Celebration Of Marriage Slc Ut March 26

[Brenda]

I'm not aware of anyone who at some point in their life didn't feel the loss of someone they loved or might have loved.

And, yes, it would be wonderful if we could assure that every child had a loving, secure two-parent home with equally loved siblings (since some only children also feel a void). Until then, what to do?

We can only do our best.

[Brenda]

When you are forced to say that a convicted murder would make a better parent for a child simply because the child would have a mother and a father than Suze Orman and her partner, your logic has problems with the majority of Americans that believe in fairness.

That is not what I said, and you know it. Keep the argument fair. A functional, loving heterosexual couple (preferably the bio-parents) VS a loving, functional gay couple. Convicted murderers have no place here, any more than gay pedophiles do.

[Damien the Leper]

This is classic. Leftism has always been bent on demonizing the right. And they are masters at checking reason, facts, and mutual respect at the door, and then commencing to sling the mud.

To be clear, I'm not an Obama supporter. Also, "Rightism" is just as guilty as the Left for demonization. It was you who provided a slippery slope argument in an earlier post. I remember the Prop 8 ads...what a joke! You have failed to provide sufficient reason to disallow marriage equality and adoption. If you can't do better than religious tradition and gender then you have bigger problems to deal with.

ETA: My future "gay marriage" and adoption/surrogate method of having children will NOT affect anyone's "straight marriage". That is just asinine and uneducated.

[california boy]

That is not what I said, and you know it. Keep the argument fair. A functional, loving heterosexual couple (preferably the bio-parents) VS a loving, functional gay couple. Convicted murderers have no place here, any more than gay pedophiles do.

The Supreme Court has ruled that even murderers in prison have a civil right to marry. When you make the statement that no gay couple should ever be allowed to marry and raise children, you are indeed saying that while it is legal for a murderer to marry and have children it should never be legal for Suze Orman to marry.

The problem with your stance is you have to own up to the implications of the agenda you are pushing. You are saying way more then "a functional, loving heterosexual couple (preferably the bio-parents) VS a loving, functional gay couple." when you state that gay couples should NEVER marry or raise children unless of course you are changing your stance and saying that there are definitely times when a gay couple is preferred over some straight couples. And I am also hoping that you are changing you stance that it is preferrable for a gay couple to be allowed to raise those children in the bonds of marrriage rather than being forced to shack up.

[Brenda]

To be clear, I'm not an Obama supporter. Also, "Rightism" is just as guilty as the Left for demonization. It was you who provided a slippery slope argument in an earlier post. I remember the Prop 8 ads...what a joke! You have failed to provide sufficient reason to disallow marriage equality and adoption. If you can't do better than religious tradition and gender then you have bigger problems to deal with.

There are the rude in every group, unfortunately. But conservatives have been given every label in the book, such as stupid, uneducated (see below), bigoted, haters, prejudiced, war-mongers, homophobes, racist, politically incorrect, gun-lovers. You name it. Far more mud-slinging from the liberal left, than from the conservative right. Remember the election? Romney portrayed Obama as a good family man, but a bad president. Obama portrayed Romney as a women-hater, cancer-causing, rich and out-of-touch elite who hates the poor. It was insane, but the voters bought it.

ETA: My future "gay marriage" and adoption/surrogate method of having children will NOT affect anyone's "straight marriage". That is just asinine and uneducated.

No, it will not affect anyone else's marriage, but your children will lose a parent, and assuming you are a man, will never be allowed to have a mother.

[Damien the Leper]

No, it will not affect anyone else's marriage, but your children will lose a parent, and assuming you are a man, will never be allowed to have a mother.

You've got to get over this gender issue.

[Brenda]

The Supreme Court has ruled that even murderers in prison have a civil right to marry. When you make the statement that no gay couple should ever be allowed to marry and raise children, you are indeed saying that while it is legal for a murderer to marry and have children it should never be legal for Suze Orman to marry.

