Frank, Its very easy to use the word ‘hate’ to characterize anyone who thinks the church is sticking its nose some place it DOES NOT BELONG. Its just not that simple is it.
It reminds me of the Jews who told other Jews not to hate their Nazi executioners.
Why in hell should a gay person not hate you? Are the hated ALWAYS innocent?
If you want to get real about HATE, get real about the hate coming from anti-gay bigots. Yes bigots.
I am not gay by the way. But I sure do lose respect for people who insist on following a VERY corrupt interpretation of the Bible out of blind obedience to some master when that ignorance leads to STICKING YOUR NOSE WHERE IT DOES NOT BELONG.
I hope one of your kids is lucky enough to be gay, so you may learn to love a gay child and realize how very evil your church is (on this issue).
Do you endorse Chris Buttars views? Do you count among your friends people who re-elected this bigot?
Surely there are other subjects that are more sorely in need of your voice for justice than defending a rich church that supports war, death and bigotry.
And Frank. You are a grown up. It IS bigotry by ANY definition. I am struggling with my respect for you and, your church. Really.
Can you help me not hate bigotry? I hate bigotry when it happens to Mormons. Or will you insist on calling it hate so you can stay in denial about your own troubled conscious.
#6 by Hillary the Mero [Paul] - November 10th, 2008 at 23:48
keith, with this comment, exposes the truth of the matter. in fact, conservative’s opposition to same sex marriage is born out of insecurity … insecurity in the collective conscience of conservative’s own failed marriages.
It’s about the heart of a child. No one, in all of your discussion here, has ever asked or even been concerned how free-for-all abortion and no-fault divorce have affected the hearts of children. I’ll answer it for you–not well at all.
And now you want to introduce another experiment upon children (because that’s what abortion and no-fault divorce have been and “homosexual marriage” will be) without even caring how it might affect the children.
Putting children into a brand new petri dish. How heartless.
Believe me, I save that response for only the MOST special occasions. And this would be one.
Your whole logic has gone haywire. Don’t you see what you are arguing for? You are saying that heterosexual marriages have been devastating to children. We must pass a constitutional amendment at once to outlaw them (heterosexual marriages, that is, not children)! In fact, you’ve put forth quit an argument against marriage of any sort.
What the “fetch”! You’ve gone to the Cliff Lyon School of Mind Readers!! Trust me, your diploma is worthless.
Heterosexual DIVORCES have been devastating to children. Please…I know you’re angry, because you think you have me all figured out. But you don’t. Open up your mind instead of running what I said through a narrow filter. I dare you to (1) read the articles I linked to above, and (2) then see if you still think that I think that heterosexual marriages have been devastating to children.
I did read both of your links (shameless self-promotion), and that’s why I wrote what I wrote. The way you try to tie those several issues together is a bit nonsensical.
Don’t worry, Frank, I feel no anger towards you whatsoever. I am just completely blown away by your logic.
#12 by Glenden Brown - November 11th, 2008 at 16:45
Frank – I’m still working my way through your posts but the idea that divorce is so traumatic that children never recover is an unproven conceit. A great many people whose parents divorced are just fine as adults. The problem is not divorce itself but the infantile behavior of many adults who go through divorces. Let me put it another way – when Mom and Dad turn into screeching banshees during a divorce and fight over every detail as if it is the end of the world, it’s hard on kids; these same adults would raise damaged kids if they stayed married. The problem is not divorce, it’s bad parenting.
I’m not saying divorce is easy, necessarily, but it doesn’t have to be an after school special.
Thanks for saying that, Glendon. I might add, some couples who stay married but have hostility toward one another also damage their children in those same ways. Frank the problem isn’t the institution of marriage itself. The problem isn’t with marriage or abortion, or the various issues raised in your articles. It is with adults not behaving like adults.
Frank, I urge you to read Glendon’s new post. He says it so well.
Look at it this way – outlawing same sex marriage doesn’t solve any social problems. It does not reduce the divorce rate, it does not prevent the spread of STIs, it does not strengthen any existing families, it doesn’t prevent a single act of child or spousal abuse.
