recognize the core argument. You have moved off onto some tangent.

    You claim that any polygamist relationship results in more violence towards women. All of the studies that you have ever read or accept all use societies that are violent towards women and do not contain controls for violence.

    If polygamy comes with more violence, where is the controlled study that looks at polygamy in a non-violent culture and compares it to polygamy in a violent culture? Historical studies show that in non-violent cultures polygamy benefits women and children.

    You are wrong, and have moved so far from your original argument that it is obvious that you cannot support your arguments, but are only seeking to detract from that fact.

    Where is your study that controls for violence (you have already agreed that the studies that you have looked at DO NOT control for violence), since violence is the justification that you are using to prohibit polygamy?

  • Contrariusest Nashville, TN
    Nov. 1, 2013 7:59 a.m.

    @RedShirtUofU --

    "You claim that any polygamist relationship results in more violence towards women. "

    Nope. I clearly never made any such claim.

    Again -- laws are written according to risk, not according to certainty.

    We've already seen that the vast majority of polygamous marriages create a significantly increased risk of harm for women and children. We don't need to prove that every single polygamous marriage is dangerous in order to justify keeping polygamy illegal. Your claimed vanishingly small minority of supposedly benign plural marriages is irrelevant to the overall risk.

    "All of the studies that you have ever read or accept all use societies that are violent towards women and do not contain controls for violence."

    Again -- please look up the concept of controlled studies. It is silly for you to continue making such ignorant statements when the facts are freely available to you.

    Increased violence is the **result** when comparing polygamous families to monogamous families within the same culture. One doesn't control results, Red. Observing results is the reason for the research -- so controlling it would be self-defeating.

    ;-)

  • RedShirtUofU Andoria, UT
    Nov. 1, 2013 9:29 a.m.

    To "Contrariusest" still waiting for the controlled study. Your controlled studies only control for type of marriage, not for violence. If YOU understood what a control was you would know that to control for violence within the culture they would need to include a group that is not known for violence within its culture.

    According to George Washington University a controled study "A study that compares patients who have a outcome of interest (cases) with patients who do not have the outcome (controls), and looks back retrospectively to compare how frequently the exposure to a risk factor is present in each group to determine the relationship between the risk factor and the outcome."

    What study do you have (historical or not) that has controlled for violence within polygamy. You once said that polygamy should not be allowed because it is violent towards women and children. Yet in ALL of your studies they only look at violent cultures.

    Where is your controlled study that includes polygamists that are NOT MUSLIM OR FLDS RELATED groups? Your studies are NOT controlled because they do not include such groups.

    You ignore the basic fact that you do not have properly controlled studies.

  • Contrariusesterer mid-state, TN
    Nov. 1, 2013 10:34 a.m.

    @RedShirtUofU --

    "still waiting for the controlled study. Your controlled studies only control for type of marriage, not for violence. "

    Again -- Increased violence is the **result** when comparing polygamous families to monogamous families within the same culture. One doesn't control results, Red. Observing results is the reason for the research -- so controlling it would be self-defeating.

    "According to George Washington University..."

    Yup.

    Of course, they are talking about retrospective studies, rather than prospective studies.

    A retrospective study looks backwards -- chooses an outcome (for example, a disease) and then searches backward for any possible causes.

    A prospective study looks forwards -- chooses a condition (for example, polygamy) and then observes how that condition changes future outcomes.

    Naturally, the two types of studies are structured differently.

    Again -- please look up the concept of controlled studies. It is silly for you to continue making such ignorant statements when the facts are freely available to you. As it stands, you are only continuing to make yourself look more and more ridiculous.

  • RedShirtUofU Andoria, UT
    Nov. 1, 2013 1:40 p.m.

    To "Contrariusesterer" in violent cultures it is, but that really doesn't mean that polygamy itself is bad.

    You still don't have a controlled study that proves that polygamy is bad and that it is polygamy that causes any increase in violence. The cultures that are in your study still are not controlled for cultural issues like violence. No matter how much you deny this, it is still a fact that you have not provided or will admit to a study that shows that polygamy outside of violent cultures is bad.

    It doesn't matter if you are doing a retrospective study or a prospective study. If you do not have a control group (a group that does not display the characteristic being studied) then you have a biased study that is not controlled. The studies are not structured that different. Both require a control group for comparison.