The problem with your stance is you have to own up to the implications of the agenda you are pushing. You are saying way more then "a functional, loving heterosexual couple (preferably the bio-parents) VS a loving, functional gay couple." unless of course you are changing your stance and saying that there are definitely times when a gay couple is preferred over a straight couple. And I am also hoping that you are changing you stance that it is preferrable for a gay couple to shack up rather than be allowed to marry. I am guessing you did not watch the link.

I have always said that gay couples can be loving & stable, and can do a fabulous job raising children. As can a single parent. That is not the point. I'm talking about the simple fact that children need both their mom and dad. And if deprived of either, they will very likely feel a loss. And it's not as if a gay couple is the only other option when the "straight" couple fails. Let children have their own bio-parents, so that they can can have their own mom and dad, and never have to feel denied anything. If that is not possible, then replicate it as best you can with an adoptee mother and father. And I have always said, a gay home is better than no home. There will always be exceptions, but I am talking about the welfare of children in general, and the need to protect this basic family framework.

Personally, I don't think gays should marry because I don't believe that homosexual behavior is right. I believe in the Bible. There is nothing sinful about the attraction. I also don't think they should live together in any situation that invites sexual activity, just as I don't think that anyone who is unmarried should shack up. I believe the laws of morality apply to everyone equally. But I cannot force morality upon anyone, so I can't object to civil unions. That's their choice and their right.

But when children are involved, who cannot speak up for themselves .... how can I just stand by? They are being put in situations of great personal loss, through no choice of their own. They are purposely put in homes and denied being raised by their mother .... or their father. It's not fair to them, nor is it right. Who has the right to purposely do that to ANYONE?

We are the adults. We have the responsibility to put our own wants and desires aside, buck up, and do what's best for our kids. NO sex outside of marriage. Choose, as best you can, the best person you can find whom to marry and conceive children, and commit to stay together through "better or worse". Make the right choices, because your innocent children depend on it!

If you choose not to marry someone of the opposite sex, then don't have children. Or give a much-needed home to a child who would otherwise never have one. Will you miss out on the privilege and joy of a loving, committed, married relationship? For this life, probably yes, and that's a heart-wrenching tragedy. But this life is only a blink of an eye when you take in eternity. And this Bible-believing Christian believes that all who do their best to obey God's laws, will eventually have everything they desire. God loves you every darn bit as much as he loves me, and wants you to have all that He can give you. But sadly, some have to wait longer. Why? I just don't know.

I wrote my complete feelings on the subject in my blog. http://amormoncampaign.blogspot.com/2012/08/this-mormons-view-on-gays.html

[Brenda]

You've got to get over this gender issue.

Why? Because it doesn't work for you? Because I say that BOTH are important in parenting? Trust me, those children you plan to have, will come with one gender or the other. Can't avoid it. And they will know if they are the same as you, or are different than you. And they will live in a world of the two genders. And they will know that out there, somewhere, someone contributed a sperm, or an egg, and whose DNA they carry, and they will very likely want to know more. Why? Because they are human, with emotions and needs and curiosity. If you deny them their mother, they will feel a loss.

[Damien the Leper]

Why? Because it doesn't work for you? Because I say that BOTH are important in parenting?

Why did you have to make this about me? I recognize that same gender parents and differing gender parents are fully capable of raising a child appropriately. I'm not so ignorant as to dispute that. Also, marriage in America shouldn't be about religion or gender. It should be about love. Families are about love.

[Brenda]

Double post

[Brenda]

Why did you have to make this about me? I recognize that same gender parents and differing gender parents are fully capable of raising a child appropriately. I'm not so ignorant as to dispute that. Also, marriage in America shouldn't be about religion or gender. It should be about love. Families are about love.

And what is real love? It is selfless. It is commitment. It is sacrifice. It puts others before you. Love for a child puts their needs ahead of yours. It is wanting the best for them, and doing everything in your power to make it happen, even if you have to sacrifice your own wants.

