Quantcast
Utah

Gay marriage and reshaping society

Comments

Return To Article
  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    May 1, 2011 5:19 p.m.

    To 22ozn44ozglass

    Where are the other sources you speak of?

    I have found nothing except the so-called alleged "manipulation" that you speak of - that is usually nebulous, vague, without a source - in a word, unsubstantial.

    One would think that a person committed to the truth would show the truth and defend it citing sources. I have found none.

    More to the point, however - 1973 - it has now been nearly forty years and if the truth that indeed the DSM regarding homosexuality was valid, as you argue, it would be more upfront and people with logical, scientific, professional purposes.

    What good, I ask, did the prior labeling as a DSM have before? In fact, it had the opposite effect. Shame for treating gay people so.

  • 22ozn44ozglass Southern Utah, UT
    April 26, 2011 3:37 p.m.

    Jaime Lee Bonberger: I commend you for bringing up the way in which the gay activists manipulated, intimidated, and practiced deception to facilitate the change in the DSM regarding homosexuality being a mental disorder in 1973. Those who were at the head of this movement openly bragged that this change was NOT due to a mountain of paradigm changing research. They openly admit that it was a change brought about by activisim and political pressure.

    I recommend everyone who is interested in the truth regarding the events and reasons for the APA changing its stance on homosexuality being a mental disoder do some indepth reading from sources other than gay actisits. Study the role of the NGTF and thir role in this change to the DSM in 1973

    The APA vote to remove homosexuality from the DSM was rushed and only 1/3 of the voting members actually voted. In addition, Four years later, the Medical Journal Aspects of Human Sexuality reported a survey showing 69 percent of psychiatrists disagreed with the vote and still considered homosexual.

    In the last ten years, the APA published a pro-pedophile study. After caving into public pressure, Exec director Fowler denounced the study.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    April 25, 2011 10:15 p.m.

    The ultimate irony is that a representative of an organization that purports to defend families, marriages, and traditional values, as they would call them, would also mis-represent, lie, distort, confuse, obfuscate, and then, ultimately, play the victim afterwards.

    Values are good, of course. So are families, Traditions are also good.

    Lies are not.

    All the while, history is being repeated - it is a common line of reasoning, among proponents of marginalization, to use the line that - it cannot possibly succeed because it did not succeed before, unless you cause detriment to the society.

    It was so with women's liberation, emancipation, civil rights, etc. The arguments in history were always that citizens should be wary because of "unintended consequences."

    The only consequences are the intended ones - equality.

  • Rae M. Taylorsville, UT
    April 24, 2011 10:57 p.m.

    To Pagan:
    1.Notice how people talk about how gay marriage will harm straight marriage but never give examples?" yes, Pagan, and why is that? The answer seems obvious to me. Im sure its because few societies in history have ever attempted it, and one that did was annihilated. I would like You to find examples of gay unions that succeeded or failed 100 years ago.
    2. I disagree with you on another point; gay people can be a minority AND gaining support at the same time. I always find this kind of twisted thinking when I read your posts. Sorry, but if they were based on reality, the rest of your words could be trusted.

  • Mormoncowboy Provo, Ut
    April 24, 2011 4:05 p.m.

    I'm not sure I get why this woman is taken seriously? It almost sounds like she is lamenting the marginalization of racists??? She is pointing to them and saying, "see, see, we're next!".

    It's an interesting comparison indeed, seeing as how her Christian faith's leaders once taught that the divine penalties for interracial marriage was in fact, death. I don't think she has thought her comments through carefully enough.

  • Concerned and Involved Spanish Fork, UT
    April 24, 2011 11:52 a.m.

    @RanchHand

    No, temptation does not equal sin. Every single person is tempted to do many things, but they do not always choose to act upon those temptations. I know individuals who have thoughts about lying, but have not lied. I know individuals who have been tempted to steal, but have not. And, yes, my friend, I even know individuals who are tempted to engage in homosexual acts, but do not.

    Temptation does not equal sin.

  • Jaime Lee Bonberger Houston, TX
    April 23, 2011 7:49 p.m.

    Wastin,
    I heard Spitzer's words with my own ears. They seemed fairly unambiguous.

    The fact that anyone (and I know several) can change his/her sexual orientation should quiet those of the genetic born, immutable/unchangeable argument that underscores much of the recent debates.

    I arrived at the UCLA study through a series of links about a year ago. I looked at the Williams Institute website and did not see the study. The study in question highlighted the relative advantages to children raised by same-sex as opposed to a heterosexual parents/adults. It admitted that children are much more likley to experiment with homosexuality in a same-sex household, but girls would be homosexual at about the same rate regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents, while boys would be more likely to be homosexual. This last result was buried in one of their tables and was not discussed in the paper, IIRC. The error term was slightly inflated due to the large differences in other results, but this one was significant.

    You are free to reject this claim if you wish. I will keep looking for it and next time will record the reference.

    Cheers.

  • Wastintime Los Angeles, CA
    April 23, 2011 6:04 p.m.

    re:Jamie Lee Bonberger
    Dr. Robert Spitzer disavowed the way his research has been used by such groups as Focus on the Family etc. He said, in an interview "what they (FoF) fail to mention in the discussion I noted it was so hard for me to find 200 subjects to participate in the study that although change is possible I have to conclude it is quite rare." He also said he disagrees with FoF and is quite unhappy with FoF use of his study and said that the likelihood of change is quite small.

    Can you provide the title of the article by UCLA professors regarding the incidence of homosexuality in children raised by homosexuals? Did the study look at biological children of homosexuals vs. adoptive/non-bio children?

  • Jaime Lee Bonberger Houston, TX
    April 23, 2011 2:24 p.m.

    For those saying that the NOM was founded by the Mormon Church, please provide your references, or is it a "faith promoting rumor" to comfort the pro gay crowd? Thanks.

    Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, the architect of the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the diagnostic manual, a gay affirmative psychiatrist , and a long time supporter of gay rights, stated the following: "I am convinced from the people I have interviewed, that for many of them, they have made substantial changes toward becoming heterosexual...I think that's news...I came to this study skeptical. I now claim that these changes can be sustained".

    Robert Perloff, 1985 President of the APA, cited by the APA as a champion of homosexuals, criticized the APA for barring reorientation therapy for homosexuals. He called it unethical to prevent such treatment. "If the client wants a change, listen to the client...you're barring research." He also called the APA unethical and unprofessional for barring contrary voices in the discussion about the APA's stance on the treatment of homosexuality.

  • Jaime Lee Bonberger Houston, TX
    April 23, 2011 1:41 p.m.

    Idaho Coug:

    Please provide the reference, and the genome regions and sequences that have been positively identified with same-sex attraction. I personally know several people who consider themselves ex-gay and are doing just fine in heterosexual relationships. I will likely be attacked in these DN comments for this revelation, but it is true in flesh and blood.

    Also, statistics do not show that that children from same sex parent homes are gay at the same rate as the national average. For boys, it is statistically higher. This was part of an overall study by two UCLA professors, pro-gay I might add, whose main emphasis was the advantages of same-sex parenting. The results are available on line.

    Many European nations have shied away from calling same-sex unions "marriage", and seem to be doing fine.

    The American gay lobby, however, seeks to marginalize all those who disagree with them and stifle their voices. This is not by happenstance. Please refer to the 1989 book, "After the Ball (Doubleday) by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. It is a well laid out strategy that we see being executed before our very eyes.

  • Uncle Charles Where freedom and liberty reign, utah
    April 23, 2011 12:32 p.m.

    @atl: I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. If homosexuals want to go romp with each other so be it. What I don't have to do is accept it and the state doesn't have to condone it with a piece of paper. And we certainly don't have to teach that homosexuality is something positive to be embraced in our schools.

    As you asked....who is forcing others?

    @KGB: choice in behavior is not a civil right. It's laughable that homosexuals try to tie themselves to the cause of blacks and women. Completely laughable.

    @Bubble: Christ did speak about homosexuality. He condemned it. He also state that man and woman should leave their parents and become one. Just how does man with man or woman with woman become one? Biology 101 says it can't be.

    ----

    So if homosexuals are born that way and aren't responsible for their choices, who is responsible for their choices and why?

    Maybe liars, murderers, thieves, adulterers, fornicators, covetors, the envious are all born that way. They didn't choose to do those things they had no choice in the matter. It's all God's fault, right?

  • Uncle Charles Where freedom and liberty reign, utah
    April 23, 2011 12:23 p.m.

    @Sank You, Doctor: Many people have many attractions to different things. The problem is acting on the attractions we are not supposed to. The LDS church has never stated that homosexuality is a born trait, ever.

    2 men being together or 2 women will never, ever be the same as a mother and father with their family. Or do you deny the differences between man and woman?

    @teri88: you are making strawman arguments with your AOF12 posting. No one is telling homosexuals they can't believe what they want. What is being stated is that the state does not have to legally recognize their behavior. Can you see the difference between the 2?

    It's ironic you are telling God that His ideal doesn't work in our society so man should come up with something that is acceptable to man. Silliness. You don't lower the bar because people aren't meeting it, you educate them until they do.

    The standard was set in the Garden of Eden: man and woman married for eternity. If you don't know how the Law of Moses was fulfilled you need to get back to church and learn.

  • thriver7 Salt Lake, Utah
    April 23, 2011 10:09 a.m.

    The expert witness opposed to gay marriage in the court case that was heavily funded by the LDS church had to admit that by supporting gay couples to marry, statistics show that it improves the quality of life not only of the individuals but also of their community. He went so far as to say: "When America accepts gay marriage we will be more American." -

    This is the guy AGAINST gay marriage.

    The problem: no one can demonstrate how gay marriage damages society. Has Massachusetts collapsed? Canada? Spain? Argentina? Heterosexual people didn't stop getting married and having babies in these places when the law changed.

    This is the mission statement of Deseret Media "treating all with dignity, respect, humility and integrity." Seems to me that is what gay folks are asking for: to not be treated as second class citizens, to be welcomed into the human family, to receive the same 1100 or so federal benefits given to married folks.

    The more we reject them - the louder they'll get.

  • 22ozn44ozglass Southern Utah, UT
    April 22, 2011 9:55 p.m.

    "*After 5 Years of Legal Gay Marriage, Massachusetts still has the lowest state divorce rate.' - Bruce Wilson - AlterNet - 08/24/09
    'Massachusetts retains the national title as the lowest divorce rate state"

    Given the thousands of non MA resident gay couples who come to Massachusetts to get married and then return to other states, unless the MA divorce rate includes a longitudinal tracking of the current state(divorced,separated, annulled) of all the non-resident gay MA marriages it would be an abuse of statistics to repeatedly quote these statistics and then infer that SSM did not increase the divorce rate in MA and that SSM/legal partnerships have an equal or lower divorce rate than heterosexual marriages.

    However, studies in two other countries with a longer history of SSM/legal partnerships do in fact reveal that SSM/legal partnerships have a signficantly higher divorce rate than do traditional marriages.

    Until you can prove that the MA divorce rate statitics include tracking all of the non-resident SSM's for divorce, the statics you repeatedly quote must be held suspect

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    April 22, 2011 9:46 p.m.

    Belching Cow | 3:11 p.m. April 22, 2011
    Sandy, UT
    @Kevin Kirkam
    "If gays can't marry because they can't produce kids, should sterile/infertile couples be allowed to marry?"
    Yes
    "Why"
    Because the marriage is for a man and woman couple.

    KJK - So, the bottom line is that you have no logical rebuttal. As long as the couple is a man and a woman, that's all that matters. Where is the logical backing? If marriage is about producing kids, the aforementioned heterosexuals have no need of marriage since they can't produce kids. Why do they need state sanctioning? How are their needs for state sanctioning any different than those of same-sex couples?

    Disallowing same-sex marriage harms same-sex families and especially the kids. How can we LDS claim that we are pro-family when we are pushing laws that harm familes and children?

  • 22ozn44ozglass Southern Utah, UT
    April 22, 2011 9:05 p.m.

    I will make my questions a little more plain and direct.

    1. Those who practice intergenerational sexual relationships state that they were born with these desires and that they have no choice. What is the gay rebutal to this claim?

