I am an outside observer who lives in another country with the same debate going on. I also live in a country that has compulsary voting (which on a political world scale means it is both more and less democratic than your system) so I find it very interesting and also disturbing that people are unwilling to go to the ballot box on such issues. Having lived in many countries I've noticed all laws are based in morality and the values of that specific country or culture., Therefore all laws impose values on others, that is the nature of them. So with this in mind, and as some who is from a country where everybody votes, it is unfathomable that the proposal of a new law (or new value) would not encourage and even require that all viewpoints and all sections of society take their vote to the table to be voted upon. That's democracy-it is a majority vote that wins afterall. It is even necessary to vote as it is without a doubt, an individualistic society that changes the definition of marriage to mean only love. A very first world problem in my view. Do we want an individualistic society high on personal agency or a community based society high on concern for family, tradition and others first? Unlike the US and many other westernised countries, not all societies are high on individual values but value community and the sacrifice of personal happiness for community cohesiveness. Whatever a westerner may think about love/gay marriages, it is clear we value personal, individual happiness and selfish desires (from a non western perspective) first and foremost. So should we vote on our morals? Of course because again I reiterate, all laws are legally enforced morals, (whether we think they are or not). In fact, having lived in the US it is noticable how many American laws are morally different from Australian laws. Just a short history of marriage, starting from industrial families in the 1900's to the nuclear family to now, we can easily track the change in laws, which changed with changing morals which in turn have/will change future morals. And for those who do not know world history, thats not a belief, it's a social fact. So YES, of course take your own values and morals to the political table- everyone else is taking theirs. That is what a true democracy is, all voices are heard, all voices count and all voices are voted, the majority vote may then become law. It is nothing to be ashamed about. All laws will give freedom to some and will take away freedom from others- In this case the right of children to have a mother and father as set out under the conventions of marriage. Can an unborn child have a voice? No. What do you think is best? There is always a higher law, what one is the higher law for you? Whatever it is, vote on it. That is democracy. It is not bigotry. Should the definition of marriage stay the same or should we change it? Let us call a spade a spade- We change the definition of marriage or we don't. If we don't relationships will still be created outside of that, at the will and agency of those who want it ie. single parent, same sex couples, de facto all fall outside the concept of traditional families and marriage. But throw words like equality and bigotry out the window because quite frankly it is about neither, it is about a change in a social norm.
MAry Fielding SummerhaysJuly 2, 2013
Graeme Cray, I would be pleased to help you in any way possible. Please contact me at [email protected] so we can talk more. Thanks, Mary
Mary Fielding SummerhaysJuly 1, 2013
Sharee. Great question! Ironically, It is gay marriage that is imposing a lifestyle onto children. Whether it was God, biology or nature, every child was promised a mother and a father. Gay marriage interrupts and ends that relationship for a child. Contrary to the other sentiments expressed here, no one is (currently) imposing anything on any heterosexual or homosexual. In all 50 states people are free to live and to love as they choose. They can join a liberal church who blesses their union. The only imposition comes when the LGBT lobby redefines marriage for the rest of us, ending our gender-based rights including a child's right to know his mother and father, and ending our religious freedom to define our own religious ordinances, and ideals.
#2. Heterosexuals are obviously free to waive their right to marry, and to waive the protections marriage provides. I believe it is cruel to the children they create in such a situation. While these adults have neglected a child's need for a father, they have not institutionally denied or discouraged it for society. On the other hand, removing gender from the law- or "Gay marriage" defines ALL men and women (gay or straight, mother and fathers) as exchangeable units. It requires government to promote that uniformity- discouraging and perhaps ending every child's right to the 2 unique relationships of "mother" and "father."
MAry Fielding SummerhaysJuly 1, 2013
Graeme Cray, I would be pleased to help you in any way possible. Please contact me at [email protected] so we can talk more. Thanks, Mary
Les WhiteJune 27, 2013
Very good article! I will share this on my Facebook and Tea Party Website!
Op Ed.June 27, 2013
"...children deserve both a mother and a father, though true, does no always happen."