[Brenda]

It was Reinhold Reince Priebus the Chairman of the Republican National Committee that called on Republicans to change their messaging so as not to come off as stupid, uneducated, bigoted, haters, prejudiced, war-mongers, homophobes, racist, politically incorrect, gun-lovers.

http://www.guardian....e-2016-election

"The report says: "Public perception of the party is at record lows. Young voters are increasingly rolling their eyes at what the party represents, and many minorities wrongly think that Republicans do not like them or want them in the country. "

Emphasis, mine. "Wrongly". The smear campaign worked.

[Damien the Leper]

And what is real love? It is selfless. It is commitment. It is sacrifice. It puts others before you. Love for a child puts their needs ahead of yours. It is wanting the best for them, and doing everything in your power to make it happen, even if you have to sacrifice your own wants.

I completely agree with you so long as you're not making biased assumptions or assertions proposed by perceived religious and so-called "traditional" ethics.

[GingerRed]

Here's an interesting take.....a GAY man AGAINST same sex marriage....!

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9432/

Red

[Ron Beron]

There was a time with disagreeing with others did not mean we hate them...that day sadly has past. I have a gay child whom I talk with 3 or 4 times weeks and see her every Sunday. Anytime I ask her to come to Church with me, she does so when she is always warmly received...all know she is gay, but they love her and she loves them. I know a single Mormon who hates gays. There is no death I would not suffer for her, none of my other children makes me laugh more. She is my blood and I love her beyond measure. Anytime groups accuse Mormons wholesale my heart is broken. I can't help but love her, nor anyone who knows her...my poem to her ended...

No matter what thy singing,

Thy music can't be wrong.

For laughter is thy lyric,

And beautiful is thy song.

It is entitled "Alicia's Song.

Very nice. I am getting all kinds of grief from my son et al for my stance on marriage in general and SSM specifically. I am a libertarian on this matter and feel that people should be able to do what they want without the uber regulation of the government. When we try and coerce we lose the love we have for other especially those who matter.

[california boy]

I have always said that gay couples can be loving & stable, and can do a fabulous job raising children. As can a single parent. That is not the point. I'm talking about the simple fact that children need both their mom and dad. And if deprived of either, they will very likely feel a loss. And it's not as if a gay couple is the only other option when the "straight" couple fails. Let children have their own bio-parents, so that they can can have their own mom and dad, and never have to feel denied anything. If that is not possible, then replicate it as best you can with an adoptee mother and father. And I have always said, a gay home is better than no home. There will always be exceptions, but I am talking about the welfare of children in general, and the need to protect this basic family framework.

I don't disagree with much of this statement. I only disagree with the supreme importance you seem to want to put to gender roles. While I agree it is a factor, I don't think it is the over riding factor you seem to want to put on it.

Personally, I don't think gays should marry because I don't believe that homosexual behavior is right. I believe in the Bible. There is nothing sinful about the attraction. I also don't think they should live together in any situation that invites sexual activity, just as I don't think that anyone who is unmarried should shack up. I believe the laws of morality apply to everyone equally. But I cannot force morality upon anyone, so I can't object to civil unions. That's their choice and their right.

I can respect a religious belief for being against gay marriage much more than the belief that you are protecting the children by not allowing gay marriage. Though you will have to explain to me how preventing gay couples from marrying makes anyone more moral. Is a gay couple more moral if they are not allowed to marry? Are you more moral if you don't allow a gay couple to marry? Are heterosexual couples who marry more moral because gay couples are not allow to marry? Just what is it that makes anyone more moral by not allowing gay couples to marry?

But when children are involved, who cannot speak up for themselves .... how can I just stand by? They are being put in situations of great personal loss, through no choice of their own. They are purposely put in homes and denied being raised by their mother .... or their father. It's not fair to them, nor is it right. Who has the right to purposely do that to ANYONE?

When children are involved, who wouldn't speak up for them? Do you think that gay couples do not want to protect and love children? I don't think you do. I certainly would agree that divorce is not fair to them. Abandoning them by their bio parents is not fair. Every child deserves parents that love them unconditional. If I had my way, I would give each person one chance at marriage. If they ever divorce, the would not be allowed to every marry again. They have already proven that they don't value their commitment to God or to their children.

