Comments about ‘Gay marriage and reshaping society’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, April 20 2011 11:31 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Uncle Charles
Where freedom and liberty reign, utah

@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?

Jaime Lee Bonberger
Houston, TX

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.

Jaime Lee Bonberger
Houston, TX

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.

Wastintime
Los Angeles, CA

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

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.

Concerned and Involved
Spanish Fork, UT

@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.

Mormoncowboy
Provo, Ut

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.

Rae M.
Taylorsville, UT

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.

Vince here
San Diego, CA

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.

22ozn44ozglass
Southern Utah, UT

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

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.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments