There has always been a small percentage of the populace that has been homosexual, it appears that that will always be the case. Might as well give them the same legal rights as all other human beings, they're not going to go away.

I have come to agree with Roland's position, for the most part. Let homosexuals form civil unions for tax or insurance purposes or whatever, if they like. But please let them stop trying to change the ancient cultural-historical definition of marriage: a man and a woman. It may end up being mainly semantics, but so be it. They are semantics that are very meaningful to most people worldwide. And there IS a key difference between homosexual and heterosexual unions, after all. The semantics may as well reflect it.

What does "flourish" mean? Roland needs to go back over history and note that homosexuality has existed in every human society and, for the most part, accepted as just something that was there. It has probably been constant at between 5 and 10% of the population and never higher (although there was an encouragement of homoeroticism to develop unit cohesiveness in ancient Greek armies, particularly Sparta and Thebes).

Homosexuality does not "flourish" because only a small percentage of the population is born into it and homosexuals are not recruited from the heterosexual population.

Logic, how sweet you sound compared to the sky is falling.

After reading letter after letter, I think the problem here is that society is hung up on the word "marriage". With modern day medicine, there IS no key difference between homosexual or heterosexual unions.

Roger, as much as you think that homosexuality will just disappear, that is about as intelligent as the 18th amendment was. It failed miserably and we needed the 21st amendment to repeal it. The people that pushed the 18th amendment thought that liquor would just disappear if it was law, well it didn't. There is a good history lesson for you. Homosexuality will not disappear.

What most don't know because history is ignoring it is that many gays were killed during the holocaust. The Germans were trying to wipe them out. What happened to them is worse than the Jews. Often they were tortured, castrated then killed. There were 6 million gypsies, gays and others that were killed besides the 6 million Jews. But history glosses over that issue. I guess from reading some of the comments to other letters, this would still be going on if it was allowed because homosexuality will disappear. It will not as long as genetics allows it.

I must say, what a very odd letter.

Who on earth is talking about the "flourishing" of "homosexuality"?

Same-sex orientation is a trait found in a certain (small) number of the population.

It's not an issue of whether it will "flourish" or not, but rather that (small) number of the population with that trait will be treated fairly, with respect, and treated as a full part of their society.

That depends entirely on how fairness and understanding are "flourishing", regardless of which innocuous trait innocent people exhibit.

Joe Moe,

A legal contract between the two would be fine, but I don't think employers should be forced to cover homosexual partners (or anyone they don't want to cover, for that matter).

I don't think the issue at heart is semantics. I think the issue is about family. In the comments on yesterday's letter, "history will vindicate gays" I explained a little deeper (including an extrapolation on my recent much-misunderstood letter about the definition of family).

Roger: That was a good letter; well written from the perspective of one who has studied history and learned from it. Would that all could do that. Yur point is of course right on! Thanks

So, if it isn't going to 'flourish', it isn't a threat, either. There won't be some sort of mass conversion or something. We should probably fully accept them in society and get past this.

Here's a quote about the book, "After the Ball", a book used by homosexual activists.

"Of particular note is their tactical device throughout the book of referring to religious dissenters and other critics of homosexual behavior as "bigots." Their language is purposfully crude to enhance that idea. Much like the "big lie" theory developed in the 1920s and 1930s by the Nazis, the constant repetition of this eventually has the desired psychological effect on masses of people."

Read the material on the Internet about the book. Read the book if you can find a copy. Study posts made by pro-homosexual activists and compare those posts to the points in the book.

The more they preach their gospel of perversion, the more insight they give into the heart of their leader.

As always, at the core of the discussion is the element of choice.

"Choose ye this day whom ye will serve; as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."

In one respect the writer is right. Just like we still have the KKK and neonazis there will always be those who hate the gays, but their numbers are constantly dwindling as they die off and are unable to convince their children to be bigots.

live and let live. no one is asking you to participate in a homosexual lifestyle.

If marriage stands the test of time, why do more than half of them end in divorce and even more have infidelity?

Mike,

You can always be counted on to offer wingnut off-the-wall opinions.

Thanks for being so consistent.

I agree with the letter writer. It is however fascinating to see how many defenders of perversion we have in society as we live in these modern times. I know it is because so many of you are all "enlightened" and all compassionate and warm and fuzzy about the live and let live attitude of the loudest voices. Funny how that compassionate attitude only applies to people who support a certain left wing agnenda.

I could certainly be wrong, just like everyone else, but I refuse to accept the idea that all homosexuals were born that way. Sure many have always known these ideas or feelings, but I truly beleive that many have come to accept this lifestyle after being "introduced" to it through "recruitment" or seeking alternatives to dissatisfaction in other areas of thier lives. When the fad has faded, only the true life long participaters will be left, and as the letter writer asserts homosexuallity will not flourish in the long term.