Actually, it is a fact of human biology that it always does happen. Every child on the earth has exactly one mother and one father. That some parents, particularly unwed parents, don't live up to their obligations to their child is no reason to abandon marriage or to turn it into an adult-centric institution. Marriage establishes norms of behavior such as fidelity and permanence that encourage parents to live up to the obligations they create when they create children.
tim buckleyJune 26, 2013
Excellent reasoning. Yes, every child needs a father and mother. Will print this article off and use it for talking points when discussing the issue why traditional marriage is so important. Thank you,
D.R.June 25, 2013
Sharee - what is wrong with "imposing" our standards on all when our 'Standards" are correct. Remember that we are commanded to WARN all nations.
JimJune 25, 2013
To Sharee, the law "imposes" standards on the citizens all the time. Marriage has "imposed" a standard of marriage for thousands of years. Why are we suddenly scared to enforce laws that are good for children?
Robert SiskJune 25, 2013
Leaving children aside for the moment: in general terms, men and women have different thought processes. One is not better than the other, just different. Ponder for a moment the everyday social scenes. Easily seen is that male/male interaction is different from female/female interaction. And both of those differ from male/female interaction. These situations hold true right down to small children. On the adult level, if love and sex are thrown into the mix the differences between the three relationships become even more stark. Marriage itself is not a civil right, but is and always has been the very definition of a committed male/female relationship. Any civil rights assumed are specific to that definition. Let us not change that definition, but ensure that existing Civil Union and Domestic Partnership ordinances have the civil rights provisions needed for same-sex unions.
Robert Sisk
Chandler, AZ
ShareeJune 25, 2013
I do not believe in gay marriage, but your argument that children deserve both a mother and a father, though true, does no always happen. Many children are born out of wedlock and know only a mother. Many couples have children who are just living together and not married and for whom sexual exclusivity is not part of their philosophy (just watch Dr. Phi a time or two). I think it is important to strengthen the morals of the nation, but how do we do that without "imposing" our standards on others?.
Graeme CrayJune 25, 2013
Dear Sister Summerhayes, I am with LDS Public Affairs in Melbourne Australia and would like to print and distribute your great Q&A article amongst pro-family groups here. May I have your permission to use it with full accreditation to yourself and your organisation ? Graeme Cray.
Comments | Return to Story
SarahAugust 21, 2013
I am an outside observer who lives in another country with the same debate going on. I also live in a country that has compulsary voting (which on a political world scale means it is both more and less democratic than your system) so I find it very interesting and also disturbing that people are unwilling to go to the ballot box on such issues. Having lived in many countries I've noticed all laws are based in morality and the values of that specific country or culture., Therefore all laws impose values on others, that is the nature of them. So with this in mind, and as some who is from a country where everybody votes, it is unfathomable that the proposal of a new law (or new value) would not encourage and even require that all viewpoints and all sections of society take their vote to the table to be voted upon. That's democracy-it is a majority vote that wins afterall. It is even necessary to vote as it is without a doubt, an individualistic society that changes the definition of marriage to mean only love. A very first world problem in my view. Do we want an individualistic society high on personal agency or a community based society high on concern for family, tradition and others first? Unlike the US and many other westernised countries, not all societies are high on individual values but value community and the sacrifice of personal happiness for community cohesiveness. Whatever a westerner may think about love/gay marriages, it is clear we value personal, individual happiness and selfish desires (from a non western perspective) first and foremost. So should we vote on our morals? Of course because again I reiterate, all laws are legally enforced morals, (whether we think they are or not). In fact, having lived in the US it is noticable how many American laws are morally different from Australian laws. Just a short history of marriage, starting from industrial families in the 1900's to the nuclear family to now, we can easily track the change in laws, which changed with changing morals which in turn have/will change future morals. And for those who do not know world history, thats not a belief, it's a social fact. So YES, of course take your own values and morals to the political table- everyone else is taking theirs. That is what a true democracy is, all voices are heard, all voices count and all voices are voted, the majority vote may then become law. It is nothing to be ashamed about. All laws will give freedom to some and will take away freedom from others- In this case the right of children to have a mother and father as set out under the conventions of marriage. Can an unborn child have a voice? No. What do you think is best? There is always a higher law, what one is the higher law for you? Whatever it is, vote on it. That is democracy. It is not bigotry. Should the definition of marriage stay the same or should we change it? Let us call a spade a spade- We change the definition of marriage or we don't. If we don't relationships will still be created outside of that, at the will and agency of those who want it ie. single parent, same sex couples, de facto all fall outside the concept of traditional families and marriage. But throw words like equality and bigotry out the window because quite frankly it is about neither, it is about a change in a social norm.