    2. If being homosexual is not a choice and therefore having gay marriage is a civil right, and constitutionally granted and protected, how do gay activists counter those who practice and/or advocate intergenerational sexual relationships and intergenerational marriage because they were allegedly born with the biological, psychological or genetic programing that dictates this lifestyle and desires to have their marriages made legal and recognized?

    3. How do gays rebut those people who practice and seek intergenerational sexual relationships and marriage plan to change the definition of marriage to accommodate their lifestyle and preference?

    4. Why did ILGA wait until 1994 and the fallout from a Congressional review of UN funding to expel NAMBLA?

    5. Why are gay activists now so set on distancing themselves from their stated platforms of the 70's which included repealing all laws and statutes regarding the gender,number and age of persons who may enter into marriage.

    Answers not ad hominem.

  • Legal Eagle Spanish Fork, UT
    April 22, 2011 3:14 p.m.

    Marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of society. Giving a stamp of approval to anything else will put holes in your foundation and if continued will fail.

    I lived in Baltimore for several months, and saw the effects of a society where a huge number of people were not married. It was really sad. Problems don't stand in line for their turn to be dealt with. They multiply and make each other worse.

    If your mother and father aren't married, you have a significantly higher chance of committing crime, doing drugs, living on welfare, and otherwise failing to be a positive influence on America. Are you doomed to fail? Of course not. But the sad fact is without a Mom and a Dad, you have a much tougher life ahead.

    Men and women are made for eachother. Emotionally, socially, and biologically. One cannot be complete without the other. I know this from personal experience.

    If you are dealing with gay tendencies, you have a challenge that you may or may not overcome in this life. Desiring something does not make it good for you or socially acceptable. (No matter what others say.)

  • Belching Cow Sandy, UT
    April 22, 2011 3:11 p.m.

    @Kevin Kirkam
    "If gays can't marry because they can't produce kids, should sterile/infertile couples be allowed to marry?"

    Yes

    "Why"

    Because the marriage is for a man and woman couple.

    "Should couples who refuse to have children have their marriage licenses revoked since they aren't "contributing to society" any more than a same-sex couple?"

    No

    "Should women over the age of 50 be allowed to re-marry since they won't be producing any children?"

    Yes, if they are getting married to a man.

    "Why do they need to be married?"

    I don't know. Maybe you should ask one.

    "If a gay couple has kids from either adoption, previous "straight" relationships, rape, "inheriting" them from a deceased sibling, etc...should they be denied marriage?

    Yes

    "Would those kids be harmed if their "parents" aren't married?"

    They will be harmed if their parents are gay, married or not.

    "Are the kids of straight couples harmed if their parents aren't married?"

    yes

    "Why the difference?"

    Because one of the marriages is between a man and a woman. The other is an immoral union between people of the same sex.

  • Legal Eagle Spanish Fork, UT
    April 22, 2011 3:08 p.m.

    Every person has the freedom to choose their path. Once chosen, we each get to enjoy the consequences of those actions.

    If you want to get married in Utah, find someone of the opposite sex you are compatible with and get married.

    If you want a gay relationship, that is your choice, don't try to force society to accept your choice as a good one.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    April 22, 2011 1:40 p.m.

    If gays can't marry because they can't produce kids, should sterile/infertile couples be allowed to marry? Why?

    Should couples who refuse to have children have their marriage licenses revoked since they aren't "contributing to society" any more than a same-sex couple?

    Should women over the age of 50 be allowed to re-marry since they won't be producing any children? Why do they need to be married?

    If a gay couple has kids from either adoption, previous "straight" relationships, rape, "inheriting" them from a deceased sibling, etc...should they be denied marriage? Would those kids be harmed if their "parents" aren't married? Are the kids of straight couples harmed if their parents aren't married? Why the difference?

    In our secular government, marriage is a civil contract and the Savior said that we should render unto Caesar the things of Caesar. Giving CIVIL standing by our CIVIL government regarding CIVIL rights is clearly a matter of our CIVIL government and therefore not any business of the church. Remember, the scriptures forbid us from using our religious opinions to harm the liberties of others. Why do we keep insisting on doing so?

  • jasonlivy Orem, UT
    April 22, 2011 1:39 p.m.

    Accept Gay Marriage, and then what? Will it stop there?

    The answer is a frightening, but emphatic, NO! Once this is condoned, then we will be labeled a bigot if we don't accept the homosexual behavior completely.

    My biggest issue with this whole debate is that so many acquaint this to race. The mere fact that we believe the act of homosexuality is morally wrong automatically qualifies us as bigots. There is no discussion. There is no reasoning. If we don't agree with those who have chosen this lifestyle, we are bigots...period.

    They will have zero proof that those who are gay actually have no choice in the matter. Almost every person I know who's gay has consciously made a choice after being involved for many years in a heterosexual family relationship involving children. They've been swayed by the current manmade fallacy that desires and passions are to be explored and pursued. Do whatever makes you feel good...

    I will never accept the act of homosexuality. It's a violation of the eternal laws of God! These laws govern the universe and we must abide by them or face the consequences...

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    April 22, 2011 12:51 p.m.

    Concerned and Involved |
    "RanchHand, I am not a bigot. In fact, ... I simply stated that one can choose to not act upon certain temptations."

    ---
    Your actions, refusing to allow civil equality, are bigoted actions.

    "Temptation" = "Sin", no?

    IMO, Living any other life than the one God gave me to live would be "sin". I don't adhere to your belief system. Therefore, why should it apply to me?

    ---
    "I will reconsider my position on gay marriage when there are examples of gay couples "waiting" for marriage. I have seen zero evidence that they require either a religious ordinance or a secular approval. Although it may be old fashioned, it is still a ritual that is a conditon prior to sexual activity."
    - Woody

    Riiiight. Don't allow us to marry and then tell us that you'll "let" us marry once we abstain until we marry. Illogic at it's finest.

  • Go Big Blue!!! Bountiful, UT
    April 22, 2011 12:08 p.m.

    If gay marriage was just about two people committing to spend their lives together I would not have a problem with it.

    What is really going on is like when the camel is trying to putt his head in a tent. The camel is not going to be happy until it is all the way in the tent. There is no way the camel fits in the tent. The camel doesn't believe that it will destroy the tent but it will if it continues to push its way in.

    Same sex marriage is a major step for changing everything in the legal system regarding homosexuals. Adoption, taxes, school curriculum, religous rights, and the boy scouts just to name a few of the things that will most likely be impacted by same sex marriage.

  • jasonlivy Orem, UT
    April 22, 2011 11:31 a.m.

    Live as you will, but there are consequences to your choices. The sins of lust: pornography, homosexuality, promiscuity, premarital sex, etc are depravities of an immoral society. Consequences will soon follow as we continue on this path of perversion whether you agree or not. This is not a new problem for our current civilization but has poisoned most advanced civilizations throughout the history of the world. We are not exempt from the same consequences.

    The line between love and lust is so obscure that the two are almost synonymous in this day and age. So many are told that they should give in to their desires because they are good. "Wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

    We are free to choose. Choice, whether good or bad, comes with consequences. A marriage, the most vital union of any civilization, should not be trifled with. Our very societal foundation will crumble as we perverse this sacred institution.

  • Go Utes Salt Lake City, UT
    April 22, 2011 11:00 a.m.

    @atl134 10:38

    You may choose to interpret my comments as "offensive" if you wish. I can't control your thinking on that. If you do not see any difference between having a tendency and acting on that tendency then we are indeed in two different universes. Is attacking drug use an attack on a drug addict? If we outlaw marriage between ten year olds, are we attacking the ten year olds? As I noted, these are very important issues to society and need to be discussed. If my very civil comments that state my view are offensive to you, you will struggle in this debate.

    As for families doing fine, I am amused by this Massachusetts statistic. As if to say that divorce is the only bad thing that can happen to a family.

    I will tell you what: If we have a constitutional amendment that says that gay marriage will not prohibit my adoption agency from refusing to put kids in gay marriages, protect my chapel from being forced to be used for gay weddings, protect my children from being taught in school that gay marriage is acceptable, etc., then I am not opposed to gay marriage.

  • Jason F. Provo, UT
    April 22, 2011 10:54 a.m.

    Globetrecker - There may be a small number of people who "choose" to be gay - but it's very likely that most of those people were bisexual in the first place. Incidentally, of the dozens of gay people I've met and talked to about their feelings, all of them have stated that they were attracted to their own gender as soon as they started feeling sexual attraction. It could be that they were all lying in hopes of supporting the "gay agenda," but I kind of doubt it.

    The "homosexuality as a product of father abuse" thing is a holdover from many decades ago, and has been rather thoroughly disproven (as much as NARTH-esque organizations, in their desperate desire to believe that there wouldn't be any gays if society would condemn it more and if fathers would stop beating their children, would like us to believe that it's true.)

    For most people, homosexual feelings are present at the earliest stages of sexual maturity, and, as most unbiased studies would indicate, are the product of biology (see: twin studies, digit-length studies, birth order studies, etc) and environment during early childhood (but not abuse.)

  • Jason F. Provo, UT
    April 22, 2011 10:46 a.m.

    "Many of the studies they push are actually done by activists"

    "Say what you want about that, but clearly mainstreaming homosexuality increases it. (see narth)."

    It's kind of hilarious that you suggest that "activist" studies aren't reliable, and then cite NARTH as an example of providing reliable studies. Here's a clue: NARTH is about as biased and agenda-driven as they come. They have been shown repeatedly to misrepresent other studies and to blatantly fabricate information - all for the purpose of promoting "reparative therapy," which, in reality, has been shown to do far more harm than good. Of course, none of that matters to you because they support your own agenda.

    But yes, there are a few studies that have been shown to be flawed. There are also lots of other studies that have held up very well under scrutiny by unbiased reviewers (ie, not NARTH), and which have shown that homosexuality is, for a vast majority people, a product of biology (not genetic, but still biological) and environment in the early years of life. Those who claim that it is a choice for most people are perpetuating misinformation. Which is bad.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 22, 2011 10:38 a.m.

    @Go Utes

    "You disagreed with my post by saying: "The idea that you believe that gay people are a threat to the 'protection of families' and the 'sanctity of marriage' is kind of a heavy charge and can easily be considered offensive.""

    "You missed the point of my post entirely. I do not believe that gay people are a threat to anything. I believe that gay MARRIAGE is."

    So you think two people in a committed loving relationship is some sort of threat... that's still kind of a heavy charge and can easily be considered offensive.

    "But the issue needs to be discussed and I never attacked gay PEOPLE. "

    Yes you did. You can pretend the two are separate all you want but what you're doing is condemning relationships of gay people which is typically considered an attack on gay people. That's like pretending that attacking temple marriage is somehow not an attack on Mormons.

    "Gay MARRIAGE is indeed a threat to families and the sanctity of marriage."

    Massachusetts still has the lowest divorce rates in the nation. I think families are doing just fine...

  • Woody Newbury Park, CA
    April 22, 2011 10:34 a.m.

    I will reconsider my position on gay marriage when there are examples of gay couples "waiting" for marriage. I have seen zero evidence that they require either a religious ordinance or a secular approval. Although it may be old fashioned, it is still a ritual that is a conditon prior to sexual activity.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    April 22, 2011 10:14 a.m.

    All in all, the post's on here give me hope. Though many will claim 'gay activist's' are the only ones posting on here (and I admit, I am one), let's be real:

    Either gay people are a 'minority', or we are gaining support. It can't be both.

    *'Poll: More Americans favor same-sex marriage' - CNN - 04/19/11
    ' With 51 percent of respondents saying that same-sex marriages should be legal, it is the first time that a CNN poll has found majority support for same-sex marriage.'

    Also, this article claims Maggie Gallagher founded the Natiional Orginazation for Marriage (or NOM).

    Ok. Well done.

    *'NOM Strategist, Louis J. Marinelli, Declares Support For Same-Sex Marriage' - Huffington Post 04/09/11
    'Last summer, I organized the Summer for Marriage Tour for NOM. For 30 days, I traveled across the nation pushing an un-American agenda that harms gays, lesbians, and their families. I deeply regret...'

    He has a website with his name.

    There, I didn't call anyone names. Demean anyone's belief, or use my faith to dictate another person's marriage.

    Would any oppenents be willing to do the same?

    Good day.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    April 22, 2011 9:59 a.m.

    Notice, how people talk about how gay marriage will 'harm' straight marrige...but never give examples?