We are the adults. We have the responsibility to put our own wants and desires aside, buck up, and do what's best for our kids. NO sex outside of marriage. Choose, as best you can, the best person you can find whom to marry and conceive children, and commit to stay together through "better or worse". Make the right choices, because your innocent children depend on it.

Of course I also agree with this statement. It is the 50% failure of heterosexual marriages that is the real villain robbing children of what they deserve. Gay couples bringing in abandoned children into their lives and providing them a loving home is not the ones you should be targeting. In fact, if you cared about those children as well, why wouldn't you want to do all you could to encourage and support those gay couples to marry and be in a legal committed relationship? Brenda, if you really do care about the best interest of children, I think you really do need to rethink your criteria of how to care for those children who can not speak for themselves. Justice Kennedy asked those defending Prop 8 "what about the 40,000 children of those gay parents? Don't they deserve to have marriage?" You should be fighting for all couples to have the right to marry. You can still disapprove of homosexual behavior, but still want to do what is best for the children.

If you choose not to marry someone of the opposite sex, then don't have children. Or give a much-needed home to a child who would otherwise never have one. Will you miss out on the privilege and joy of a loving, committed, married relationship?

I think if you are in a homosexual relationship, you are pretty much assured you won't be bringing children into this world. But why wouldn't gay couples give "a much-needed home to a child who would otherwise never have one"?

For this life, probably yes, and that's a heart-wrenching tragedy. But this life is only a blink of an eye when you take in eternity. And this Bible-believing Christian believes that all who do their best to obey God's laws, will eventually have everything they desire. God loves you every darn bit as much as he loves me, and wants you to have all that He can give you. But sadly, some have to wait longer. Why? I just don't know.

I agree that this life is but a short blink of an eye. The problem I have is spending eternity with a woman is just simply something I have absolutely no interest in doing. So what is there that the plan of salvation offers me as a gay man? Wandering this life all alone without that special person to spend life's joys would be hell on earth and hell after I die. So if I am going to hell when I die because I choose to love my boyfriend in this life, then I am completely at peace in knowing that what God has in store for me will be the right thing. I kinda feel like Joseph who said he would go to the depths of hell if that is where Emma was.

I wrote my complete feelings on the subject in my blog. http://amormoncampaign.blogspot.com/2012/08/this-mormons-view-on-gays.html

[Tacenda]

I see what both Cal boy and Brenda are saying. And ask the question.. isn't it ok to adopt or even have a surrogate mother have your baby with artificial insemination if your single? It seems many single folks are doing this. Maybe one day there will be a parther of the opposite sex come along to help raise the child, but they're still not quite that bonded and maybe it won't happen and the child will be raised by a single parent. Wouldn't the gay couple be better off married? So doesn't it matter not whether you're married to be able to adopt? And wouldn't it be grand if there were less children in foster care if the majority of the gay couples adopt since it's an epidemic, the thousands of children who are in foster care. Most heterosexual couples try to adopt babies. IMO, the gay union might last longer when married and be better for the child and "look" better for the child. So in this instance, aren't we looking for the best for the child?

[ERayR]

I see what both Cal boy and Brenda are saying. And ask the question.. isn't it ok to adopt or even have a surrogate mother have your baby with artificial insemination if your single?

It may be legal but IMNSHO it is not OK.

[Tacenda]

It may be legal but IMNSHO it is not OK.

I agree, but since it's legal, maybe those children can have a married couple, even a gay couple raise them, speaking of course about the children in foster care.

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.guardian....e-2016-election

"The report says: "Public perception of the party is at record lows. Young voters are increasingly rolling their eyes at what the party represents, and many minorities wrongly think that Republicans do not like them or want them in the country. "

Emphasis, mine. "Wrongly". The smear campaign worked.

If you perceive that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck. Chances are real good that it is a duck.

It was "Bobby" Jindal Republican governor of Louisiana that said "Republicans have to stop being the stupid party". Show me what you do. I'll know what you believe.