"The more they preach their gospel of perversion, the more insight they give into the heart of their leader." --- Who is "their leader"?

The "religious" have always been the forefront of the persecution. As far back as the New Testament, Paul held the coats of the "religious" as they stoned Stephen (a believer in Christ) who went against the 'norm' of the day.

BIGOT: : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and INTOLERANCE.

Bigotry is bigotry. Whether against Blacks, Gays, Asians, Christians, Pagans, whomever. Call a spade a spade.

Who cares?,

You said, "no one is asking you to participate in a homosexual lifestyle."

Why would you assume that?

I'm a little tired of hearing that gays are "born that way". This is like saying that pedophiles, rapists, exibitionists and every other sexual pervert is "born that way", and that we should give them all special rights. When will we address the problems in all these groups and look for early detection/correction? Or at least spend the time/money to determine causes and solutions.

To 8:03 ,

I see that you've taken the required homosexual activist "Non sequitur" class.

Would you like to comment on the content of the posts, or do you prefer to continue to make non sequitur comments.

By the way, diversion is one of the tactics used by the homosexual activists. Today, as they post, keep track of how many make off-the-wall comments in an attempt to divert attention away from the subject.

Flourish is an interesting word. In at least some respects it is impossible for homosexuality to flourish since those who are so inclined are less likely to reproduce, therefore less likely to pass on the gene (if there be one). Unless it is a choice, with participants winning converts, homosexuality will, per evolution, ever occupy only a small minority place in society...for better or for worse.

If you really believe that homosexuals are trying to recruit, ask yourself how many times have you been asked to participate in that act? How many times have you had to refuse? Has someone not taken NO for an answer? What recruitment?

"The extinction of those who oppose gay marriage" is not the same thing as the extinction of those who aren't gay.

No one is trying to get rid of the "institution" of man/woman marriage. No one is trying to change your definition of "family," whatever that may be.

Stop being so afraid people. Legalizing gay marriage is not about gay people taking over the world. It's about equality under the law. Your religious beliefs, no matter how archaic and irrational, will not be affected. No one will force you to accept gay marriage in your "holy" temples.

Anonymous 8:52,

There is no mass collective organized effort to recruit, but recruitment does indeed happen. Yes, I know from personal experience.

And it makes sense. Homosexuals are not just attracted to other homosexuals. Most people they are attracted to on a daily basis are straight. Most crushes they develop through their lives are on straight people.

It also goes the other way. Some straight girls hang all over gay guys and often convince them to "try" things.

So don't deny reality. It happens ALL the time.

Your post about "After the Ball" is very odd. First, you offer a "quote" about the book. Who are you quoting and in what context were they writing? Also you refer to "their leader," as if there is a designated leader of the gay rights movement or of the gay community itself. What do you mean?

I have a copy of "After the Ball," and studied it when it came out. I'm guessing you have not read it yourself.

"After the Ball" was published in 1989, and was controversial in the gay community at the time. In fact, some large gay bookstores refused to sell the book. It is hardly the manual on advancing gay rights, as you seem to imply.

It does present arguments for how to break down gay stereotypes and advance the cause of civil rights for gay people, using well-known advertising techniques. It also is quite critical of some of the common themes, behaviors, and in-your-fact tactics that were common in the gay community at that time.

It also makes no secret that the authors' goal is to change hearts and minds. You post seems to paint a different picture.

1 who hasn't the foggiest idea said: "I'm a little tired of hearing that gays are "born that way". This is like saying that pedophiles, rapists, exibitionists and every other sexual pervert is "born that way", and that we should give them all special rights."

Unfortunately, the person who wrote this does not know anything about these behaviors. These examples have nothing to do with homosexuality. These are crimes perpetrated more often by straight people than gay people. Rape and pedophilia are not sexual in their natures. They are about control of another person. Exhibitionism is derived from a sense of inadequacy and a need to make oneself known to others. None of those features of behavior are inherited like homosexuality apparently is.

To Agki,

The best studies indicate that about 2% of the population practice homosexual behavior, not the way higher numbers that you indicate.

I will stand with President Monson and support the legal definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. If you want to understand why this is so inportant go look up the on the internet under "marriage" and "public policy".

Didn't you play Kramer on Seinfeld?

We may not be forced to accept gay marriage in our temples, but gay activists would like nothing better than to see churches that do not accept their lifestyle lose their tax exempt status. That is where all this is headed.

"Most people they are attracted to on a daily basis are straight."

Hmmm...Speaking from experience, Ryan?