    *After 5 Years of Legal Gay Marriage, Massachusetts still has the lowest state divorce rate.' - Bruce Wilson - AlterNet - 08/24/09
    'Massachusetts retains the national title as the lowest divorce rate state, and the MA divorce rate is about where the US divorce rate was in 1940, prior to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.'

    This data was collected from the 'National Center for Vital Statistics.'

    *'Same-Sex Marriage: Who Profits?'
    - Reported by ABC News - 04/08 - By Aude Lagorce, Forbes magazine.
    'Same-Sex Marriage Could Add $16.8 Billion to Industry'

    *'Marriage an important key to avoiding poverty' - By Jennifer A. Marshall, The Heritage Foundation - Published by DSnews - 10/17/10


    Some consequences of NOT having marriage?

    *'Sonoma County Lawsuit Resolved: Clay Greene, Harold Scull Settlement Announced' - 07/22/10
    '$300,000 Payment to Greene, Scull'

    'It also highlights, in the absence of gay marriage rights...'

    *'Kept From a Dying Partners Bedside' - By TARA PARKER-POPE - NY Times - 05/18/09

    '...the couples had prepared for a medical emergency, creating living wills, advanced directives and power-of-attorney documents.'

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    April 22, 2011 9:44 a.m.

    Being gay is a choice.

    *Exodus International, study in 1978. Out of 800 people, only 3 were able to 'change' their orientation. That is a 'success' rate of 0.4%

    I wouldn't want a 0.4% success rate for...well, anything.

    *'Psychologists nix gay-to-straight therapy' - AP - 08/05/09
    'The American Psychological Association slams technique that seeks to change sexual orientation.
    'No solid evidence exists that such change is likely, says the report, and some research suggests that efforts to produce change could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies.'

    *'Gay man says 'reversal' therapy did not change him' - By Lisa Leff - Associated Press - Published by DSNews - 01/20/10
    'SAN FRANCISCO A gay man testified Wednesday in a federal same-sex marriage trial that the "reversal therapy" he underwent as a teenager to change his sexual orientation drove him to the brink of suicide.'

    'A Heaven-Sent Rent Boy' - By FRANK RICH - NYTimes - 05/15/10
    '...the married, 61-year-old (Goerge) Rekers (Co-founder of NARTH) was caught by Miami New Times last month in the company of a 20-year-old male escort at Miami International Airport.'

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    April 22, 2011 9:37 a.m.

    Dispeling myths:

    Gays cannot have children.

    *'Lesbian Utah legislator carrying baby for gay couple' - SLtribune - 01/08/10
    '...Rep. Christine Johnson, D-Salt Lake, at her home on Friday, is 16 weeks pregnant. Johnson is acting as a surrogate for a gay Salt Lake County couple, her close friends, after they expressed frustration with the difficulty of adopting a child in Utah.'

    Not all hetro marriages have children.

    Also, Hetro marriage enjoys a:
    50% divorce rate
    and 40% of all children in America are raised by single parents. CDC.

    Note: Marriage does not guarentee stable family.
    My example?

    John and Kate, plus 8. Now divorced.
    Also, a mother and father do not mean marriage.

    My example?

    Bristol Palin and Levi Johnson.

    Teen Mom: MTV.

    And last: Marriage does not always mean monogamy, does it?

    *'Nevada senator, facing ethics probe, says he'll resign' - NBC News - 04/21/11

    'Republican Ensign admitted having an affair with wife of one of his aides'

  • Go Utes Salt Lake City, UT
    April 22, 2011 9:27 a.m.

    @atl134 3:31

    You disagreed with my post by saying: "The idea that you believe that gay people are a threat to the 'protection of families' and the 'sanctity of marriage' is kind of a heavy charge and can easily be considered offensive."

    You missed the point of my post entirely. I do not believe that gay people are a threat to anything. I believe that gay MARRIAGE is. Again, you are confusing being with doing. There is nothing wrong with BEING gay. What concerns me (and society) is ACTING on that tendency. We all have passions that society asks us to control. As I noted, I concede that dealing with same-sex attraction is a particularly acute thing to control--but that doesn't make it wrong for society to expect it to be controlled.

    Gay MARRIAGE is indeed a threat to families and the sanctity of marriage. Gay PEOPLE are not at all, unless they are out actively trying to fight against marriage and families by pushing for recognition of gay marriage. If you are offended by my defense of marriage, I apologize. But the issue needs to be discussed and I never attacked gay PEOPLE.

  • twelvestringsam Orem, UT
    April 22, 2011 9:11 a.m.

    I agree with this article. There will always be differing opinions. Gays and Lesbians send their message through Internet blogs, comments and discussion boards, and are very vocal. They have a specific agenda.
    Those who believe otherwise need to be vocal as well and ensure their voices are heard through the same process.
    I believe in marriage between a Man and Woman for reasons stated in this article.

    Dan

  • Bubble SLC, UT
    April 22, 2011 6:29 a.m.

    @ Linus: Actually, Christ never said anything about homosexuality...

    You would think if it was that big of a deal, He would have said something.....

    Of course, there is speculation that He did - in Matthew when He is talking about eunochs......

    But that interpretation supports homosexuality....

    Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it?

  • Linus Bountiful, UT
    April 21, 2011 11:29 p.m.

    According to many of the comments, Jesus Christ was/is a bigot. I won't buy it. I think a loving God and Father-of-all wants us to be happy, and clearly marks for us a straight path to happiness. I am a senior citizen and a retired English teacher. I know the definition of marriage. You can't fool me.

  • attentive Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2011 11:03 p.m.

    The Family: A Proclamation to the World. That's what I believe. That's what I know.

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    April 21, 2011 7:38 p.m.

    Maybe we should ask the kids in the orphanages in Romania and elswhere that no one bothers to touch if they would object to having "gay" parents. How about the kids in Africa where both parents have died of aids, would they mind being cared for by a same sex couple?

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    April 21, 2011 7:04 p.m.

    "Our family really isn't so different from any other Iowa family," said Zach Wahls. "When I am home, we go to church together, we eat dinner, we go on vacations...."In my 19 years not once have I ever been confronted by an individual who realized independently that I was raised by a gay couple," he said. "And you know why? Because the sexual orientation of my parents has had zero effect on the content of my character."

    Wahls emphasized the typical nature of his upbringing, as well as his own success. He is an Eagle Scout and a small business owner. He also scored in the 99th percentile on the ACT and is now an engineering student at U of Iowa.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2011 6:53 p.m.

    donburi
    "What I'm clearly saying is that gays said it would not be taught, and now it's about to be taught. "

    You wouldn't complain about this if you didn't think schools should ignore the existence of a demographic of people. Somehow I also think that there's a difference between teaching students about Harvey Milk and telling them they should experiment or some other kind of thing like that (I bet what the gay rights advocates said wouldn't be taught would be encouraging kids to become gay which is different than noting gay people exist).

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    April 21, 2011 6:45 p.m.

    Globetrecker 3:14 P.M.

    That's funny, all of my gay friends have said that they were attracted to the same gender ever since they could remember. I had more than one woman "reject" me before I met my wife, but nobody ever tried to recruit me. Should I feel left out?

    It's funny, I've read all these posts and for all the talk about the "gay agenda" and "defending marriage", the only real argument the anti-gay marriage people have boils down to some version of this:

    1) Because God said so.
    2) Homosexuality is gross.

    If you want to feel this way, go ahead, but your feelings aren't proper justification for denying people their civil rights. We survived women gaining greater mobility in society, we survived interracial marriage, and we'll survive this. I guarantee you that someday our children will look back at us and wonder what the big deal was.

  • jans Pickerington, OH
    April 21, 2011 6:40 p.m.

    I disagree with Mulder21 about the four points and how that will become a major problem in our society. The rights of religious persons to conscientiously object MUST BE UPHELD, regardless of where the marriage debate ends. If someone else can provide these services for gay couples, then the ones who decline to provide them should not be penalized. Perhaps you could argue that they do not receive government funding, but they should be able to stick to their beliefs in their professional life as well as their personal life.

    1. Graduate students are being kicked out of marriage counseling programs because they are unwilling to personally counsel gay couples on how to sustain their relationships.

     2. A physician in California was penalized for not artificially impregnating a lesbian woman.

     3. In Massachusetts and Washington D.C., Catholic Charities was driven out of the adoption business because it refused to place children with gay couples.

     4. In Illinois, Catholic, evangelical and Lutheran adoption and foster care agencies are being probed for discrimination

  • Andy Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 21, 2011 6:21 p.m.

    The homosexual community loves to rely on some unidentifiable force that will bring gay marriage. But they never look at the facts: the people of America do not support nor to they want their government to sanction gay marriage.

    Gay marriage has been outlawed by constitutional amendment in nearly every state. It has never been approved by voters and in nearly every place it has been allowed it has regularly been overturned by voters.

    If you don't like the legal consequences of your unnatural union then form a contract with your partner that gives him/her the same benefits you would have if you were in a natural union. There are numerous web pages that address how to do this. Contractually give the right to make end of life decisions, to inherit your estate, to benefit from your life insurance policy etc etc.

    There is no discrimination because you are allowed to contractually make these arrangements under the current law.

  • Brother Chuck Schroeder A Tropical Paradise USA, FL
    April 21, 2011 6:17 p.m.

    Tell the TRUTH DN. You know what makes me sick. I'll tell ya'll what makes me sick. It's stuff like this. Like it or not Utah, this is my view. Let's start now with Michael De Groote, Deseret News - title - "Gay marriage and reshaping society." OK PEOPLE, "Wake up America". Why are we "American's living in a Country "without any laws" all around anarchists"?. What's Congress and State law makers doing to cause this?. Even these Anarchists in central Russia were either imprisoned, driven underground or joined the victorious Bolsheviks, the anarchists from Petrograd and Moscow fled to the Ukraine. Who in OUR GOVERNMENT is putting a stranglehold on political freedoms we always known?. Are ya'll tired yet of these person's who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power, who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy, especially one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order of The United States of America?. Do you want to give up YOUR Holy Bible for the Anarchist Cookbook?. How about The Book Of Mormon also, seeing Utah is the Mormon State?. It's time to "WAKE UP AMERICA."

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    April 21, 2011 5:24 p.m.

    Gay marriage will come. The people here who are so offended will fall away. Younger people are less worried about other's private lives. Even utah will have to accept it.

  • Springvillepoet Springville, UT
    April 21, 2011 5:23 p.m.

    @ RantBully

    You said: "I find it offensive for gays to brand me as a bigot to make their burden easier while taking away my religious agency."

    Gay marriage does not take away your religious agency, but denying civil rights to any U.S. citizen is bigotted.

    Here are a few questions for you and others:

    How many heterosexual couples' marriages have become null and void based upon gay men or women getting married?

    How many heterosexual couples have called off thir marriages because gay men and women have been allowed to marry in some states?

    How many gay or lesbian couples have filed a law suit against the LDS Church if they are not allowed to in the temple?

    How many courts would uphold such a suit if ever filed?

    The answer to all of those questions? NONE.

  • JM Lehi, UT
    April 21, 2011 5:08 p.m.

    When my wife became a citizen and promised to defend freedom, I committed to defending against those who would destroy the First Amendment. Gay activists and the ACLU lead the charge to take rights from religious people to be involved politically, donate to opposing causes, vote, and speak freely.
    As part of their call to oppress religion, destroy the Utah brand and so on, gay activists seek media outlets, comments, movies and subtly demonize those standing for traditional marriage. They purposely misinform about studies they do trying to prove homosexuality is genetic and gays are better parents (read Creating Gay Children and narth).
    These claims are not true. There are many wonderful gays, but militant activists paint the religious as bigots, even posing as religious people, they also have practiced responses such as: Gay propaganda doesnt hurt families. Ive seen it destroy many. Or, animals are homosexual (ever seen strictly lesbian/gay animals?) Animals also eat their young, some humans also. We teach our children not to do this, we also teach them that homosexuality isnt the way to happiness. And research shows that if we dont do this, our children increasingly turn gay.

  • firstamendment Lehi, UT
    April 21, 2011 5:07 p.m.

    Gays are free to be gay, but governments have no reason to bind them. When we bind homosexuals, or mainstream and normalize homosexuality, we send a message to children and adults that variant sexual relationships are also ideal, crucial, and good for all. Studies indicate that they are not.