[Daniel2]

Kudos to Marie Osmond. I look forward to someday attending a pro-family rally in Utah celebrating and encouraging marriage for all consensual couples and their families, straight or gay. [media=]

[Brenda]

This is a difficult discussion to have because we are not communicating well. Try as I might, apparently I am not being clear. So let me just go back to the basics.

It takes one man and one woman to create a child. That child will inevitably feel a powerful bond, a connection with that man and woman, because they are his/her link to the past and to his/her identity. This is a natural human reality, that sets us above animals. We have a natural bond with our parents who created us. Therefore, it is best for that child to maintain that bond within a family unit. If deprived of this, MOST will feel a curiousity or a yearning in varying degrees, to know where they came from and who they are.

Every child has the right to his/her own parents. Therefore, both parents have a Godly mandated responsibility to raise that child in love and stability. We are human beings and not pets to be traded here and there, abandoned by one parent and adopted by another, because of someone's whims or desires. Or created in a lab, or from anonymously donated DNA. This robs the child of that which is so fundamental to his soul and being -- his own mother, and his own father.

When this is not possible, then the child needs the closest thing to it. Of course love is vital. But real love is a commitment to the child's welfare first and foremost. No divorce or breakup of the family. No separation of a child from a parent. Put the parent's selfish wants aside and keep that home intact. If you cannot commit to this, then don't bring a child into the world.

And do not split from your child's other parent, shack up with a new partner, bring your child into this new home, and then expect society to take on risk by changing centuries-old standards to accommodate what you've done. Yes, your child needs married parents! You should have made that happen with the person with whom you conceived the child!

Keeping marriage as it has always been, promotes the rights of children to be nurtured and raised by their own mother and father. It is to protect children, who are our greatest and most precious resource. Our society needs this, otherwise we will descend into areas we cannot foresee. We will step onto uncharted ground, which was rejected by every generation that has preceded us. No major culture, society, or religion, throughout history, has accepted gay marriage. Are we smarter than all of them? I strongly doubt it.

[california boy]

Keeping marriage as it has always been, promotes the rights of children to be nurtured and raised by their own mother and father. It is to protect children, who are our greatest and most precious resource. Our society needs this, otherwise we will descend into areas we cannot foresee. We will step onto uncharted ground, which was rejected by every generation that has preceded us. No major culture, society, or religion, throughout history, has accepted gay marriage. Are we smarter than all of them? I strongly doubt it.

Brenda, it is not a matter of bad communication, it is a matter of a flawed position. Look, there is nothing that I would rather see then all bio parents committing in marriage to have children that they care for and nurture throughout their lives. But that is not what happens in life. Let's take the whole gay marriage off the table for a moment. Do you feel the government is the big brother who forces people to stay togeether for the sake of the children. Does government sterilize drug users to prevent them from bringing unwanted damaged children whose bodies are addicted the moment they are born into this world. Does government provide an agent when teenagers get together to prevent teen pregnancy? When parents want to divorce, does the government say sorry you can never divorce and you must remain in the home and raise your children for the rest of your lives Do we pass laws to encourage all of these measures for the sake of the children? Should we? Would it be in the best interest of the children? You seem to be stating that the government should play a role in preserving the ideal environment that you paint for chldren. So just what role do you see the government playing in solving these problems. So for the sake of discussion, let's take the whole gay card off the table. Now since your position seems to be that the government should encourage the ideal family, just what measures should the government take to address your concerns. Like I said, try giving us solutions without playing the gay card and let's see where we get. Because I personally would love to here some governmental solutions to the real problems with straight marriage.

[thesometimesaint]

CB:

Here is a few of my ideas.

1. Mandatory premarital classes for all High School students. To include, but not limited to, how much time, effort and work are involved in infant/child care, budget balancing, housework, and dealing with unrealistic expectations

2. Mandatory sex education classes. Starting in Kindergarten talking about appropriate touching and inappropriate touching.

3. Serious financial support for families in need. Including educational and job training skills.

4. Mandatory marriage counseling for those contemplating divorce.

[bluebell]

We tried number three during Johnson's war on poverty vit was a bit if a disaster.