MAry Fielding SummerhaysJuly 2, 2013
Graeme Cray, I would be pleased to help you in any way possible. Please contact me at [email protected] so we can talk more. Thanks, Mary
Mary Fielding SummerhaysJuly 1, 2013
Sharee. Great question! Ironically, It is gay marriage that is imposing a lifestyle onto children. Whether it was God, biology or nature, every child was promised a mother and a father. Gay marriage interrupts and ends that relationship for a child. Contrary to the other sentiments expressed here, no one is (currently) imposing anything on any heterosexual or homosexual. In all 50 states people are free to live and to love as they choose. They can join a liberal church who blesses their union. The only imposition comes when the LGBT lobby redefines marriage for the rest of us, ending our gender-based rights including a child's right to know his mother and father, and ending our religious freedom to define our own religious ordinances, and ideals. #2. Heterosexuals are obviously free to waive their right to marry, and to waive the protections marriage provides. I believe it is cruel to the children they create in such a situation. While these adults have neglected a child's need for a father, they have not institutionally denied or discouraged it for society. On the other hand, removing gender from the law- or "Gay marriage" defines ALL men and women (gay or straight, mother and fathers) as exchangeable units. It requires government to promote that uniformity- discouraging and perhaps ending every child's right to the 2 unique relationships of "mother" and "father."
MAry Fielding SummerhaysJuly 1, 2013
Graeme Cray, I would be pleased to help you in any way possible. Please contact me at [email protected] so we can talk more. Thanks, Mary
Les WhiteJune 27, 2013
Very good article! I will share this on my Facebook and Tea Party Website!
Op Ed.June 27, 2013
"...children deserve both a mother and a father, though true, does no always happen." Actually, it is a fact of human biology that it always does happen. Every child on the earth has exactly one mother and one father. That some parents, particularly unwed parents, don't live up to their obligations to their child is no reason to abandon marriage or to turn it into an adult-centric institution. Marriage establishes norms of behavior such as fidelity and permanence that encourage parents to live up to the obligations they create when they create children.
tim buckleyJune 26, 2013
Excellent reasoning. Yes, every child needs a father and mother. Will print this article off and use it for talking points when discussing the issue why traditional marriage is so important. Thank you,
D.R.June 25, 2013
Sharee - what is wrong with "imposing" our standards on all when our 'Standards" are correct. Remember that we are commanded to WARN all nations.
JimJune 25, 2013
To Sharee, the law "imposes" standards on the citizens all the time. Marriage has "imposed" a standard of marriage for thousands of years. Why are we suddenly scared to enforce laws that are good for children?
Robert SiskJune 25, 2013
Leaving children aside for the moment: in general terms, men and women have different thought processes. One is not better than the other, just different. Ponder for a moment the everyday social scenes. Easily seen is that male/male interaction is different from female/female interaction. And both of those differ from male/female interaction. These situations hold true right down to small children. On the adult level, if love and sex are thrown into the mix the differences between the three relationships become even more stark. Marriage itself is not a civil right, but is and always has been the very definition of a committed male/female relationship. Any civil rights assumed are specific to that definition. Let us not change that definition, but ensure that existing Civil Union and Domestic Partnership ordinances have the civil rights provisions needed for same-sex unions. Robert Sisk Chandler, AZ
ShareeJune 25, 2013
I do not believe in gay marriage, but your argument that children deserve both a mother and a father, though true, does no always happen. Many children are born out of wedlock and know only a mother. Many couples have children who are just living together and not married and for whom sexual exclusivity is not part of their philosophy (just watch Dr. Phi a time or two). I think it is important to strengthen the morals of the nation, but how do we do that without "imposing" our standards on others?.
Graeme CrayJune 25, 2013
Dear Sister Summerhayes, I am with LDS Public Affairs in Melbourne Australia and would like to print and distribute your great Q&A article amongst pro-family groups here. May I have your permission to use it with full accreditation to yourself and your organisation ? Graeme Cray.
ADD A COMMENT