    As legislators and activists promote homosexual cultures they increase the numbers of people who believe they were born gay, thus creating homosexuals with attendant ills.
    Once subjected to homosexual environments too many abandon spouses and children for variant sexuality, thus destroying crucial heterosexual marriages and families.
    Consenting heterosexuals are legally bound because healthy heterosexual relationships are crucial for society and children raised in these Traditional Families do better.

    Some activists want to take the right of marriage from all, if they cant have it (like Pearts extremists, keeping the trees equal by hatchet axe and saw).

    They seek to control media and discourage all from speaking the truth about gay violence etc. They say:
    It would be just plain bad press for gays andall bad news needs to be
    suppressed
    From Creating Gay Children

  • MPeace Provo, Utah
    April 21, 2011 5:03 p.m.

    No matter how many GAY marriages are made - they will never make a Family. It is Impossible.

    It will be just an assortment of people.

    In a Man Gay Marriage - Where will be the Mother? Is the Surrogate mother to be the Mother when she will be never around? There will only be a father. - and the child resulting will NEVER know who its Mother ever is. Is this a family? In a Divorced couple Family there is at least Access to the mother or father.

    In a Woman Gay Marriage - Where will be the Father? Is the Sperm Donor the father? -If so , where is he? The same situation occurs as in the man gay marriage. There is no Access to the Father.

    Therefore in all of these cases NO Family results.

    Man/Woman relationships -even teen pregnancies - still have the Father known. -And the Mother. -And make a Family Due to the parents of the pregnant one. If the parents of the pregnant one do not want the responsibility, they choose adoption.

    Adoption into a family which has a woman as a mother and a man as a father is best. - Not into a group of people.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    April 21, 2011 4:58 p.m.

    IDCoug: I don't hate gays but I do hate homosexuality.
    I guess I can see your point, I love God, but I Hate Religions.

    "It seems to be part of the training that gays go through about how to put people of a different opinion on the defensive."

    Although I'm unaware of the training course you mention,
    I am aware that religious training does teach how to put people of a different opinion into a lessor class of people, until they see things the way they do.

  • donburi Oceanside, CA
    April 21, 2011 4:58 p.m.

    @Kalinda,

    Like I said, not a direct link to Prop 8. But certainly part of the continuing gay agenda. With CA public school education being pushed to include gay issues even with Prop 8 passing, imagine how much more things would be pushed if it hadn't passed. The Prop 8 side was not wrong. If anything, the CA bill proves even more that they were right.

  • sjgf South Jordan, UT
    April 21, 2011 4:39 p.m.

    @Really???

    "What comes across as hateful is comparing my feelings--something that is an innate part of me--to that of a pig, duck, horse, or moose."

    My, touchy, aren't we? No one was comparing your feelings to anything. The definition of the word "marriage" was being explained by example. Why would you take someone's statement that they wanted the word to retain the same meaning that has been associated with it for thousands of years to be a slight on your feelings? But I guess some people will twist anything to feel justified in throwing out the "hate" word in a discussion of traditional marriage. :-( It seems to be part of the training that gays go through about how to put people of a different opinion on the defensive.

  • IDCoug Boise, ID
    April 21, 2011 4:36 p.m.

    Happy valley heretic: "If I can feel this strongly about it, why can't a gay person feel the same?

    It's about respect for others beliefs."

    I don't hate gays but I do hate homosexuality. Just like I hate premarital sex, adultery, and media that glorifys teen pregnancy as cute and acceptable. I believe that I can fight against things I believe are wrong and that damage the society I live in. I have gay cousins that I love and can associate with. I wish they had made different choices.

  • MPeace Provo, Utah
    April 21, 2011 4:22 p.m.

    No One, Even If the Country were All Gays, Could Change the ULTIMATE LAW SET FORTH BY GOD ON GAY MARRIAGE, -And the GAY's Know It.

    This Gay Marriage Thing is only good for Insurance and Retirement Benefits.

    -And Their Minds. -And the Bluffing of the communities they live in so they won't be Ostricized.

    Their Marriages are meaningless when it comes to GOD. Him they Cannot Change!

    All this is Set Forth in The Book Of Leviticus In The Bible.

    Maybe a law on the books may make life better for them in their communities and should be passed so they can feel better about themselves freely, without criticism.

    Such a law will NEVER CHANGE the REAL marriage LAW set by God. -Just the Human Set of Laws. Can any human turn off the Law of Gravity? Likewise, no human can change the real law of marriage.

    Gays DO Need their freedom in the human set of laws for their own self respect, freedom, insurance, medical benefits, and Retirements.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    April 21, 2011 4:19 p.m.

    @ donburi: "During the Prop 8 debates, gay supporters said that it would not result in teaching about gays in public schools." And one of the arguments in favor of Prop 8 was that if it wasn't passed gay would be taught in public schools.

    Prop 8 passed, and now there is (still or again or something) talk about teaching about gays in schools.

    Looks like both sides were wrong on that one.

    California does not have gay marriage. Obviously, teaching about gays in history and society is not impacted by the availability of gay marriage.

    (As a side note to Maggie Gallagher, Illinois doesn't have gay marriage either, so what is happening in Illinois is not about gay marriage. A few of her other "facts" aren't all they appear to be either. But, hey, a stretch here and a fib there, what's the difference? Who needs the truth anyway?)

  • firstamendment Lehi, UT
    April 21, 2011 4:18 p.m.

    My wife recently became a Naturalized American Citizen. As the Judge had her promise to protect freedom and fight for liberty I thought in my heart about how the ACLU and Gay activists are seeking to take away the rights of religious people to be involved in voting and politically active. I promised myself that I would speak out when I can for this First Amendment right of free expression of religion.

    As part of that, I wasnt to remind all that, as part of this effort to "destroy" religious minorities, and "demonize" those who are opposed to marriage (read "Creating Gay Children") activists are on comment boards full time, posting misinformation about Mormons, and about gays. Many of the studies they push are actually done by activists, even those studies indicate that homosexuality is not genetic. And, as we mainstream homosexuality through marriage, tax funded parades, media, and now forced into our schools, we increase the numbers of children who think they were born gay.

    Say what you want about that, but clearly mainstreaming homosexuality increases it. (see narth). Teaching that gay marriage is equally sacred to crucial heterosexual marriage causes parents to abandon children for gay relationships.

  • donburi Oceanside, CA
    April 21, 2011 3:54 p.m.

    @donburi
    "During the Prop 8 debates, gay supporters said that it would not result in teaching about gays in public schools. "

    So let me get this straight... you're saying that schools should pretend a certain demographic of people do not exist?

    ------------------------

    Um, no. What I'm clearly saying is that gays said it would not be taught, and now it's about to be taught. They were wrong.

  • So-CalAggie Anaheim, CA
    April 21, 2011 3:49 p.m.

    If Gay is a choice, by a show of hands I want to know who's ever considered being Gay. Who of you have ever contemplated switching sides? Also, if Gay is a choice, how do you account for homosexuality/bisexuality among animals in nature? BTW, even if homosexuals only accounted for 1% of the total population, and that number is debatable, its still represents 65,000,000 people! Also, why would someone choose to join a group who has one of the highest suicide rates in the world? Gee, I think I'll be Gay and then ostracized by a majority of the people in the world, and then disowned by friends and family, and possibly employers, etc., that makes sense! Sexuality is a choice like breathing in air is a choice.

  • 22ozn44ozglass Southern Utah, UT
    April 21, 2011 3:36 p.m.

    weedeater:.... "Human sexuality occurs naturally (born that way)along a spectrum; though the majority of people are heterosexual. A minority continue the spectrum through bi-sexual attraction to completely homosexaul"

    This model was perpetrated upon the world by Kinsey. Kinsey's work is a blatant fraud and propaganda. Kinsey had his spectrum of sexuality in mind before he did his "research" and then he manipulated his samples to acheive the results he wanted.

    Any models of sexuality based upon Kinseys work needs to be held suspect becuase Kinsey did not adhere to quality research standards and he did not even have a statistician on his team. His work was funded by the Rockefellar Foundation, and even officials in the foundation have admitted that there are serious statistical errors that have plagued the work from the very beginning.

    Kinsey was on a quest to break down public morality and to institute his ideas of what was normal sexual behaviour. However, even his own research assistants have openly stated that he was not the same man as the facade he portrayed to the world. He was a sexual deviant, derived purrient interest and stimulation from ritual sexual abuse of children.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2011 3:31 p.m.

    @Go Utes
    "Fighting same-sex marriage is not about hating gays (although many same-sex marriage advocates try to paint it that way). It is about protecting families and the sanctity of marriage"

    The idea that you believe that gay people are a threat to the "protection of families" and the "sanctity of marriage" is kind of a heavy charge and can easily be considered offensive.

    @donburi
    "During the Prop 8 debates, gay supporters said that it would not result in teaching about gays in public schools. "

    So let me get this straight... you're saying that schools should pretend a certain demographic of people do not exist?

    @Uncle Charles
    "Maybe you should read the Family Proclamation, the first couple chapters in Genesis, and go through an endowment session to help in your understanding of the eternal plan of happiness. You might also read the words of Christ in Mark where He states that man and woman should leave their parents and become one. It's sad to see self-proclaimed LDS folks be so confused on the doctrine."

    Whose plan was it that involved forcing everyone else to abide by the rules?

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    April 21, 2011 3:26 p.m.

    re:talia1976
    Not defending NOM, but I am curious about your assertions that NOM was founded by the LDS church and wondering if you can share your source(s). One of NOM's recent defectors, Louis Martinelli stated that NOM was mostly a group of Catholics. However, it is true that Matthew Holland, now UVU Pres. sat or sits on the board of NOM.

  • teri88 Spotswood, NJ
    April 21, 2011 3:22 p.m.

    Uncle Charles....I have read The Proclomation. I agree that marriage between a man and woman, sealed for eternity is the IDEAL. But that is not the reality...there are people who never married, people who are divorced. Same with the endowment, yeah, I've done that, 30 years ago in fact. Again, the ideal. Just because that is the ideal doesn't mean that people who don't fit that mold (the majority of the world) shouldn't be able to marry. And as far as anything in the Old Testiment do I need to start listing all of the things in there that we no longer adhere to??

  • Globetrecker Arlington, va
    April 21, 2011 3:14 p.m.

    Regarding the gay gene, I can only go with what my gay friends have told me or what I have seen them do. Every single one was straight before they were gay. Every one of them (I have about 10 friends from the U.S. and in the UK who are "gay") They ALL were straight until they hit a certain snag where they were rejected by the members of the opposite sex & guess who was there to usher them into a completely accepted lifestyle? The gay communities. They ADMIT it. They say that they got deep into the lifestyle and they turned and CHOSE to go the other way. Ask your "gay" friends if they can HONESTLY say they always were gay. Some others may have had childhood experiences or abuse which confuse them about things, others may be predisposed to be more manly or feminine (read the DNA inf).

    Contrary to that 10% figure of people being gay, it's only about 1% if you google it AND if you actually get neutral studies. Gay propaganda is ridiculous and trying to make us all believe it's a bigger population than it really is.

  • lsslc Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2011 3:10 p.m.

    The main issue I have with this article is it yet another example of mainstream society talking AT the gay community instead of with them. There is no effort to have a conversation or hear the other side of the story. To me this is crappy journalism.

    I am a heterosexual wife and mother of three. I believe in marriage and family. I think strong families are the center of a strong society. Our societal weakness does not come from homosexuality, it comes from abusive, ignorant parents who raise the same. Abuse and ignorance know no gender. How does a gay marriage undermine my own? How will it stop heterosexual families from having babies?

    Personally I think a child is better off being raised by a nice gay couple than abusive heterosexual parents, yet somehow the latter is more socially acceptable. We have got to stop talking about gays like they are satanic freaks here to bring about the end of the world. If you think that way, it's time to make some gay friends.

  • weedeater Murray, UT
    April 21, 2011 3:03 p.m.