Please read Judith Wallerstein’s book, “The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce” which is a 25-year study of the subjects of divorce. If you’re open to having your mind changed, I think it will after reading this book.
Becky’s quote of Glenden’s article is probably partially true. I disagree, though, as to whether it will strengthen existing families or prevent child or spousal abuse.
I think it’s been proven beyond doubt that the most nurturing (and thus socially effective) sort of family is the nuclear sort, where a caring father and mother both exist. Wallerstein’s book is not the only authoritative study on this phenomenon. So, instead of outlawing divorce, because there are rare circumstances where it is the best option, we should have never made it so easy and so inimical to children’s best interests, and we should stop kidding ourselves that it is somehow frequently the best choice. But just because we’ve messed up socially in the realm of divorce (and for that matter, free-for-all abortion, which hardly takes the life of the child into consideration in most cases) doesn’t mean we should put the government’s imprimatur on yet another style of family that is far from the ideal environment for children.
#16 by Glenden Brown - November 12th, 2008 at 13:50
Frank – in what ways will denying same sex couples the right to marry strengthen existing families? In what ways will it prevent child abuse?
Look at it this way, also: The social stigma around homosexuality has driven many gay and lesbian people to marry members of the opposite sex in a bid to keep their true orientation hidden (or because they’ve been told gettiung married will make it go away). After years of marriage, they find themselves unable to live a lie any loinger and they come out. The end result in fact is divorce and family chaos. By contrast, legalizing same sex marriage would reduce such marriages and lead to fewer divorces.
I understand you are being sarcastic, Becky, but I actually think this would be a good idea. If divorces were only allowed in conditions of adultery, abuse, etc., maybe people would be more inclined to stick it out and resolve their problems.
Glenden – Same-sex marriage may devalue opposite-sex marriage by reducing the social prestige and legal privilege of marriage, because of the social stigma around homosexuality. I don’t know if this would happen, but it’s a possibility. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry doesn’t strengthen marriage, but it may prevent some weakening of marriage by keeping it “respectable.”
Kevin, (I’m trying not to swear again!) just changing a few words, compare what you just said to the following:
Bi-racial marriage may devalue opposite-sex marriage by reducing the social prestige and legal privilege of marriage, because of the social stigma around bi-racial couples. I don’t know if this would happen, but it’s a possibility. Denying bi-racial couples the right to marry doesn’t strengthen marriage, but it may prevent some weakening of marriage by keeping it “respectable.”
Sounds pretty bigoted, no? Do you want to restate that?
Becky – The social stigma against homosexuality is bigoted. My point is that, when that stigma is transferred to marriage, bigoted people may not view marriage in such a prestigious light anymore. And let’s face it, there are a lot of bigots in this country.
Did racists think less of marriage after interracial marriage became legal? If so, then I think same-sex marriage will have a similar effect on public perception.
I imagine that if same-sex marriage becomes federal law, people will lobby for a reduction in the legal benefits in marriage. People who hate gays are really going to hate their tax money going to support gay marriages.
Kevin, your premise is ridiculous. People will continue to want to be married for all the reasons they did before. Allowing bi-racial couples to wed did not reduce the interest in marriage–even among bigots (unless you can show me some evidence to the contrary, but I know a lot of married bigots).
Please explain how tax money will be going to support gay marriage.
Becky – I was trying to explain how same-sex marriage weakens opposite-sex marriage. I know people will still want to get married. I just think that the social and legal power of that marriage is likely to be diminished.
I don’t mean to say that people will lose interest in getting married. I mean to say that they may be less willing to grant special social and legal privileges to married people if same-sex marriage becomes law. For example, a homophobic employer who is pressured to grant health benefits to gay partners may simply say “Fine, if you want equality, then I’m not going to pay for health benefits for anyone’s partner, gay or otherwise.”
