Comments about ‘Prop 8 trial witness: Being gay not a choice’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Jan. 22 2010 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
@The tradition of marriage

Let's look at some of the "Traditions" of marriage.

One tradition of marriage has been used to solidify treaties and alliances between families and kingdoms.

A tradition of marriage has meant purchasing a wife from her family and the wife becoming the property of the husband - 'Johnny Lingo and the 8 Cow Wife' ring any bells? Even yesterday, KSL ran a story about a man trying to acquire 60+ cows to pay a woman's family so he could marry her (60+ cows! Mahanna would be mortified!). The anchor even referred to Johnny Lingo and mentioned that 4 other men were trying 'buy' the woman.

A tradition of marriage has meant - and in some place still does - arranged marriages decided by the parents. Love plays not part in this type of marriage.

In Utah, on tradition of marriage has even meant one man with multiple wives.


'The APA buy-in to the homosexual movement shows, as some critics of psychology say, that mental health really is a "pseudo science" after all.' - 6:48 p.m.

DSM, if you were a health care professional you would probably be willing to use your name and back your claims with some sort of reference.
2nd, if your talking about the American Psychiatric Association, that choice was done in 1978, the year I was born. Are you talking about the American Psychological Association? Their research to show re-orientation attempts as 'harmful' was done in Aug of 2009. Or are you trying to claim that Aversion therapy test's done by Bingham Young University in the 1970's that ALSO confirms re-orientation does not work is part of the gay agenda?

How about communist china taking homosexuality off the list of mental disorders in '01?

So, it's 'DSM' 1 that being gay is wrong, and 815,000, BYU and china that say otherwise.

DSM, please provide one shred of evidence when you make claims.

Not surprised

The whole problem with the issue of "choice" is that it begs the question of whether or not same-gender attraction is a good thing to begin with. Personally, I disagree that something is purposeful or good just because it "is".

The purpose of heterosexuality is to propagate a species. What's the purpose of homosexuality?


I agree with TheTraditionofMarriage. Marriage is for procreation. Infertile people should not be allowed to marry.


@Pagan | 7:53 a.m. Jan. 26, 2010

Granted, a temple sealing without a marriage license would have no legal standing, however, you cant' get a temple sealing without a license. By accepting marriages that are performed through religious ceremonies, I think the state is showing preference to those religions' views of marriage. Showing that preference, in my opinion, is what violates the establishment clause, even though the state doesn't dictate where or how a marriage is performed (civil vs religious). However, because churches are so firmly in the mix, it becomes a religious issue. And so, because there are churches that do wish to perform gay marriages, but aren't allowed to do so, while other churches are allowed to perform marriages, I think the courts will eventually find that this violates the establishment clause. I could be wrong, but that's what I think.

My final point is that legal marriage should be a civil issue. Religious marriage should be religious issue. The twain shouldn't meet. Thus, states (aka the people) can choose what they will allow legally, and churches can do what they wish without giving legal standing to such ordinances/choices.


'What's the purpose of homosexuality?'

With 6 billion humans on earth and growing, I think we can all see this as a form of population contorl.
What is the purpose of being black? How did you say it? 'Personally, I disagree that something is purposeful or good just because it "is".'
What demographics are you 'Not surprised' woman? Left-handed? We can use that logic on any minority. And trust me, you are one.
This logic can be used on any number of things. However, bottom line, if you cannot change something, why bother?
Nothing good will come of it.


If marriage is about having babies, you can reward your grandparents by telling them their marriage is a sham.
Why, because they can't continue to have children, right?



While I understand this line of reasoning, I am going to disagree with you. I understand in a perfect world religion and goverment marriages can co-exist however, in this one religion is trying to stay valid.

I disagree that states show 'preference' to religious marriage. It is a non-issue. You simply MUST have a marriage license to be legally married. Otherwise, when you try and do taxes, inheritence, etc, they will not be recognized.

I admit, I do not know much about the establishment clause, however, in examples of US history the GOVERMENT led by judicial supreme courts led the way in Women's Emancipation, Civil Rights of the 1960s, etc and THEN religion followed of its own choice.