    "Gay is a learned behavior"

    You are wrong. Human sexuality occurs naturally (born that way)along a spectrum; though the majority of people are heterosexual. A minority continue the spectrum through bi-sexual attraction to completely homosexual. So, yes, some people (bisexuals) may "choose" to be homosexual, but not all homosexuals choose to be homosexual, some are just born that way. Ask the next gay person you get to know well enough to ask such a personal question.
    It's like this, RockOn, if you want to know about carpentry will you go ask a doctor? What if you want to know something about medicine, would you ask a carpenter? This line of reasoning may sound familiar to you. Ask a gay person about gay things if you want to know the truth.

  • Uncle Charles Where freedom and liberty reign, utah
    April 21, 2011 2:52 p.m.

    @Really???: you stated, " I chose to be lonely because I can't honestly have a loving relationship with somebody of the same gender."

    Why can't you honestly have a loving relationship with someone of the same gender? What's stopping you? do you need that piece of paper to solidify your "loving relationship"?

    @teri88 in NJ: Maybe you should read the Family Proclamation, the first couple chapters in Genesis, and go through an endowment session to help in your understanding of the eternal plan of happiness. You might also read the words of Christ in Mark where He states that man and woman should leave their parents and become one. It's sad to see self-proclaimed LDS folks be so confused on the doctrine.

    @Danny: I agree with you that divorce is a major problem in our society. Can you convince the courts to eliminate no-fault divorce and then force them to have the unwed pregnant mother identify the father so that man can be legally responsible for providing for his child instead of having the mother go on welfare forever?

  • donburi Oceanside, CA
    April 21, 2011 2:50 p.m.

    @Stenar:

    "It is a well-known fact that Maggie Gallagher did not found NOM."
    - Really? It's funny how often I see statements of "well-known fact" from people who are trying to push their own opinion but have no proof. I never heard that. How is it well-known?

    "It was founded by the LDS church."
    - Anyone can make an allegation. Please cite source.

    "Gallagher was recruited by Matthew Holland, son of Jeffrey R. Holland, who was rewarded for his involvement on the board of NOM by being appointed president of UVU, despite no academic leadership experience."
    - Again, please cite source. What is the link (if any) between NOM and UVU that would make that appointment possible?

  • talia1976 Pleasanton, CA
    April 21, 2011 2:38 p.m.

    The National Organization Against Marriage was not founded by Maggie Gallagher. It was founded by the Mormon Church. You'd think a newspaper that is also owned by the Church would be able to get that part right. Since this is an obviously misleading statement, one is left to wonder how many other untruthful statements are contained in this campaign. My belief is they are legion.

  • Concerned and Involved Spanish Fork, UT
    April 21, 2011 2:37 p.m.

    RanchHand,

    I am not a bigot. In fact, I do not believe that homosexuality is a choice. I simply believe whether you act upon those feelings is the choice. I am also of the belief that individuals have every right to live their lives the way they choose. I have a right to live my life the way I choose. I simply stated that one can choose to not act upon certain temptations.

  • donburi Oceanside, CA
    April 21, 2011 2:32 p.m.

    From the Associated Press, April 14, 2011

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. Gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people would be added to the lengthy list of social and ethnic groups that public schools must include in social studies lessons under a landmark bill passed Thursday by the California Senate.

    If the bill is adopted by the state Assembly and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, California would become the first state to require the teaching of gay history.

    ---------------------

    During the Prop 8 debates, gay supporters said that it would not result in teaching about gays in public schools. There may not be a direct link to Prop 8 with this CA bill, but teaching about gays in public schools is now being pushed. Sad.

  • Steve-o Ogden, UT
    April 21, 2011 2:18 p.m.

    Morality: Conformity, or degree of conformity, to conventional standards of moral conduct.
    Marriage: The social institution under which a man and a woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies.

    We're rewriting the book on these two words, and it's not increasing the quality of our society. We're going the wrong direction on these issues.

  • Anon 64 Oahu, HI
    April 21, 2011 2:16 p.m.

    Mc. I do not want to defend Gays, mostly because Gays do Not Need Defending.

    They do Not need You to Judge them or tell them that they are doing good becaause they are not acting on their same Sex Attraction. What they are doing for whatever reason is depriving them selfs of a loving and fulling relationship.

    I have learned a lot about gays in the last several months. In Dec My Wife and I took in an Openly Gay Foster Child. Mahu would be the word but your mind can't even come close to handling that idea. Openly accepted in Hawaii.

    I have custody of his brother and he asked my wife if we would help him out. So she pulled the strings and they where more then happy to place him out of the shelter.

    He is not broken and does not need fixing at least on that issue. He presents Male most of the time. However his friends are teenage girls his age. He brings them home to play video games girl chat etc. No S Word, Drugs, Booze,Smoking etc. Lots of Rock and Roll.

    Because you are Hetrosexual does not make you better.

  • terra nova Park City, UT
    April 21, 2011 2:15 p.m.

    Gay marriage doesn't bother me. It is the lawyers, politicians and social activists who want to have same-sex marriage legalized and watch as the schools are forced to imprint my six year-old with stories about how "Dick and Jane" are now stories about "Jane and Jasmine's Turkey-baster Baby" (which Jane's ex-husband and his new beau, kindly helped them with).

    I'm like, "See Dick Run, Run Dick Run."

    I don't even want schools to have to begin talking about Dick and Jane's sex life at that age. But you can bet the LGBT community will be right there with a "sensitive," self-published book about it. And any teacher who opposes teaching it will be branded an insensitive bigot, a throwback to the deep-south racists and Klan members, someone who needs to be fired.

    A friend of mine once observed, "I don't care if Clinton and Monica had a little romp in the oval office. I don't care about the stains on her dress. I care that my elementary-aged daughter turned to me and asked "What is oral sex daddy?" For that, Clinton deserves no forgiveness."

  • Go Utes Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2011 2:06 p.m.

    @ Really??? 6:43 a.m.

    I did not see anything in this story that is hateful to someone dealing with same-sex attraction. It did not say you are bad. It did not say you are destroying America. It is simply making the case against same-sex marriage. Fighting same-sex marriage is not about hating gays (although many same-sex marriage advocates try to paint it that way). It is about protecting families and the sanctity of marriage. If I am born with a predisposed desire to steal things and society won't allow me to steal--it is not out of hate for me, but out of concern for me acting on my pre-born desire to steal. If I am born with an addiction to crack, it is still illegal for me to use crack--not because society hates me.

    You are confusing being with doing. I will concede that same-sex attraction is a particularly acute problem with which to deal, but that doesn't change the fact that the opposition to same-sex marriage--including the matters discussed in this article--is not about hatred of gays.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    April 21, 2011 1:54 p.m.

    You know what, while we're at it, those Goth kids with the black hair and black clothes and body parts all pierced in multiple places, that's just not normal or moral. I don't like it and they harm me just from the mere fact that they exist. My kids have to look at them, and then I have to explain to them why they look like that. I'm very afraid that they will turn my kids into Goths also. And once they get a foothold, then I don't even want to think what the world will be like.

    Sarcasm off!

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2011 1:53 p.m.

    ender: "You want proof? Since you seem to want the change, prove that by changing an historical institution, you won't be changing the "socio-political-cultural" landscape!!! "

    Like when we changed our socio-political-cultural landscape by accepting women as full citizens or changing the centuries old socio-political-cultural landscape od slavery.

    Treating all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens as equals is a change, but not for the worse. It makes us all better people.

    Can you tell me what harm has come from having nine countries and 5 states along with the Dist of Columbia allowing gays to marry? This is over a decade old.

    Maybe you think this is causing all the earthquakes? Really?

  • Roman K SLC, Utah
    April 21, 2011 1:41 p.m.

    Can we just call it a 'union', provide all the legal and tax advantages, and be done with it already?

  • WhatsGoingOnHere Ogden, UT
    April 21, 2011 1:26 p.m.

    The article is correct saying: "This is a war."

    One group fighting for acceptance of a behavior that another group finds repugnant.

    The LGBT community is using gay marriage as a tool to gain greater acceptance. If this were about marriage, a civil union would solve the proble. After all a rose is still a rose. All the benefits that they seek are granted as part of a civil union, but that won't further their agenda.

    If gay marriages were legalized in all 50 states and throughout the world, the LGBT community would pick up another issue to use as a tool to gain acceptance in society.

    The war will rage on.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    April 21, 2011 1:16 p.m.

    Concerned and Involved

    "Many would say that we need to have tolerance. I say that we need to accept and love all people, but we do not need to tolerate their behavior. "
    --

    CI, I couldn't agree more. Bigotry is a behavior that we absolutely should not tolerate. BTW, bigotry is definitely a choice.

    @IDC;
    Belief isn't a good reason to discriminate against anybody.

  • RantBully Bend, OR
    April 21, 2011 1:14 p.m.

    If God is the creator, and God is perfect, then why would he create both men and women in order to have gay relationships? People will debate the cause of homosexuality forever, but homosexual relationships do not match the perfect intent of God's male and female creation. The human body is imperfect during this lifetime. After our bodies are resurrected, they will be in their perfect form. I can't believe that perfect form would be with homosexual tendencies and subsequent relationships. Until then, a gay individual unfortunately is burdened with struggles that are difficult to carry. But just because those burdens are heavy to bear, does it mean that we should throw God's plan out and dismiss what he expects of us. I feel sorry for my gay friends and hope they can do their best to accept those challenges given to them in this life. But, I am not God, and it would be wrong for me to try to dismiss his commands. Although I care for my gay friends, I find it offensive for gays to brand me as a bigot to make their burden easier while taking away my religious agency.

  • Ender Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2011 1:05 p.m.

    @Lane Myer
    You ask for proof, yet you are the one who wants to change hundreds of years of history! How can you possibly think that altering a bedrock of the social fabric of our society would not have a significant ripple affect?!

    Michaelitos already proved how this change would affect people on a personal level. What is the "socio-political-cultural" makeup of our society except the sum of all its individuals?

    You want proof? Since you seem to want the change, prove that by changing an historical institution, you won't be changing the "socio-political-cultural" landscape!!!

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    April 21, 2011 12:59 p.m.

    DO NOT force a definition into something that it is NOT. Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. The definition of husband is a man married to a woman. The definition of wife is a woman married to a man. By definition a homosexual relationship is not marriageable. Dont use legal systems to try to change definitions to try to make what is abnormal part of the norm for marriage.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    April 21, 2011 12:56 p.m.

    IDC | 12:38 p.m. April 21, 2011
    I don't remember deciding I like women.

    Neither do I, and I could Not be talked into being attracted to the same sex or convinced that it's right for Me.
    That said, Why shouldn't I give others the same respect for how they feel about who they are attracted to.
    If they are attracted to the same sex, why can't it be with the same zeal that I have for the opposite sex.
    If I can feel this strongly about it, why can't a gay person feel the same?

    It's about respect for others beliefs.

  • Concerned and Involved Spanish Fork, UT
    April 21, 2011 12:39 p.m.

    I am sickened by the wanton disregard for both marriage and family, and I am even further disturbed by the discrimination that takes place in our society. While I disagree with homosexuality and feel that it is not morally correct, I do not believe anyone would choose it. Homosexuality is a temptation, not a choice and is just like any other temptation. Some struggle with homosexuality, while others struggle with dishonesty, anger management, addiction, pornography, or something else. It matters not what the temptation is, it only matters whether you choose to fight or not. The choice is not in whether you struggle, it is whether you give in to the temptation.

    Many would say that we need to have tolerance. I say that we need to accept and love all people, but we do not need to tolerate their behavior.

  • IDC Boise, ID
    April 21, 2011 12:38 p.m.

    I don't remember deciding I like women. I also don't remember deciding to love the Dallas Cowboys. Is my loving the Dallas Cowboys a choice or did environment play a role in that? Maybe seeing the Dallas Cowboys on TV influenced my decision more than the Dallas Cowboys gene did? The more homosexuality is pushed in society and the media, the more people will THINK they were born that way. That is sad to me and I believe will lead to a weaker society.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2011 12:16 p.m.

    "In Massachusetts and Washington D.C., Catholic Charities was driven out of the adoption business because it refused to place children with gay couples."

    Because they take gov't money. When you do that you have to abide by gov't non-discrimination policies... or stop taking the money. That's why LDSFS has had no problems in Massachusetts. They don't take public money.

  • Zack Tacorin Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2011 12:03 p.m.

    Chris B | 10:21 a.m. April 21, 2011
    You said that homosexuals "want to make sure everyone knows they are gay", but that you (a heterosexual) do not insist others know your sexual preference. I think this is an over generalization, but even if it weren't, can you explain how this relates to whether same-sex marriage should be allowed?

