Deseret News | Benson had it right

Reader comments
Readers' forum: Benson had it right

123 comments | Read story

Page:
< Previous
1
2
3

Sally in England | 5:27 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

That's the whole point 4.38,no one ever thinks about it unless discussions like these come up. We are all academics who are passionate about the subjects we teach, we hardly discuss sexuality. we are admired by parents and students because of our teaching talents. As many of the teachers have been at the school along time, it is known that they are gay. These teachers attend functions with their partners. Students in the school are gay, they are not teased by other students or looked down on by staff. We just get on with our lives. we would love our gay friends to be able to adopt and it looks as if they will at least be able to foster a child. Who says that your idea of a family is better than theirs. These are kind gentle people, trust me I have seen brutish parents that don't even read to their children and hit them...can you please try and stop being so narrow minded and thoughtless. We all socialise together, eat, drink our wine, talk over the worlds problems, but when we are at school we teach, there isn't a hidden agenda for crying out loud. grow up

Oh Sally! | 6:17 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

I appear to be your nemesis; sorry about that.

However, I did not say there was an agenda, "hidden" or otherwise for teachers. One is not needed when so many of you think alike.

Your views are not hidden, and moreover they are the fashionable 'liberal' ones that are easily recognized. I truly hope that you do say nothing about sexuality to other people's children. You obviously do have a number of 'crusades' which are no more laudable IMO than most of the medieval ones.

I still don't know if you are actually "in England" as your handle suggests. In the US lots of people don't necessarily "admire" teachers en masse, and are indeed, reasonably and of fundamental right, concerned about any who may be prone to seek to inculcate any such personal controversial beliefs as your own.

I would suppose it is very much the same "in England". BTW I appreciate the way that the English state school system requires, or at least it used to, a daily - non-denominational - Christian worship service. I think that is very positive and much more sensible than forbidding expression of the admirable religion to which the majority hold allegiance.

Enough! | 8:52 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

I've read in this comment section that homosexuality is a "positive" for society. I find that impossible. There is nothing positive about homosexuality, period. This is not to say that individuals that practice the behavior, but the behavior itself is totally lacking in a "positive" benefit of any sort. Again, before you respond, I'm saying the behavior has No benefit. So why all the battle for something that is useless?

Comments continue below

@oh sally! | 9:02 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

so are you the same person that posted ï¿½sally proves sheï¿½s stupid,ï¿½ because I notice who ever that was totally ignored my question posted at 12:10 P.M. It would seem that people that ignore post they cannot answer should be a little kinder to sally since she is at least brave enough to respond to ridiculous claims, though I am not sure why she bothers.

@enough | 9:07 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

Once again ï¿½enough,ï¿½ even if we assume you are right (a big assumption but I will play along) people do not have to prove there is a benefit to society in order to be allowed to engage in a behavior or action. You do not have to prove your opinions will benefit society before you state them.

As I said.... | 9:35 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

The BEHAVIOR was the point, not the individual. True this is my opinion, but what of the question?
What is a positive benefit of a totally useless behavior? It(the behavior)does nothing to build our society. From the evidence of these postings it does only the opposite.

Sarah Nichole | 6:19 a.m. Dec. 5, 2008

Behavior of all kinds can be, and is, regulated by law. Nearly every law and rule we have was made to limit behavior of one kind or another. None of these marriage amendments limit homosexual behavior. They don't prevent homosexual relationships or committments to each other. They just point out what should have been obvious: there are regulations on marriage. Not just anybody can get married. We don't let people under a certain IQ get married. We don't let children get married. We don't let groups of people get married. We don't let close family members get married. And the vast majority of people in the United States have also declared that we don't let two people of the same gender marry each other.

Boyd | 7:47 a.m. Dec. 5, 2008

Sarah Nichole:

And gay men and women will continue to push for marital rights. I'm fairly certain that in 50 years, same-sex marriage will be fully legal in many states, and the only thing that will have occurred is a lot of money, time and effort will have been spent for nothing. And the people who fought against same-sex marriage will have egg on their face.

On the plus side, there's a good chance most of them will have died off (which is why same-sex marriage will ultimately be legalized).

not the same person | 9:40 a.m. Dec. 5, 2008

I'm not the same person who posted the one about "Sally proves she is stupid" I don't believe in calling names, they add nothing to an argument. I have addressed Sally before though on this site.

I suppose it's just possible that there is more than one interchange going on and we attract both those who agree and disagree.

To "Boyd " 747 | 9:43 a.m. Dec. 5, 2008

I think it is the "gay community" that is dying off,rather rapidly,
in which case there will be little pressure for "same sex marriages" in fifty years.

Boyd | 10:00 a.m. Dec. 5, 2008

@ To "Boyd ":

Really? You think that? It took thousands of years to reach 1 billion people on this planet--it only took a few hundred to reach 6 billion.

I personally feel that homosexuality is in large part an evolutionary response to attempt to control widespread population growth. It may not work, since the human condition is to seek out procreation, and even gays and lesbians have these biological urges.

But that's beyond the point here: I see nothing wrong with allowing gays and lesbians to get married. I think with as many problems as there are in the world, the idea that gays and lesbians getting married doesn't even make a blip on the radar of problems we should be dealing with.

I feel sorry for people who find it to be such a moral cause--it speaks volumes to the decay of morality in America.

Arthur | 11:07 a.m. Dec. 5, 2008

Not to worry morality will continue to decay to the point that it will pass in all 50 states.

Boyd | 11:21 a.m. Dec. 5, 2008

Arthur:

I was actually referring to the moral decay of those fighting same-sex marriage.

SS | 10:11 a.m. Dec. 6, 2008

Why, in states that allow gay marriage, is the "gay divorce rate" over 60%?