Civil marriage IS a civil issue. Religious marriage is not, and has not, been in question in this debate. Religion has only tired to make it so.

States can choose what rights to give, however, they must adhere to the federal goverment they are a part of.

Churches have not been able to give legal recognition, since marriage became state sanctioned. As marriage allows legal and tax recognition.

Again, religion is simply trying to stay valid.


Pagan | 9:37 a.m. Jan. 26, 2010

We'll have to agree to disagree. Allowing churches to conduct legal marriage ceremonies seems to me to show preference. Of course, that's a legal issue that hasn't been decided, so maybe courts will end up seeing it your way. Thus far proponents of gay marriage have tried solely using the civil discrimination aspect. However, I'm relatively certain that someone will eventually bring a suit for violation of the establishment clause. Once they do, the courts will decide, until then, people will continue to debate the issues.



That is fine. Let us agree to disagree. No harm. I do need to ask, do you have an example of a church conducting a legal marriage?

Date, time, etc? I ask because it was my understanding it was not possble. Perhaps because they had a legally sanctioned priest, etc?

I ask only out of curiosity. No offense is meant. If you do not know or do not want to give the example for privacy, I understand.



Ministers of various religions get certified to perform marriages. When I was married we went to the county seat, obtained a license, and then went to our church and had our marriage performed by a church official. It was an entirely religious ceremony. At the end, the minister signed the certificate along with two church witnesses, the certificate was filed with the county, and we were married.

By allowing churches to officiate in marriages like this, the state opens the door to claims that it is allowing some churches to worship as they see fit (aka perform legal marriages) while restricting churches that wish to perform gay marriages (and there are examples of churches that wish to perform gay marriage). I say take legal marriages out of churches, and have it be a SOLELY civil affair.



Thanks for the example. I could say that you had to go to the county before your marriage, and your minister had to get certified to perform marriages but that would simply be semantics.

I agree that marriages should be a solely a civil affiar and that any and all rights should be provided by the goverment, not religion.

This 'blurry' line I guess is by allowing religions to get certified to preform marriges. It confuses WHO exactly is giving the legal protections. Perhaps if we remove the option for religious leaders to get certified to 'perform' marriges.

And yet again, I would see religion fighting to 'keep' marriage a religious thing.

Regardless, there is the question of why LGBT Americans who pay taxes, adhere to typical rules of marriage (two consenting adutls, etc) should be denied all the rights of marriage others have.

Thank you for your example. It helps clear up some misconceptions I have as I cannot get married to the person of my choice, myself.

philisophical drible

would somebody prove it please? aren't we all philosophers here. marriage isn't based on sexual orientation it is based on providing long term stability for children. Gay don't make babies. adoption is another issue but what is the long term benefit to gay marriage. Sorry I don't see it. so take your philosophy I'll take my law given benefit and we can agree to disagree.


You can talk yourself into just about anything including being a homosexual.

to 12:39

Maybe you can but I cant talk myself into being a homosexual. And two of my brothers couldnt talk themselves OUT of it, and they tried.


If you can talk yourself into being something your can also talk yourself out. I tried for several years to talk myself out of it. Didn't work, and rarely does.


'Gay don't make babies.' - 11:43 a.m.

Dribble, neither do some straight people. My example? Your grandparents. Do they still 'make babies' at 80years old?

I doubt it.

And if you could show me where exactly on your marriage license it says you NEED to make babies...?


You can talk yourself into just about anything including being a homosexual.

When did you try?


Let's have a pure rational discussion of homosexual behavior. No religion, no God, no Bible. OK?
Let's have an intellectual discussion.
Let's start with one Gay man describing exactly, in detail, what gays do when having sex. Heterosexuals are ignorant and that causes hate. So, explain gay sex, and then we can discuss if it is normal, natural, or should be ban.
I think we can come to agreement. No name calling, no hate, no ignorance. ok ?


@Einstein...right, and maybe they could post pictures and videos, just to make sure people get the point!

Most people on here have taken an anatomy class, just use your imagination.

to comment

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