  • washcomom Beaverton, OR
    April 21, 2011 11:58 a.m.

    Marriages ARE recorded in church halls, temples and mosques. That is how many of the genealogy records are able to be found.

    Marriage is also the only religious action that has to also have a government issuance of a license.

  • Shaden Lincoln, NE
    April 21, 2011 11:50 a.m.

    @Really???

    "Please tell me how the comments others make is suppression of religion? All I can say is I am tired of being made to feel less than the "normal" people of the world. I have value, but these organizations like NOM make people believe I don't."

    My comment was addressing the overall argument of pro-gay marriage groups in contemporary discourse. Media images of the "fallout" after Prop 8 in 2008 attest to it: The LA LDS temple gates with "bigot" spray painted on it, while those opposed to prop 8 shouting obscenities at those who were attending inside. Hotels and businesses owned by those who defended Prop 8 being blacklisted, boycotted, and publicly ridiculed by gay rights groups. Target, Chick-Fil-A, and other chains being mocked online because they donated money to pro-family causes. The LDS church (and by that same token, every active member) being scapegoated.

    Never did I state that you don't have any value or did I attack you. However, I find the logic and rhetoric of these pro-gay groups (paradoxically screaming at pro-family groups to "love" and "tolerate" and "coexist") baffling and disturbing.

  • Stenar Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2011 11:46 a.m.

    It is a well-known fact that Maggie Gallagher did not found NOM. It was founded by the LDS church. Gallagher was recruited by Matthew Holland, son of Jeffrey R. Holland, who was rewarded for his involvement on the board of NOM by being appointed president of UVU, despite no academic leadership experience.

  • So-CalAggie Anaheim, CA
    April 21, 2011 11:42 a.m.

    @Rockon: "Gay" is a learned behavior? Please reference any peer reviewed real scientific evidence to back up your claim, otherwise we should all dismiss it as your biased opinion based on your world view... or in other words your "learned behavior." Sans proof I congratulate you for having an opinion, just like Ms. Gallagher.

    If sexuality is a choice, please describe the day you woke up and declared yourself Heterosexual. I'm hetero myself, yet I can't recall making that choice. What's also funny is that I keep hearing from the Pious (aka the leadership of the LDS Church in particular) that we should "resist our NATURAL urges" in reference to sexual behaviors (usually premarital, or when speaking of "self abuse" etc.). Natural urges? Doesn't that seem to fly in the face of your argument that our sexuality is a choice? Am I to believe that as I progressed through adolescence that my sexual urges were really just a choice, and not "natural"?

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    April 21, 2011 11:30 a.m.

    Where did I put my tight pink shorts and britney spears tank top? Oh yeah, I don't own any.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2011 11:15 a.m.

    Ranch,

    Did I ever say if a gay holds hand with another gay its shoving it in my face?

    No.

    Recently a group of gays gathered at the state capital wearing dresses, makeup, and high heels to whine about something gay.

    Why did they dress like women?

    Because they wanted everyone to know they were gay.

    No straight person acts in such a way solely for the purpose of letting everyone else know they are straight.

    Yes - straight people do straight things, such as hold hands, but its not for the puropose of making sure everyone knows they are gay.

    Why do gays at the gym wear tight pink shorts and britney spears tank tops?

    To let everyone else know they are gay.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
    April 21, 2011 11:12 a.m.

    @Happy Valley Heretic:

    "But a gay marriage doesn't produce children to be abandoned-heterosexual relationships do. Please explain how this relates to gay marriage?"

    If we redefine marriage in lots of different ways, we weaken the institution. That increases out of wedlock births. We live in a society where fathers don't recognize that they have a responsibility for their children. Indeed, they may not even know they have children. They've moved on.

    Tekakaromatagi

  • Springvillepoet Springville, UT
    April 21, 2011 11:09 a.m.

    I forgot to clarify earlier that I disagree with most of what Maggie Gallagher has to say, generally and specifically. I am in favor of gay marriage not only on moral grounds, but on legal grounds as well.

  • Jax Bountiful, UT
    April 21, 2011 11:02 a.m.

    "If you want to know how same-sex marriage is going to affect traditional believers, mainstream Christians and other faith communities, ask yourself how do we treat racists who are opposed to interracial marriage in the public square."

    It won't matter if the laws are changed or not Mrs. Gallagher, I already view people like you the same way I view racists and other participants in harmful discrimination. The laws aren't what changed the way racists are viewed, rather the way racists are viewed is what changed the laws. We are seeing a similar change happening now around the world with regard to sexual orientation. Thank goodness.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    April 21, 2011 10:58 a.m.

    @Zack Tacorin: Stop with being logical; it will only bring on more illogical comments, lol! Have you read these posts? For instance, "gays want the world to know they are gay, and wear pink shorts to the gym," paraphrasing, of course. I personally am friends with many gays who are the exact opposite of what that particular poster has said. Would you most likely know they are gay? Yes. Do they kiss and hug and make a scene? No. Blanket statements are hilarious. I'll bet the poster has even had contact or been friends with someone who is gay and not even known it.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    April 21, 2011 10:57 a.m.

    Chris B | 10:21 a.m. April 21, 2011
    "I'm not saying I hide my sexuality. For example, I will hold my girlfriend's hand in public.

    However, I do this because I want to hold my girlfriends hand, NOT because I want everyone to know I am straight."
    --
    Whatever makes you think that if I hold my partner's hand in public it is because I want everyont to know that I'm gay and that I'm not doing it just because I want to hold his hand?

    It seems that it's okay for you because it's what you "want" to do, but if I "want" to do it, I'm shoving my gayness in your face.

    That, my friend, is called hypocrisy.

  • Zack Tacorin Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2011 10:38 a.m.

    sjgf at 9:55 a.m. April 21, 2011 said,
    "The word "Marriage" is that word created in the English language to signify a specific type of relationship between a man and a woman, and conveys certain expectations of those two people supporting each other through life."

    By this same criteria I think we would have to condemn our Mormon forefathers for their practice of polygamy. For most of the nation (in the 1800s or now), the word "marriage" is not defined in terms of multiple spouses at a time for one person. Any time we try to argue the definition or original purpose of "marriage", we argue against the eternal doctrine established in Doctrine and Covenants 132.

    In addition, you seem to have an unstated major premise, that a definition (in this case the definition of "marriage") may not change. Why not? What prevents society from changing the definition of a word? I'm reminded that the word "gay" did not even connote the idea of homosexuality. Now it seems homosexuality is the first thing thought of with the word "gay".

    By the way, refering to comments as "silly" is an ad hominem attack.

  • Brother Chuck Schroeder A Tropical Paradise USA, FL
    April 21, 2011 10:34 a.m.

    You know what makes me sick. I'll tell ya'll what makes me sick. It's stuff like this. Like it or not Utah, this is my view. Let's start now with Michael De Groote, Deseret News - title - "Gay marriage and reshaping society." OK PEOPLE, "Wake up America". Why are we "American's living in a Country "without any laws" all around anarchists"?. What's Congress and State law makers doing to cause this?. Even these Anarchists in central Russia were either imprisoned, driven underground or joined the victorious Bolsheviks, the anarchists from Petrograd and Moscow fled to the Ukraine. Who in OUR GOVERNMENT is putting a stranglehold on political freedoms we always known?. Are ya'll tired yet of these person's who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power, who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy, especially one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order of The United States of America?. Do you want to give up YOUR Holy Bible for the Anarchist Cookbook?. How about The Book Of Mormon also, seeing Utah is the Mormon State?. It's time to "WAKE UP AMERICA", and, do something about it.

  • Sank You, Doctor Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2011 10:31 a.m.

    sjgf | 9:55 a.m. April 21, 2011
    South Jordan, UT
    So many silly comments.

    The word "Marriage" is that word created in the English language to signify a specific type of relationship between a man and a woman, and conveys certain expectations of those two people supporting each other through life.

    ------------------

    Is that what the marriage of two companies means? I didn't realize... Or how about the marriage of a good wine and cheese? All these phrases are used within the English language to signify the uniting of two entities.

    And why shouldn't gays marry? They two are asking the state to recognize their expectations of supporting each other through life. They are asking the state to grant them the same leagl status that any other couple of Aerican citizens are presented with when they receive their marriage certificate.

    Is it that you think they are not good enough or righteous enough to have the same privileges and benefits that you enjoy? What is your legal reason for denying them the same citizenship that you enjoy?

  • teri88 Spotswood, NJ
    April 21, 2011 10:25 a.m.

    @trueblue87

    I don't know if you are LDS, but the 11th article of faith states:

    "We claim the priviledge of worshipping the Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience. We allow all men that same priviledge; let them worship how, where, or what they may."

    Our personal beliefs on what makes a sin a sin should not be part of this argument, because not everyone shares these beliefs. The church itself, according to the above AOF, states that we allow all people to believe whatever they want. What, then, gives us the right to dictate who is allowed to marry who, just based on what we believe to be sinful?

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2011 10:23 a.m.

    michaelitos: ". Homosexual marriage is a huge socio-political-cultural change that affects society as a whole."

    Support your statement. Show me how much Massachusetts has changed since they adopted gay marriage in 2004. Point out how a member of the LDS church - or any church has had their beliefs changed, has had such a cultural change that it compromises their integrity or makes them question their own marriages and the sanctity of the vows that they took. Can you show me one couple that has decided not to marry because gays can also marry?

    Show me proof or all you are spewing is fear without any truth to it.

  • Everest American Fork, UT
    April 21, 2011 10:22 a.m.

    Maybe "marriage" can exist with several associated adjectives: "traditional marriage," "gay marriage," and "plural marriage." Would that be some sort of compromise here?

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2011 10:21 a.m.

    I dont get why gays insist on shouting to the world about their sexual preferences?

    If someone finds out I am a heterosexual it is because they find out, not because I'm insisting they know I like women.

    Contrarily,

    It is often easy to spot a gay, such as the ones who wear tight pink shorts and britney spears tank tops at my gym.

    Why? Because they want to make sure everyone knows they are gay.

    Not a single person at the gym has even worn a "I like women" shirt to make sur everyone knows they are straight.

    For some reason they gays want to shove their gayness in everyones face.

    I'm not saying I hide my sexuality. For example, I will hold my girlfriend's hand in public.

    However, I do this because I want to hold my girlfriends hand, NOT because I want everyone to know I am straight.

    Why do the gays insist on everyone knowing immediatley just by looking at them that they are gay?

  • Sank You, Doctor Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2011 10:08 a.m.

    Uncle Charles: "No logically thinking individual can say with a straight face that homosexuality is nothing more than a chosen behavior."

    Are you calling the LDS church ill-logical? They admit that same sex attraction (homosexuality) is not chosen. Do you want to stick with that line or are you willing to learn (like the LDS church did that there are those who did not choose this attraction?

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    April 21, 2011 10:06 a.m.

    What comes across as hateful is comparing my feelings--something that is an innate part of me--to that of a pig, duck, horse, or moose.

  • VocalLocal Salt Lake, UT
    April 21, 2011 9:58 a.m.

    Dear Mrs. Maggie Gallagher,
    You say unstable families are contributing to high crime and other social ills and yet you criticize Europe for it's small family size when it has fewer of the very social ills (such as crime) you insist 'strong' families prevent. I have lived in an western european country and while they do have smaller families I can also say they put their families above anything else in their life. I also fail to see how falling populations is a tragedy-I think in a world with limited resources that is probably beneficial and I think it's better for society that those who are uninterested in child-rearing not feel compelled to do so.
    As for same-sex marriage I see no reason why it should have any less legitimacy than adoption. Yes, it is ideal when the father and mother can raise their biological child but we don't live in an ideal world-a world where not all children can stay with their biological parents and not all parents have the innate heterosexual attraction that would make that union a happy one.

  • Just Truth Saratoga Springs, UT
    April 21, 2011 9:55 a.m.

    Exactly! Marriage is being attacked. Gays don't want what marriage really is, they want to change it to fit them. Unwittingly or divisively, this directly affects natural families and their rights.

    I don't care if Gays have unions, but to accept the lie that those unions are comparable to the union between man and woman (the basic unit set up where all children should have a right to be born into and raised up in), is damaging to families and societies. This article very well points out directly some causes and effects of accepting the selfish view of Gays, to the detriment of upholding better familial practices for society as a whole.