Ryan 9:29 a.m.

So?

Ryan: You are right. A girl in my daughter's high school drama class went to great lengths trying to convince others in the class that her lesbian lifestyle was okay and they should try it. She made them all feel uncomfortable as she watched them change costumes in the dressing room. An article I read in a major magazine was trying to convince women that their natural feelings of friendship and bonding with other women was really an indication of a deeper sexual inclination and they should just let go and let it happen. There is a gay agenda to get their lifestyle universally accepted. As they promote this agenda they have become quite hateful and judgemental of those who cannot accept homosexuality. They now fit the definition of a bigot themselves as they become more and more outspoken and intolerant of those who disagree with them.

If the church loses it tax exempt status for this, so what! At least it is standing for what it believes. Tax exempt status is not everything.

I make no bones about the fact that I think churches should lose their tax-exempt status if they engage in political activity -- even when they believe that political activity is regarding "moral" issues. I and the people I know who have this view don't need the gay marriage issue to head in this direction.

And also, what makes anyone think that homosexuals want to "flourish"? This goes to show what kind of mentality is out there. There have always been a minority of gay people. Some have the impression that they are trying to spread or "flourish"...what a ridiculous notion! They have always and will always be a part of the population, but now they are coming out and embracing who they are. If you can't embrace them please leave them alone and realize that they are who they are and that "God" made them who they are.

There is a HUGE differnce between pedophiles, rapist, etc that you listed. All those people have NEVER been denied their rights of marriage or civil unions because of what they did or are.

So many of you say that homosexuality is immoral and that is the sole basis of denying homosexuals the right to marry, but you allow every other deviant and sinner the right to marry.

If marriage was allowed only to those who are without sin, the institution would cease to exist.

Nice double standards from the Christin Right yet again.

Looks like the name calling has begun by the pro-homosexual crowd. To the poster who listed the definition of bigot, please look in the mirror.

Self-justification for our bad behavior has been around since the beginning of man. "Am I my brother's keeper?"

No one with commonsense, logical and rational thinking can say with a straight face that homosexual behavior is normal and natural.

There is a reason why there is man and woman. If homosexuals can't figure that one out, then they should take an anatomy class.

Call me all the names you want if that makes you feel better. But I will never condone or accept homosexual behavior. Keep it in your bedroom and we won't have any problems. But let it be known that homosexual behavior does not a marriage make.

The "legal" definition of marriage in many places includes more than just between a man and a woman.

To 9:41,

If you have the book "After the Ball" by Marshall K. Kirk and Hunter Madsen , perhaps you would like to quote from it yourself.

Here's another quote about the contents of the book:

"The trick is to get the bigot into the position of feeling a conflicting twinge of shame, along with his reward, whenever his homohatred surfaces, so that his reward will be diluted or spoiled. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways, all making use of repeated exposure to pictorial images or verbal statements that are incompatible with his self-image as a well-liked person, one who fits in with the rest of the crowd."

There is more to that quote that shows the lengths to which the homosexual activists will go, but the language in the rest of the quote is overtly graphic and not really necessary to enhance the understanding of the quote.

As the methods used by homosexual activists are unveiled, everyone will see the pattern that they use to further their agenda; a pattern that is not pretty, not decent, and not polite.

Homosexuals are not denied the right to marry. They can marry anyone they want of the opposite gender. Using your argument a pedophile would say that he has been denied his right to marry because he can't marry a child. An adulterer would say he has been denied the right to marry because he can't marry his mistress while staying married to his wife. The pervert who has sex with animals may wish to marry his dog and feel his rights are denied. There is a legal definition of marriage and you are trying to change it to fit your desires and lifestyle. Eventually it will be anything anyone wants it to be and it will mean nothing.

I have egg on my face.

My 7:24 a.m. post said: "a book used by homosexual activists" when it should have said, "a book that describes tactics used by homosexual activists".

My editing was sloppy and I apologize for the fact that I failed to catch the error when I posted and then I failed to see the error when I re-read my post after reading 9:41's rebuttal.

They don't flourish because they don't reproduce. And a certain amount of people are born gay. Since they don't or can't recruit Heterosexual people they will never flourish. Duh.

To 10:00,

It's a matter of math.

There are many more heterosexuals than homosexuals so it stands to reason a homosexual will be attracted to many more heterosexuals than homosexuals.

An object of attraction being off-limits certainly does not stop people from cheating on their spouses or girlfriends, and it likewise does not stop other encounters. Now, you might say that it is different when the attraction only runs one way. But the fact is, males routinely pursue females regardless of whether the attraction is mutual.