Tax money would be going to support gay marriage via the ability to file taxes jointly. For most married couples, they pay less in taxes than they would if they were single and cohabiting. Also, there are social security survivor’s benefits, veteran’s benefits, and other things like that, wherein the government gives money to people’s spouses.
Weak arguments, Kevin. First of all, homophobic employers either don’t hire gays, or aren’t aware when they do. But they would be pretty stupid to discontinue a benefit that would send their workforce seeking other employment. Second, filing jointly might give a couple a very slightly lower tax, so they are possibly paying in less, if that’s what you’re trying to say. Until a few years ago, we had what was known as a marriage penalty in that the tax schedules favored single people over married filing jointly. The schedules have been more equalized and I doubt there is any great advantage now either way. Do you know?
I’d like to refer everyone on this thread to the very thoughtful and eloquent comment posted by Marv on another thread on OneUtah. It begins, “Although there seems to be an obsession with the word marriage, the bottom line is that the issue isn’t really about marriage or some specific or singular right attached to marriage. It’s about civil rights. The right not to face institutional discrimination.”
If both partners in a marriage work and have similar incomes, particularly high incomes, there is still a marriage penalty. They pay more than they would if they were single. For families like my own, in which I work and my wife doesn’t, there are substantial tax savings in being married filing jointly.
I’d also like to put in a plug for Marv’s comment which Becky linked to. It’s well worth reading.
No, I understood it. His main point is that the gay marriage movement’s goal is to have society respect a same-sex relationship in the same way they do a marriage, and he went on to support that idea.
I disagree with that goal, but I think he articulated it well.
#1 by Misty Fowler - November 10th, 2008 at 21:19
Keith made me cry with this one….
#2 by Cliff Lyon - November 10th, 2008 at 21:26
Timely statement, and right on.
I kinda lost it on Frank about heart, in a comment on another one of his desperate apologetic explanations for why everyone should be nice to the church about it.
#3 by Tom Singletary - November 10th, 2008 at 21:39
It really is an issue of the heart, and the state shouldn’t be involved in these kind of choices.
#4 by Cliff Lyon - November 10th, 2008 at 22:15
#5 by Becky Stauffer - November 10th, 2008 at 23:19
Olbermann leaves me with no words. How could anyone not be moved, not agree?
#6 by Hillary the Mero [Paul] - November 10th, 2008 at 23:48
keith, with this comment, exposes the truth of the matter. in fact, conservative’s opposition to same sex marriage is born out of insecurity … insecurity in the collective conscience of conservative’s own failed marriages.
#7 by Becky Stauffer - November 10th, 2008 at 23:54
There’s something to contemplate.
#8 by Frank Staheli - November 11th, 2008 at 14:42
Glenden,
You’re right, and Keith Olbermann is right…it’s about the heart.
Here’s why.
And here’s why.
It’s about the heart of a child. No one, in all of your discussion here, has ever asked or even been concerned how free-for-all abortion and no-fault divorce have affected the hearts of children. I’ll answer it for you–not well at all.
And now you want to introduce another experiment upon children (because that’s what abortion and no-fault divorce have been and “homosexual marriage” will be) without even caring how it might affect the children.
Putting children into a brand new petri dish. How heartless.
#9 by Becky Stauffer - November 11th, 2008 at 15:31
Frank! WTF!
Believe me, I save that response for only the MOST special occasions. And this would be one.
Your whole logic has gone haywire. Don’t you see what you are arguing for? You are saying that heterosexual marriages have been devastating to children. We must pass a constitutional amendment at once to outlaw them (heterosexual marriages, that is, not children)! In fact, you’ve put forth quit an argument against marriage of any sort.
Gosh, Frank, are things that bad at home?
#10 by Frank Staheli - November 11th, 2008 at 15:56
Becky,
What the “fetch”! You’ve gone to the Cliff Lyon School of Mind Readers!! Trust me, your diploma is worthless.