Why do the "all gays are born that way" people never want to discuss the thousands of men who were sexually abused as teenagers by older men who in adulthood consider themselves gay, bi-sexual, or just don't know what they are? And don't tell me they don't exist - I have personally known and counseled with 4 men in this exact situation.

Why do gay rights supporters get vehemently upset when one brings up the fact that the only observed instances of same-sex relations in the animal kingdom are related to intimidation and power, not love?

Confronted with the facts, the gay rights folks react angrily and with name calling (bigot, hater, uneducated, etc) instead of evidence to the contrary.

As I like to say, "in God we trust - all others bring data."

SS | 6:45 p.m. Dec. 6, 2008

Looks like there aren't any answers to my questions (see above). Until there are, I'll keep thinking the way I do. Thanks.

Vince | 11:16 a.m. Dec. 7, 2008

Is this how you treat your gays in Utah? --- as "whiners?"

As to the point of what constitutes a right/privilege being voted on by the majority... not so, mon frere.

History will show that you err on that point.

Moreover, just because majority votes it into law does not make it right.

Vince | 11:28 a.m. Dec. 7, 2008

SS | 10:11 a.m. Dec. 6, 2008

Regarding the comment about 4 men... that might be.

Many gay men are abused when they were children, yes.

Many straight men are abused when they were children also.

Many gay men and lesbian women were not abused.

Abused or not --- the LDS Church has had a long history of sending people with "same-sex attraction" to recuperative therapy --- as if there was something wrong with them.

The more it is treated like an abnormality, like a deviancy, the more it is suppressed, the more likely it will surface in some other kind of behavior.

As to the name calling I see the name-calling both sides --- did not the writer call them "sore losers?"

The point is, SS, gays have a lifetime experience of being called names based on who they are ---

A lifetime.

What is going on right now is not hate. It is anger.

As to the point of "data" --- how do you quality/quantify data that is based on people's feelings and experiences?

I have always had a problem with sociological/psychological studies referring to the human experience based on charts and graphs.

We are people.

Vince | 12:07 p.m. Dec. 7, 2008

SS | 10:11 a.m. Dec. 6, 2008

Further, in your counseling --- I don't need to point out that there are two schools.

There is a school of psychology that treats homosexuality as a deviancy.

There is another school of psychology that treats homosexuality, regardless of political affiliations or Prop 8, etc. as deeply seated in biological causes, meaning... that is the way people are wired.

The LDS Church has had a long history of subscribing to the first one.

SS | 3:42 p.m. Dec. 7, 2008

Thanks for your comments, Vince. My counseling was solely with men who were abused as teenagers. I would not want to see these men unable to get help, which is what is being pushed by the gay lobby and backed by the APA. What these groups want is for the counselor to encourage these men to embrace their "gayness" and move forward. These men were not born with same-sex tendencies and were altered by the trauma of the abuse and a broken trust.

To do what these groups are demanding is blatantly wrong and a complete disservice to the victims.

As to the proof that homosexuality is biological (how people are wired as you state), there is simply not enough evidence of this at this time.

I do agree that these feelings are real and that we should treat all people with respect and dignity.

Respect and dignity, however, does not mean agreeing with everyone on every position. That leaves no room for individual thought and the right to dissent.

Vince | 6:47 p.m. Dec. 7, 2008

To SS | 3:42 p.m. Dec. 7, 2008

And while therapy might help adults who underwent child abuse, it does not help to explain the thousands that go through therapy --- and there is no abuse in their past --- and they find out that recuperative therapy does nothing for them.

I have no problem with individual thought --- I do have a problem with people claiming a win and telling gays to be quiet after the election.

And yes, I also agree with you that new research is neither conclusive or cast in stone --- after all, what is psychological/sociological studies but a trend of what goes in the human mind?

Who is a Freudian?
Who is for Carl Jung?
Who is for behavioral psychology?

I can't speak for theories.

But I can speak for me.

My individual thought --- my individual right to dissent --- my individual experience --- of trying to go straight --- --- not for me anymore.

you go Vince | 11:20 p.m. Dec. 7, 2008

i believe God loves you just the way you are.

R | 8:08 a.m. Dec. 8, 2008

Loving V Virginia allowed for interracial marriage. What did the judges use as the justification? Marriage for the "Continuation of the species."

I find it terribly amusing that the same people cheering for the wisdom of those that voted for Obama are the very same ranting about the "mob rule" vote for marriage between 1 man and 1 woman.

Also, "embarrassment at being gay" isn't the reason why gays have highly disproportionate rates (the majority) of AIDS/HIV. It is because the population is highly promiscuous and allowing for gay marriage will not change that reality since that behavior "can't be helped and was decided at birth." And no, I wasn't writing about homosexuality but the behavior of promiscuity.

Boyd | 12:39 p.m. Dec. 8, 2008

R: There are reasons for that -- specifically, men are the most predominant method for transmitting HIV. If we were arguing based on HIV rates, then we should most definitely allow two women to marry, since lesbians have the lowest rates of HIV infection.

SS: While I agree that there will always be cases of mistaken sexual orientation due to past abuses (or whatever), using such broad definitions to cast doubt on an entire minority is improper in your line of field. I have never been abused, didn't even know what homosexuality was, but when I hit puberty, certainly found other men to be far more interesting.

I would argue that the only abuse I did receive was due to my religion's belief in homosexuality as an abomination and my inherent homosexual desire. Trying to get those two to play nice caused a lot of internal grief and frustration. I feel that it stunted my emotional growth for a few years as I tried to grapple with my feelings.

We're not perfect, but we try to do what will make us happy.

Page:
< Previous
1
2
3

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.