    Where is your study even includes a control for violence, either retrospective or prospective.

    You have yet to offer any shred of evidence that polygamy is bad when entered into out of love and concent. If you can't provide that type of study, then you obviously have no clue.

  • stanJames Baltimore, MD
    Nov. 1, 2013 2:36 p.m.

    Teh ocnservatives are entitled to rant and rave and gnash their teeth but thw world is changing. Sri guys we[re no longer living in the 10th century of the dark ages

  • Contrariusesterer mid-state, TN
    Nov. 1, 2013 3:08 p.m.

    @RedShirtUofU --

    "..proves that polygamy is bad"

    Define "bad". Banana ice cream is "bad" in my book.

    "and that it is polygamy that causes... "

    Actually, I have tons of them. I've already shown you some. Would you like to see more?

    "...still are not controlled for cultural issues"

    Again -- Yes, those studies are.

    In these controlled studies, both the monogamous and polygamous families all live in the same culture. Therefore, the studies are indeed controlled for cultural issues. Your continued failure to understand doesn't affect the fact that they are indeed controlled.

    "you have not provided or will admit to a study that shows that polygamy outside of violent cultures is bad."

    You have not provided any evidence that a substantial number of plural marriages actually *exists* outside of "violent cultures".

    "It doesn't matter if you are doing a retrospective study or a prospective study."

    Of course it does.

    "Where is your study even includes a control for violence"

    Again -- Increased violence is the **result** when comparing polygamous families to monogamous families within the same culture. One doesn't control results, Red. Observing results is the reason for the research -- so controlling it would be self-defeating.

  • my3kids Laie, HI
    Nov. 2, 2013 5:04 a.m.

    On the issue of same sex marriage I feel really saddened with the way our mahu/fafa family and friends are jumping on the LGBT's bandwagon to legalize marriage. We in the islands have always been open and accepting of our homosexual friends because we all have one in our family or friend circle. There is so much love and tolerance shown towards them that it feels like a slap in the face. Also the "can of worms" that this bill would open up in our state is scary. We keep hearing those in favor of SB1 say "oh you're being paranoid, it won't get to that. We just want equal rights." We all see what happened and is still happening in the public school systems in those states that have passed ssm. It would be naive to think that this couldn't happen to Hawai'i as well. It's not just about love, or polygamy and incest would be legal, THIS IS A MORAL ISSUE, NOT A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE. Not every family is perfect, but research has shown that the biological mother and biological father households is the best situation in raising a children.

  • Contrariusesterer mid-state, TN
    Nov. 2, 2013 8:23 a.m.

    @my3kids --

    You say that you have "love and tolerance" for gays, but then you turn around and claim that gay marriage is a moral issue. How can you say that gay marriage is immoral at the same time that you claim to love your gay friends?

    "research has shown that the biological mother and biological father households is the best situation in raising a children."

    No it hasn't.

    Research has shown that a stable, two-parent home is best for kids. Research has NEVER shown that the gender or orientation of the parents makes a difference.

    As for Hawaii --

    "A January 2013 Honolulu Civil Beat poll found that 55% of Hawaii voters were in favor of same sex marriage, while 37% were opposed."

    "An August 2013 QMark Research poll found that 54% of Hawaii residents were in favor of same-sex marriage, while 31% were against."

    The people of Hawaii favor same-sex marriage by a 20% margin over those opposed.

  • Contrariusesterer mid-state, TN
    Nov. 2, 2013 8:59 a.m.

    Red -- Here's 200-word Cliff Notes on research methodology:

    1. Google these: prospective, cross-sectional, cohort, observational, field. Retrospective or clinical or case-control studies are quite different -- don't get confused.

    2. Researcher enters a culture. He identifies a cultural group. Some members are polygamous, some monogamous.

    3. Researcher matches the polygamists with the monogamists -- same culture, same religion, same area.

    4. The polygamists form the "experimental" or "test" or "treatment" group (or other terms that essentially mean the same). The monogamists form the "control" group. The monogamists provide the control, because they "control" for the effects of culture, religion, location. They form the baseline from which to measure the outcomes. Marital status is the "experimental variable" or "treatment" (or other terms that mean basically the same).