Heterosexual DIVORCES have been devastating to children. Please…I know you’re angry, because you think you have me all figured out. But you don’t. Open up your mind instead of running what I said through a narrow filter. I dare you to (1) read the articles I linked to above, and (2) then see if you still think that I think that heterosexual marriages have been devastating to children.
#11 by Becky Stauffer - November 11th, 2008 at 16:24
Frank,
Then maybe we need to pass a law against DIVORCE!
I did read both of your links (shameless self-promotion), and that’s why I wrote what I wrote. The way you try to tie those several issues together is a bit nonsensical.
Don’t worry, Frank, I feel no anger towards you whatsoever. I am just completely blown away by your logic.
#12 by Glenden Brown - November 11th, 2008 at 16:45
Frank – I’m still working my way through your posts but the idea that divorce is so traumatic that children never recover is an unproven conceit. A great many people whose parents divorced are just fine as adults. The problem is not divorce itself but the infantile behavior of many adults who go through divorces. Let me put it another way – when Mom and Dad turn into screeching banshees during a divorce and fight over every detail as if it is the end of the world, it’s hard on kids; these same adults would raise damaged kids if they stayed married. The problem is not divorce, it’s bad parenting.
I’m not saying divorce is easy, necessarily, but it doesn’t have to be an after school special.
#13 by Becky Stauffer - November 11th, 2008 at 16:51
Thanks for saying that, Glendon. I might add, some couples who stay married but have hostility toward one another also damage their children in those same ways. Frank the problem isn’t the institution of marriage itself. The problem isn’t with marriage or abortion, or the various issues raised in your articles. It is with adults not behaving like adults.
#14 by Becky Stauffer - November 11th, 2008 at 17:17
Frank, I urge you to read Glendon’s new post. He says it so well.
#15 by Frank Staheli - November 12th, 2008 at 13:17
Becky and Glenden,
Please read Judith Wallerstein’s book, “The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce” which is a 25-year study of the subjects of divorce. If you’re open to having your mind changed, I think it will after reading this book.
Becky’s quote of Glenden’s article is probably partially true. I disagree, though, as to whether it will strengthen existing families or prevent child or spousal abuse.
I think it’s been proven beyond doubt that the most nurturing (and thus socially effective) sort of family is the nuclear sort, where a caring father and mother both exist. Wallerstein’s book is not the only authoritative study on this phenomenon. So, instead of outlawing divorce, because there are rare circumstances where it is the best option, we should have never made it so easy and so inimical to children’s best interests, and we should stop kidding ourselves that it is somehow frequently the best choice. But just because we’ve messed up socially in the realm of divorce (and for that matter, free-for-all abortion, which hardly takes the life of the child into consideration in most cases) doesn’t mean we should put the government’s imprimatur on yet another style of family that is far from the ideal environment for children.
#16 by Glenden Brown - November 12th, 2008 at 13:50
Frank – in what ways will denying same sex couples the right to marry strengthen existing families? In what ways will it prevent child abuse?
Look at it this way, also: The social stigma around homosexuality has driven many gay and lesbian people to marry members of the opposite sex in a bid to keep their true orientation hidden (or because they’ve been told gettiung married will make it go away). After years of marriage, they find themselves unable to live a lie any loinger and they come out. The end result in fact is divorce and family chaos. By contrast, legalizing same sex marriage would reduce such marriages and lead to fewer divorces.
#17 by Kevin Owens - November 12th, 2008 at 14:06
I understand you are being sarcastic, Becky, but I actually think this would be a good idea. If divorces were only allowed in conditions of adultery, abuse, etc., maybe people would be more inclined to stick it out and resolve their problems.
Glenden – Same-sex marriage may devalue opposite-sex marriage by reducing the social prestige and legal privilege of marriage, because of the social stigma around homosexuality. I don’t know if this would happen, but it’s a possibility. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry doesn’t strengthen marriage, but it may prevent some weakening of marriage by keeping it “respectable.”