You also have the choice to marry a man now. Either in California or soon in Massacheusettes (SIC). When will you be doing that? Do I get an invite? I'd love to see it.

And I love it when people say that gay marriage will lead to marriage with animals and children. But you missed Martians, multiple partners, polygamy and anything inflaitable.

The sky ISN'T falling, so you can put your umbrella away.

And if so many of you are afraid of adults marrying children, why aren't you trying to get a constitutional ammendment that states no one under 18 can marry even with parental consent? I could get behind that one.

More businesses will eventually extend benefits to same-sex and unmarried, cohabiting couples as they do for married couples. This is not so much a moral issue as it is a business issue. To recruit and keep good employees, businesses will provide for these employees just to remain competitive. Those businesses that do not provide these benefits will be at a disadvantage since homosexuals and unmarried employees may choose to take their talents elsewhere.

This all becomes an economic decision. It is the same lack of recruiting the "best" in a particular field that led the U.S. military to exclude many Arabic translators becauses of their sexual orientation and the lame exclusion policies of the military.

If you find a really good doctor or mechanic or hair dresser that you like, do you stop using this person's talents because they are homosexual? This may be preferred behavior by bigots, but finding good talent oftentimes will supercede personal prejudice. To exclude someone because they are homosexual is to deny onself (or one's business) of important skills and talents that can be of tremendous benefit.

And then, take it one step further and begin to think of the needs of that person.

Some of the most vitriolic condemnation of homosexuals and their lifestyle comes from those who fear them the most. Oftentimes these fears are based on erroneous propaganda that homosexuality is "catching" like the common cold. Also, they fear that their children might become homosexual if it is acceptable in society. As long as the public torments and discriminates homosexuals, making the lifestyle a risk, young people will choose not to "join the club" and cause shame to friends and family.

Perhaps the greatest fear is from those who may be closet homosexuals who both hate themselves for what they are and try to keep attention away by hating those like them. It's like the congressman who got caught in the bathroom trying to pick up the guy in the adjacent stall. Also, it's like the preacher in Colorado who called on male prostitutes to fulfill his silent lifestyle. However, in both cases, we find men who take a very public, homophobic position in order to distract any attention from their secret lives.

One can easily begin to believe that those most in opposition to homosexuals use this tactic to prove to themselves that they, themselves, are not homosexual.

Isn't it strange that for years, liberal minded people have had a certain level of disdain for the 'instutition' of marriage. Going so far as to call it 'slavery'. Hollywood types around the globe refuse to marry because their love is beyond the mere laws of humankind.

Now that gays want to marry...suddenly it is a thing to be sought after and accepted. Truly tolerant people with enlightened minds will embrace this and make it an accepted part of society. Soon the only married couples in Hollywood will be the homosexual ones. When the publicity blows over, the marriages will end and they'll begin advancing on who can and can't raise kids.

Funny how the ones who are the quickest to point at another and say 'bigot' are usually guilty of the same.

We all want equality for people who think like we do, but as soon as someone has a different opinion, they are the bigot.

Everything in balance. Our society is out of balance sexually. An increased percentage of people "born heterosexual" are experimenting in homosexuality because it's more in vogue, acceptable. Adultery is more acceptable, and pervasive. Although both involve consenting adults, it's almost surreal how people corrupt what is healthy for society/civilazation.

To avoid confusion, I am the person who posted at 9:41.

You talk about techniques of gay activists being "unveiled," and say that these methods are not decent, pretty, and polite; however, these methods are mainstream.

You insinuate that these methods are especially evil, and that gay activists have tried to hide them. This simply isn't true. Gay activists are very clear about their agenda. They don't hide the fact that they want to increase acceptancance of gay people and their relationships in society. The smart activists are using the same "methods" that work for advertisers, political candidates, and champions of all kinds of other causes -- including those who back traditional marriage.

If you want to argue about the danger of a specific book, you need to read that book, instead of just reading ABOUT it. "After the Ball" is old, old news to those who have been engaged in gay activism. And, frankly, the methods have worked. You can see how well they've worked by reading this forum. Not long ago, there wasn't even a mainstream debate about gay rights, much less gay marriage.

Just because you don't agree with their agenda, doesn't mean their methods are ugly.

and here we go again with the usual stale neocon dogma of "liberals want their sons to be homosexuals!" or "Liberals want their daughters to have abortions!"
What a stupid lot these conservatives truly are!

"We all want equality for people who think like we do, but as soon as someone has a different opinion, they are the bigot."

That's where you're wrong (not to say the rest of your post was right.) We don't care what you think, but we'll fight for your equality as well as those we agree with. You, on the other hand, will fight to impose your beliefs on others with utter disregard for the freedom, equality and rights of others who may think differently.