  • sjgf South Jordan, UT
    April 21, 2011 9:55 a.m.

    So many silly comments.

    The word "Marriage" is that word created in the English language to signify a specific type of relationship between a man and a woman, and conveys certain expectations of those two people supporting each other through life.

    It does not mean anything else. It doesn't mean a relationship between a pig and a duck. It does not mean a relationship between a horse and a moose. It doesn't mean a relationship between a man and another man. It doesn't mean a relationship between a woman and another woman. It is a simple matter of definition.

    The LGBT community wants to change the definition of this word. And they do it through telling people who want it to continue to mean the same thing that they are "hateful" or "bigoted." What is hateful about believing that a word has a certain meaning?

  • michaelitos Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2011 9:51 a.m.

    @Mulder21
    Thank you for proving Ms. Gallagher's point and serving as the impetus of her fight. As you so hatefully hurl the term "bigotry" at her (and me for that matter), you prove her point that this fight is worth fighting. Homosexual marriage is a huge socio-political-cultural change that affects society as a whole.

    I'm glad Ms. Gallagher has taken up this fight, and I support her in it. As Brian Brown said, "Marriage is a public good. If you change the definition of marriage, you dont just change it for the gay married couple down the street, you change it for everyone. If gay marriage is allowed, then the state is essentially saying that my views on marriage, and the majority of Americans views on marriage, are equivalent to discrimination. It profoundly affects me if my children are taught in the schools that my views on marriage are bigoted. It profoundly affects me if the church that Im part of is treated in the law as bigoted. And, ultimately, same-sex marriage is not true.

    Thank you for proving his point.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    April 21, 2011 9:44 a.m.

    Shaden,

    Please tell me how the comments others make is suppression of religion? All I can say is I am tired of being made to feel less than the "normal" people of the world. I have value, but these organizations like NOM make people believe I don't.

  • trueblue87 Provo, UT
    April 21, 2011 9:31 a.m.

    @ teri88

    you said the only reason you support gay marriage is because you believe sexual relationships outside of marriage are a sin. acting upon homosexual feelings is a sin. so by your reasoning you are promoting one sin to avoid another sin?

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    April 21, 2011 9:30 a.m.

    Gallagher can repeat the same stuff over and over again, the points which were made in the "Six Consequences" defense of Prop 8.
    Did the Prop 8 defense team present any evidence in court as to harm?
    No
    Because it wouldn't stand up in court. In court one has to present factual evidence, not just theories or beliefs.

    The fact is, Catholic Adoption services, functioning as a STATE supported agency placed at least 2 children with same-sex couples. The trouble began when it was made public and the higher-ups in the Catholic Churh became aware of it. The Catholic church can still participate in adodption services as does the LDS church in MA, without state-funding.

    Amen Danny
    Nobody has destroyed the "sanctity of marriage" more than heterosexuals.
    But it is much easier to target a minority population using discrimination than look in the mirror.

  • Shaden Lincoln, NE
    April 21, 2011 9:07 a.m.

    I am tired of reading these articles and then the subsequent comments...these discussion boards are always hijacked by gay marriage advocates (who incessantly comment with the same fallacious responses), and anyone who supports traditional marriage is afraid to join the debate for fear of appearing naive.

    I for one understand and agree with the majority of what Gallagher is arguing and appreciate that she is being covered here in the DN. I believe that this topic is the defining debate in public discourse today, and that too often those who are pro-marriage are actually marginalized as bigots or, essentially, the equivalent of racists. I have been in a doctoral program for years now, and as an active, conservative LDS member who supports marriage between a man and a woman, I am consistently demonized and seen only as some uninformed religious fundamentalist. This is the rhetorical tactic of the pro-gay marriage group--marginalize and shun anyone who disagrees with them by branding them as bigots.

    This is not true. This is hypocritical. It is a fallacy to equate the gay marriage debate with the civil rights movement, for example. This is blatant suppression of religious freedom, tragically.

  • Uncle Charles Where freedom and liberty reign, utah
    April 21, 2011 9:04 a.m.

    -----

    The lady is absolutely correct in her comments.

    The embracing of homosexuality by our society is nuts. It shows just how far we have fallen for the tricks of Satan and his followers.

    There is absolutely nothing virtuous, lovely or of good report in embracing this self-destructive, family and society killing behavior.

    No logically thinking individual can say with a straight face that homosexuality is nothing more than a chosen behavior.

    I hope more people continue to stand up for what is right in order to keep the family strong and reverse the perverted trend of our society which dismisses all things moral and of value.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    April 21, 2011 9:03 a.m.

    @Mulder21: And to continue your thought, I'm sure someone out there has the time to come up with examples of acts that go against their beliefs were ignored. This is singling out a particular group, plain and simple. Yet we let crackheads and others - I can think of women who have multiple kids by varying fathers, who are nowhere to be seen - have babies without blinking and eye, but don't let those gays invade marriage. What is marriage? It's a legal document that means nothing, except when that imminent divorce occurs. This all leads me back to a prior story and post, about what is the heirarchy of sin. If this is a sin, so is swearing, so is speeding and breaking the laws of the land, so is lying, cheating, stealing. Yet, somehow, those are more easily forgiven it seems, and can be repeated over and over without consequence. No one sees the absolute humor in all of this nonsense?

  • Tekakaromatagi Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
    April 21, 2011 8:57 a.m.

    @Mulder21: People have been fired and black-listed because of their religious views and prejudice for what they might do. (The University of Toledo in Ohio is being sued for this.)
    This is like 1950's McCarthyism. Instead of communism being not-PC, now religion is not-PC. Allowing SSM gives a blunt legal instrument to a lot of people who are xenophobic to religion.

    Tekakaromatagi

  • working class Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2011 8:55 a.m.

    As a father I love my children- they are my own flesh and blood. This gal is implying that I need some sort of social pressure to feel my responsbilities. No. It's much too biological to need this stuff. As she points out, one of the main drivers toward marriage, perhaps THE main, is the desire to procreate. Aboslutely true. How does gay marriage endanger this? It doesn't. And yes, let's not forget how biggoted we once were about interracial marriage. I grew up in Utah in the 50's - I remember how it was. The views expressed by the establishment in those days is an embarassment to the present establishment. Memo to establishment: you can be wrong - believe it or not!

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    April 21, 2011 8:53 a.m.

    RockOn | 7:42 a.m. April 21, 2011

    "Gay is a learned behavior. There is no gay gene."

    ===

    Will you please clarify for me who exactly it was that I "learned" the behavior from? I'd be more than grateful, you see, both of my parents are heterosexual, my siblings are all heterosexual, my grandparents are also heterosexual. Yes, I do have glbt cousins, a great aunt, and other extended family who are glbt, but none of them were around to teach me how to be gay, so I would really, really, like to know who to blame for the unwanted lessons.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    April 21, 2011 8:51 a.m.

    Gallagher's absolutely right about the value and importance of marriage - however she fails to explain why that doesn't apply to same-sex marriage.

    Same-sex couples have children - why shouldn't those coyotes and those children have the benefits of marriage?

    If you want a culture that values marriage as a place to raise children, and make sure all families with children are married - or at least have the option to be.

  • Idaho Coug Meridian, Idaho
    April 21, 2011 8:51 a.m.

    Same sex attraction is genetic. Most estimates are that no more than 10% of the population at most are born with this attraction. Seeing, reading about or knowing gay individuals will not make a straight person gay. Sexual attraction is probably the strongest natural urge we have. Many same sex couples have raised children in homes that are every bit as supportive and loving as healthy traditional families. Statistics also show that children from same sex parent homes are gay at the same rate as the national average. Same sex attraction will not go away no matter what we say or do. It is time we allow them the same rights and respect as all citizens.

    Therefore, I simply do not understand why so many are focusing on same sex relationships or marriage as the threat to traditional marriages and families. the real threats are divorce, pornography which is a major driver for divorces and unhappy marriages, children born out of wedlock, and deadbeat dads. NONE of which have ANYTHING to do with same sex relationships and marriages.

  • Zack Tacorin Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2011 8:49 a.m.

    RockOn,

    You wrote, "Gay is a learned behavior. There is no gay gene. Marriage is a choice".

    What is your source for this? I suggest you listen to Dr. William Bradshaw of BYUs Department of Microbiology and Molecular Biology (go to the Mormon Stories web site, it's podcast #191). You may find the scientific research does not support your claim.

    You also said it's proven, "that a child with a mother and a father is better off than a child with one parent or one without either a mother or a father. Both is essential. The proof is timeless and overwhelming." What research can you cite that indicates that having two mothers or two fathers is detrimental to children?

  • nanniehu Wendover, UT
    April 21, 2011 8:38 a.m.

    Amen to the author of this article. She wasn't trying to vilify homosexuals or lesbians, she was defending and promoting the valid and reasonable argument for traditional marriage. If you choose to act on your sexual preferences, that is your business, but children need both a father and a mother in the home.

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    April 21, 2011 8:23 a.m.

    There are some astounding comments being posted today. I am wondering:
    When did governments role become to perpetuate the species?
    Stopping people with same-sex attraction from living morally is saving the soul of America?

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    April 21, 2011 8:21 a.m.

    Tekakaromatagi said:
    In this young man's world there is no reason why someone would know their father.

    But a gay marriage doesn't produce children to be abandoned-heterosexual relationships do.
    Please explain how this relates to gay marriage?

    SLC Watch: You said, "There is only one reason for government to be involved in marriage at all. That is to perpetuate the species."
    Actually it's all about Tax revenue, but besides that we allow old people to marry, we don't force people to have children, and that "be fruitful and multiply, they still got half the scripture right, the multiply part was when few were on the earth, I think there's enough starving children in the world that die every day, who would beg to differ with the rabbit mentality.

  • Zack Tacorin Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2011 8:18 a.m.

    To milojthatch - I disagree with you regarding same sex marriage but want to commend you for your decorum and respect. Thank you for starting the comments with such civility!

    To Ethan Smith - I agree with your points about homosexuality occurring naturally in humans as well as other species and with the idea that the evidence does not demonstrate same sex marriage harms the institution of marriage. However, I disagree on one point. I think technically, if there are genetic factors involved in homosexuality, then they could be passed to offspring by a lesbian mother procreating with her own ova. It probably wouldn't be common but is likely to happen.

    To slcwatch - It seems to me that government involvement in marriage extends well beyond procreation. What is your source for claiming government involvement is solely for procreation? Even if that were true, why would we as a society be limited to this even if it were the original purpose? Besides, if we extend your reasoning to its logical conclusion, shouldn't we exclude infertile heterosexuals from marriage?

  • Ridgely Magna, UT
    April 21, 2011 8:18 a.m.

    This isn't "It's a Wonderful Life" where "Every time a bell rings an Angel gets its wings". If a gay couple gets married a heterosexual marriage doesn't automatically explode!

    Despite Ms. Gallaghers dire predictions of cultural Armageddon, gay and lesbian families simply want the basic legal protections that flow from CIVIL Marriage.

    If heterosexual couples want a religious wedding ceremony in their church or Temple, that's OK. No one is stopping them. No one is forcing ANY church to perform same sex weddings [It's been legal and Massachusetts and Canada for years and yet the LDS Temples there still have the lights on].

  • Mc West Jordan, UT
    April 21, 2011 8:17 a.m.

    @Really???
    Because you are not acting upon your feelings of same sex attraction you are not immoral. You are not evil. You are not selfish or worthless to society. I don't know whether or not you were born with same sex attraction. It doesn't matter if you were or not. What matters is what you choose to do now. It looks like you have chosen to live a chaste and moral life because you love the church. I respect that. Our church leaders respect that. We know it must be hard and we should never make it harder by treating you badly. You will be so blessed for not sucumbing to this temptation.

    Hang in there. Forgive those who say things that hurt. They don't mean to hurt you personally. They are just concerned for the doctrine on families as given to us in the Proclamation. The family unit is so important to our Father in Heaven, more important than any other organization in the church. We are asked to defend traditional marriage and promote it as the fabric of society.

    I wish you well. Your example is of great worth.

  • michaelitos Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2011 8:14 a.m.