#18 by Becky Stauffer - November 12th, 2008 at 14:28
Kevin, (I’m trying not to swear again!) just changing a few words, compare what you just said to the following:
Bi-racial marriage may devalue opposite-sex marriage by reducing the social prestige and legal privilege of marriage, because of the social stigma around bi-racial couples. I don’t know if this would happen, but it’s a possibility. Denying bi-racial couples the right to marry doesn’t strengthen marriage, but it may prevent some weakening of marriage by keeping it “respectable.”
Sounds pretty bigoted, no? Do you want to restate that?
#19 by Becky Stauffer - November 12th, 2008 at 14:29
And by the way, many many people actual believed that statement back in the 50’s and 60’s and some yet today.
#20 by Kevin Owens - November 12th, 2008 at 16:02
Becky – The social stigma against homosexuality is bigoted. My point is that, when that stigma is transferred to marriage, bigoted people may not view marriage in such a prestigious light anymore. And let’s face it, there are a lot of bigots in this country.
Did racists think less of marriage after interracial marriage became legal? If so, then I think same-sex marriage will have a similar effect on public perception.
I imagine that if same-sex marriage becomes federal law, people will lobby for a reduction in the legal benefits in marriage. People who hate gays are really going to hate their tax money going to support gay marriages.
#21 by Becky Stauffer - November 12th, 2008 at 16:13
Kevin, your premise is ridiculous. People will continue to want to be married for all the reasons they did before. Allowing bi-racial couples to wed did not reduce the interest in marriage–even among bigots (unless you can show me some evidence to the contrary, but I know a lot of married bigots).
Please explain how tax money will be going to support gay marriage.
#22 by Kevin Owens - November 12th, 2008 at 16:25
Becky – I was trying to explain how same-sex marriage weakens opposite-sex marriage. I know people will still want to get married. I just think that the social and legal power of that marriage is likely to be diminished.
I don’t mean to say that people will lose interest in getting married. I mean to say that they may be less willing to grant special social and legal privileges to married people if same-sex marriage becomes law. For example, a homophobic employer who is pressured to grant health benefits to gay partners may simply say “Fine, if you want equality, then I’m not going to pay for health benefits for anyone’s partner, gay or otherwise.”
Tax money would be going to support gay marriage via the ability to file taxes jointly. For most married couples, they pay less in taxes than they would if they were single and cohabiting. Also, there are social security survivor’s benefits, veteran’s benefits, and other things like that, wherein the government gives money to people’s spouses.
#23 by Becky Stauffer - November 12th, 2008 at 17:12
Weak arguments, Kevin. First of all, homophobic employers either don’t hire gays, or aren’t aware when they do. But they would be pretty stupid to discontinue a benefit that would send their workforce seeking other employment. Second, filing jointly might give a couple a very slightly lower tax, so they are possibly paying in less, if that’s what you’re trying to say. Until a few years ago, we had what was known as a marriage penalty in that the tax schedules favored single people over married filing jointly. The schedules have been more equalized and I doubt there is any great advantage now either way. Do you know?
I’d like to refer everyone on this thread to the very thoughtful and eloquent comment posted by Marv on another thread on OneUtah. It begins, “Although there seems to be an obsession with the word marriage, the bottom line is that the issue isn’t really about marriage or some specific or singular right attached to marriage. It’s about civil rights. The right not to face institutional discrimination.”
#24 by Kevin Owens - November 12th, 2008 at 17:22
If both partners in a marriage work and have similar incomes, particularly high incomes, there is still a marriage penalty. They pay more than they would if they were single. For families like my own, in which I work and my wife doesn’t, there are substantial tax savings in being married filing jointly.
I’d also like to put in a plug for Marv’s comment which Becky linked to. It’s well worth reading.
#25 by ldsnomore - November 13th, 2008 at 11:32
Kevin,
I think you misunderstood Marv’s comment
#26 by Kevin Owens - November 14th, 2008 at 10:37
No, I understood it. His main point is that the gay marriage movement’s goal is to have society respect a same-sex relationship in the same way they do a marriage, and he went on to support that idea.
I disagree with that goal, but I think he articulated it well.