    5. Researcher looks for ways in which these two groups diverge after marriage. These are the "outcomes" or "results". Remember -- the groups were identical before they married, so any divergence after marriage is due to the type of marriage they entered into.

    6. With polygamy, that divergence includes increased violence, neglect, abuse, and/or poverty. Those are **outcomes**, not variables, not controls. One doesn't control outcomes -- one OBSERVES outcomes.

    I hope this helps!

  • my3kids Laie, HI
    Nov. 2, 2013 2:25 p.m.

    My love and tolerance for gays is something deeper you will ever understand. Just because I love them doesn't mean that I have to agree with allowing homosexual marriage in my state. Like I said it's different here, we are brought up to love everyone. This is a moral issue not a civil rights issue. This same argument could be made with polygamy or incest, it's natural or I had no choice. But why do we frown upon it? Because we feel that morally it's wrong. There is research that shows that the best situation for a child to grow up in would be in a biological mother and biological father household. But you don't hear about those research because it would solidify a case for the polygamist and families of incest. Passing SB1 will not only make homosexual marriage legal, it will make homosexuality law, this is where we disagree.

  • RedShirtUofU Andoria, UT
    Nov. 4, 2013 7:58 a.m.

    To "Contrariusesterer" you still have not found a study that meets your requirement for a controlled study that controls for violence. How do you know that polygamy is the cause since violence is a constant in all of the cultures? The studies that you quote do not look at compare polygamy within a violent culture to polygamy in a non-violent culture.

    All you studies find is that within a violent culture, polygamy is a source of increased violence. Just looking at marriage within those cultures, the incident rate of violence is already high, and by your standards should be banned.

    Where is your study that has a test group (polygamy in a violent group) and a control group (polygamy in a non-violent group) so that we can actually find out if it is polygamy that is the cause of incrased violence or if it is a cultural thing within the religion?

  • Contrariusiests mid-state, TN
    Nov. 4, 2013 10:55 a.m.

    @my3kids --

    "My love and tolerance for gays... "

    If you were sincere in your claim of love, you wouldn't even be using the word "tolerance". One "tolerates" something or someone that one dislikes -- not something or someone that you love.

    "This same argument could be made with polygamy or incest"

    No it couldn't. Polygamy and incest convey a significantly increased risk of harm to others. Gay marriage doesn't.

    "Because we feel that morally it's wrong."

    Sorry, but laws aren't based on animus -- that simple feeling that you don't like something. Laws are based on EFFECTS -- on whether something has good or bad RESULTS.

    Gay marriage doesn't harm anyone. Gay marriage DOES recognize the rights of all citizens to be treated equally under the law.

    "There is research that shows that the best situation for a child to grow up in would be in a biological mother and biological father household."

    No there isn't. If you believe there is, please name it. Be specific.

    "But you don't hear about those research because it would solidify a case for the polygamist and families of incest."

    That sentence doesn't even make sense.

  • Contrariusiests mid-state, TN
    Nov. 4, 2013 12:35 p.m.

    @RedShirtUofU --

    "you still have not found a study that meets your requirement for a controlled study that controls for violence. "

    Again -- Increased violence is the **result** when comparing polygamous families to monogamous families within the same culture. One doesn't control results, Red. Observing results is the reason for the research -- so controlling it would be self-defeating.

    "How do you know that polygamy is the cause since violence is a constant in all of the cultures? "

    Again -- the monogamous and polygamous families are essentially identical except for marital status. Therefore, if the researcher finds a difference in violence between one marital status and the other, there is only one possible cause.

    "The studies that you quote do not look at compare polygamy within a violent culture to polygamy in a non-violent culture."

    Of course not. If you tried that, there would be a bazillion confounding variables. (Google "confounding variables" to educate yourself.)

    Again -- PLEASE study the concept of controlled studies. It is silly for you to continue making such ignorant statements when the facts are freely available to you.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    Nov. 10, 2013 9:49 a.m.

    my3kids,

    If you really felt that strongly, as you seem to be, about children being raised by a nuclear family, when was the last time that organizations like NOM passed legislation preventing - say, divorce --- or prevented single parents from having children?