    @Schwa
    Gay marriage would indeed affect people outside of that union. We're dealing with major societal change here. It permeates our culture and affects us all. Ms. Gallagher points out that the major reason for marriage is to join mother and father in a bond to raise children. Changing that definition would represent a huge socio/political/cultural shift!

    To quote Brian Brown, "Marriage is a public good. If you change the definition of marriage, you dont just change it for the gay married couple down the street, you change it for everyone. If gay marriage is allowed, then the state is essentially saying that my views on marriage, and the majority of Americans views on marriage, are equivalent to discrimination. It profoundly affects me if my children are taught in the schools that my views on marriage are bigoted. It profoundly affects me if the church that Im part of is treated in the law as bigoted. And, ultimately, same-sex marriage is not true."

    This affects us all!

  • Mulder21 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2011 8:13 a.m.

     From the article it gives the following four points:

    1. Graduate students are being kicked out of marriage counseling programs because they are unwilling to personally counsel gay couples on how to sustain their relationships.

     2. A physician in California was penalized for not artificially impregnating a lesbian woman.

     3. In Massachusetts and Washington D.C., Catholic Charities was driven out of the adoption business because it refused to place children with gay couples.

     4. In Illinois, Catholic, evangelical and Lutheran adoption and foster care agencies are being probed for discrimination

    All I can say is, I think these points are 100% correct and people should be penalized for discriminating against anyone for any reason. That includes race, gender, age, and yes SEXUAL ORIENTATION. I am glad that there are some people in this country with enough common sense to fight bigotry!

  • Ace Farmington, UT
    April 21, 2011 8:13 a.m.

    To "Really???" @ 6:43: Not everyone thinks like that. Just do your best--that's all anyone can do. Hang in there.

  • michaelitos Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2011 8:07 a.m.

    Well said Maggie!!! Keep fighting for what's right!!!

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    April 21, 2011 7:44 a.m.

    Now, DN, let's have balanced coverage and have another story by a pro-gay marriage group. Most of the article I can agree with, but this is just another one of your stories that belongs on the opinion page, not the front page where it is written to incite. Unless, of course, you get a kick out of that, which there is evidence that you do, as I've seen inciteful stories stay on the post for a long time, and sometimes go away and then return. Balance, that's the way to be a journalist.

  • RockOn Spanish Fork, UT
    April 21, 2011 7:42 a.m.

    Gay is a learned behavior. There is no gay gene. Marriage is a choice and a proven commodity that a child with a mother and a father is better off than a child with one parent or one without either a mother or a father. Both is essential. The proof is timeless and overwhelming.

    As to the mindless idea of "live and let live", do so at societies' peril. Gallahger is right on when she says this is akin to the racial debate where racists were marginalized and put down. In that case it was justified. In this "choice" discussion it is not. Race is a product of birth. Sexuality is a product of choices. I won't stand by and let your poor choices harm my society.

  • Danny Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2011 7:42 a.m.

    My Gay marriage of 17 years has lasted longer then a lot of straight marriage. So if you want to fix marriage start with the ones your trying to protect. Stop divorce is where you should be putting your time and money.

  • teri88 Spotswood, NJ
    April 21, 2011 7:41 a.m.

    I am LDS, in a "traditional" marrige but I have always been in favor of gay marriage, for the simple reason that I believe sexual relationships without marriage is a sin. You can not have your cake and eat it too, you can't say that gay couples cannot be together without the benefit of marriage but OH, you aren't allowed to marry.
    There are many traditional couples who marry and either can't have children or choose not to have children. Are we going to outlaw them too? A gay couple may not be able to have children in the traditional way, but they can use infertility treatments to get pregnant if they are women. They can adopt, and many couples I've seen adopt the special needs children that no one else seems to want. What children need are loving parents that want their children and raise them to be productive, happy members of society. Gay couples are fully capable of that. Lots of straight couples get their children through adoption or surrogatesy are they any less a family?

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2011 7:35 a.m.

    Gallagher: "Only societies that have learned how to successfully manage the procreative implications of male/female attraction have survived."

    Did she provide examples of such failed societies? I can think of none that failed because they stopped reproducing, except maybe for Shakers. I can think of many societies that failed because they did not succesfully manage procreation, but not for underpopulation. These are societies that could not rein in reproduction and overexploited their resource base to the point they could not survive.

    SLCWatch: "The protections, benefits and rights bestowed by government are only to protect, facilitate and encourage procreation of the next generation.
    This is as simple as it gets."

    Please explain Utah Code 30-1-1(2)(b), which mandates infertility as a condition for government sanctioned marriage. The legislative history behind this section of the code makes it clear that the legislators thought love and relationships to be valid considerations for marriage policy (at least for some people). It's not so simple after all.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
    April 21, 2011 7:25 a.m.

    @SLC Watch: You said, "There is only one reason for government to be involved in marriage at all. That is to perpetuate the species." That might be one reason, but there are others. Marriage fights poverty.

    One time I went to a youth detention center to tell stories. One of the inmates there questioned me about a story involving a young man who was required to fight his father in a battle. His question was, "How did he know it was his father?" It made me wonder if I had left out something. But I hadn't.

    In this young man's world there is no reason why someone would know their father. That is one of the underlying reasons that he had broken the law enough times that the justice system finally opened an eye and sent him to a youth detention center.

    Failing to support marriage will creat more young men like this one. That is why I support it.

    Tekakaromatagi

  • Springvillepoet Springville, UT
    April 21, 2011 7:10 a.m.

    As a man, I find the following very offensive:

    "If we want fathers to be there for their children and the mothers of their children, biology alone won't do it. We need a cultural mechanism to attach fathers to the mother/child bond."

    I am married, and a father of three. My marriage is not the thing which attaches me to the "mother/child bond." Whenever I look at one of my children, I feel a biological tie to them. I am their father, and even if I was not married to their mother, I would still be their father--- biologically and emotionally.

    In telling me I need to be corralled into marriage for the sake of the survival of the species, Maggie Gallagher minimizes my worth at the same time she tries to articulate my necessity.

    Which am I? A necessary component to the healthy and successful family unit, or some callous philanderer, who would wander from woman to woman without any regard for my children if not being "forced" to marry?

  • Livingstone Orem, UT
    April 21, 2011 6:56 a.m.

    It seems that our presumption that population should grow and keep growing is never questioned. In W. Europe, where religion is on a sharp decline and quality of life is the highest, birth rates are down and life expectancy is up. The danger here is not that Europeans will disappear but will disappear against immigrants and their birth rates, and the culture will degrade. This is where the fear is; this notion that we need to promote births of new children is founded in part on latent racism. In the United States, we only sustain our way of life through quick expansion and re-investment, and we would have to make certain changes in the consumer culture and economy if birth-rates slowed down. This may be a good thing. That somehow we should keep having children not just to replace each person who dies (this already happens in Europe) but to provide more working bodies to support the aging populations' quality of life seems to be the underlying need for more children. High birth rates, like that in Utah, is a tax on government and spending, and is a huge problem that is never addressed.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    April 21, 2011 6:43 a.m.

    This topic makes me sad. According to others on here I chose to be gay. I chose to destroy the natural family unit. I chose to be misunderstood. I chose to be lonely because I can't honestly have a loving relationship with somebody of the same gender. I chose to have this struggle with same sex attraction because I didn't pray hard enough for 20 years asking help for me to change. I chose to sit alone at church--the church I love--because being around other men like me is wrong.

    I am immoral. I am evil. I am destroying America. I am selfish and only care about myself. Please continue printing more articles telling me how worthless to society I am. I didn't get enough of this kind of treatment in junior high and high school. I need to be put in my place.

  • awsomeron1 Oahu, HI
    April 21, 2011 5:02 a.m.

    I think that we are far far from being in danger of losing our Society because we do not produce enough babies.

    If we STOPED ABORTION we would have more Babies. Stop Killing Unborn Childern.

    Advanced Societys in part control proverty buy limiting population, through birth control and Abortion. If you have one or two kids you go to Disneyland, if you have 8 kids you go to the Local Park, even if you live Next to Disneyland.

    There is a need for a younger generation to work and pay taxes in order to support the old.

    Do you want One or Two kids a working outside the home mother and stuff. Or do you want 6 kids and a stay at home mom/dad. They call people who work different shifts "divorced".

    I would not want a Wife with 2 jobs, work outside the home and taking care of Kids and housse and evan remotely expect her to be friendly towards the end of the day, or early in the morning.

    People with less kids have more simple fact of life.

    Gay people are a different issue. Being so does not mke them bad parents. Or us better.

  • cornetmustich Washington, CT
    April 21, 2011 4:18 a.m.

    Marriage is firstly a civil and contractual matter in America, where marriage licenses are issued by and recorded in town halls not church halls or mosques or temples.

    Period!

    Onward, Joe Mustich, CT Justice of the Peace, USA.

    Kudos to CT for supporting SSM since 2008, and life goes on as hundreds of couples come to CT to wed from all across the country!

    The marriage cops need to retire and place some bingo in the middle of the nearest desert......retire oldsters....

  • Dr. Pertz Lindon, UT
    April 21, 2011 2:28 a.m.

    "No logically thinking individual can say with a straight face that heterosexuality is nothing more than a chosen behavior."

    How does that sound Uncle Charlie? Sounds nuts to me too. I don't remember choosing to be attracted to my wife. Did you have to choose to be sexually attracted to yours?

    Maggie, along with many in this state, continue to miss the point. Marriage is about more than making babies. It's about making a monogamous, loving commitment to another human being. Otherwise, nobody above the age of bearing children, according to her, should be marrying either. THAT's what I call nuts.

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    April 21, 2011 2:01 a.m.

    Why can't you just leave gay people alone? A gay couple's life doesn't have any bearing on whether or not your marriage will succeed. Live and let live.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    April 21, 2011 1:59 a.m.

    Good for Ms. Gallagher. Who doesn't support and respect the right of responsible individuals to get married and raise a family?

    But Gallagher's tired, old, irrational arguments just won't win the day. Allowing gay marriage can only promote the institution of marriage, not diminish it in any way. And if fewer couples are having babies, it has nothing to do with gay marriage.

    Gallagher laments references to bigotry, but we have to call it what it is. Sure, it hurts to recognize it in ourselves and in our family and friends who "love and support" our gay loved ones, but yet don't mind denying them the same rights we enjoy, or the comfort of knowing they love who they love without scorn. It's not easy to stand against religious beliefs about homosexuality, but it's the right thing to do.

    And I'm sorry for her analogy and reference to racists. I'm squarely against racism, and have no trouble treating racists as "second class citizens." We don't have to accommodate racism - or bigotry of any sort.

  • SLCWatch Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2011 12:57 a.m.

    There is only one reason for government to be involved in marriage at all. That is to perpetuate the species. No other reason. Homosexual relations are not biologically productive. Hence there is no reason to facilitate or legitimize a government role.
    From governments point of view it's not about relationships, it's not about love, it's not about scientific manipulation, it's not about civil rights or equal treatment. It's solely about perpetuating the species. The protections, benefits and rights bestowed by government are only to protect, facilitate and encourage procreation of the next generation.
    This is as simple as it gets.

  • Ethan Smith Highland, UT
    April 21, 2011 12:12 a.m.

    I will get on board the anti-Gay campaign as soon as there is concrete evidence from third-party, peer-reviewed studies that supports the notion that children raised in GLBT situations suffer in some important way that children raised in NOM-approved marriages don't.

    Otherwise, this is all just shameless lobbying on behalf of an LDS front organization to get government to violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon not contained to the human species, and isn't something we need to worry about on a societal level (for the simple reason that it is not capable of direct genetic transmission--by its very nature).

    Institutional change doesn't equate to behavior change in the population. Outlaw homosexual marriage or adoption if you like; there will still be gay "uncles" and partners. Recognize this and deal with it instead of unquestioningly accepting dogmatic opinions that have no basis in fact.

  • milojthatch Sandy, UT
    April 21, 2011 12:07 a.m.

    Well said! As much as I hate seeing it this way, this is a war in our society and the prize is the very soul of American society itself. I personally worry about the direction this war has been taking lately with attacks on Prop 8, the Obama Admin's decision in not defend the Defense of Marriage Act. That said, I continue to support people on both sides that choose to be more civil about things then militant. At the end of the day, regardless of what side you are on, we are still children of God, all of us.