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

@teacher | 6:24 p.m. Jan. 25, 2010

"I say we "let" gays get married. We PREVENT them "getting" any children and the "problem" is solved!!!! In a few years we wont have anything to worry about."

Oh.... because you think that only gays have gay children. LOL


@Bank Robber

Way to equate being gay with killing puppies. When you say such insanely stupid things like that, people stop taking you seriously, ok?


Hey when two men or two women can pro-create, then let them get married, after all that's what marriage is about, the establishment of a family. And no, adoption doesn't do the trick because every child, (as every homo) should have a mother and a father. There is a God in heaven and we are his children, male and female created He them for the purpose of multiplying and replenishing the earth, thus creating the family. Marriage is the covenant that welds the family together. Failure by many to adhere to this law does not negate it's virtue and the majority of Californian made this clear when they voted as they did. Greater evil will only follow if this is overthrown.


Oh.... because you think that only gays have gay children. - 3:32 p.m.

Christy, don't be too hard on them. Many simply use their imagination instead of looking at the facts of this debate.



Judging others is evil.

Claiming you can only be married only to have children is evil when you are not required to do it yourself.
40% of all children in the US are raised by single-parent households. I thought you needed to be married to have children?
You can belive in God. Your morals are fine. But do not think that can justify the life of others based on that.
I believe in God, I also think gay marriage is fine. What about MY belief's? Why should I follow yours but you shouldn't follow mine?
Why would a life-long, monogomus relationship with one adult a bad thing? Families, emotional support, etc, all the good things of marriage are 'bad' because they are the same gender?

Judging others is not evil

You just judged someone by stating an absolute ("Judging others is evil"). Ergo, you are saying you are evil. So what you say is evil. So saying that judging others is evil... is thus evil. Great philosophy. You're a winner.

In fact, what is evil is judging without the facts, as is judging wrongly when you have the facts. Judging correctly is not evil, but a necessary part of upholding civilized society. We all must judge others in order to uphold the Constitution.


Wow. So because I said 'judging is evil' what I said is evil, therefore judging others is ok because what I said was evil.

I'm glad you said it was a philosophy because nothing there made sense.

To judge others, you must somehow be superior. And calling yourself superior to others, morally or otherwise does not make you superior to anyone else.

I say we can debate the issue. But many do not use facts in the debate of gay marriage. They use their faith as fact.

I have said this before. You can have your belief in God. Your morals are sound. However, many fail to take into account the faith and belief of others. And disregard fact to support such claims.

I believe in God.
You believe in God.
I think gay marriage is ok.
You think it is not.

These are not facts but rather opinions.

MA allowed gay marriage in '04. If gay marriage 'hurt' straight marriage their divorce rate would go up, correct?

MA has the lowest divorce rate in the country 5 years after allowing gay marriage.

'judge not lest....'


" Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not ... but in drighteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour." Lev. 19:15

"Judge not unrighteously...." JST Matt. 7:1



Your argument makes sense at some level.

If we were to buy into your argument that indeed churches would be taken out of the marriage business, I don't see as point of argument simply because as the proponents of defending traditional marriage have said in clear language, when we take the argument back to its base, it was simply to "define marriage as between a man and a woman." There was no piece of legislation, written, spoken, introduced, etc. into any part of Prop 8 that specified such arguments that indeed churches would be taken out of the business of performing marriages nor that the government would call a choice as to which church marriages were legally valid in the state, or for that matter, across states.

Now then, you take an argument such that - churches' marriages would be invalidated - based on nothing written into the proposition as it is written, hence, it is an intangigle.

Not intangible is the very fact that by definining marriage as between only one man and one woman does actually interfere with someone else's life.

Someone's fear of the intangigle creates a tangible loss of marriage for gays.



The very logic, at least as advertised by Proponents of defending traditional marriage is deceptive.

The argument that "we are not against gay people, we just want to define and preserve marriage" runs contrary to what it perpetuates.

The very re-definition of what constitutes marriage, which was not specified in the California constitution prior to Prop 8, or for that matter, prior to the states that banned same-sex marriage, for that matter, does in fact result in denying the rights for gays to marry the person of the same gender whom they love.


CB | 3:58 p.m. Jan. 26, 2010

You wrote,

"Every child, (as every homo) should have a father and a mother."

First, CB, the improper use of the term for gays devaluates and cheapens your argument.

Nonetheless, do you know how many children do not have both a father and a mother?

This argument is taken specifically against gays. Yet, I know of no legislation to prevent children from being in households where they lack both a father and a mother.

Some statistics about children,

"One million children in America are involved in a new divorce annually, as of 1997, according to divorcemagazine.com, and The Children's Fund reports
that one in three American children is born to unmarried parents (2004 Key Facts About American Children).


"The number of children living with both parents declined from 85 to 68 percent between 1970 and 1996. The proportion of children living with one parent has grown from 12 percent to 28 percent during this same time span."
Quoted from Census Bureau's release about its report on MARITAL STATUS AND LIVING ARRANGEMENTS


So, it's ok to judge 'righteously'?

Who makes one rightous?


'I say we put all gay people on an island and see how successful they are at surviving...God's law is Nature's law...' - 8:52 a.m.

Hey AB, that's a great idea! Didn't a certain nazi german leader take all of one group of minorities and put them in camps too?

Would you like other examples of people who do not follow the 'mother and father' example you claim?

Octo-mom. After all of her children hit 1 year old, where is the father?

Didn't 'John and Kate plus 8' use tech to get the 8 kids they had?

Nature is all well and good. However that is why we have the tools to survive it when nature is not kind to us.

Or have you never used air-conditioning?


"Don't gay people come from a man and a woman?? Without a man and a woman they would not be here. I say we put all gay people on an island and see how successful they are at surviving...God's law is Nature's law which is Man +Woman =life and Man + Man = death. How simple is that? "

That is an interesting thought however your logic is flawed and refuted by your own words.

"Don't gay people come from a man and a woman?? "

100% of gay people come from straight parents by your own admission and of course fact and common sense, so putting them all on an island somewhere current homosexuals would die out, but straight people will continue to have gay children. Always have.

rational thought

NO ONE has yet to explain why being gay is "bad". That's the main (and only) argument any of you have presented, yet it is just your opinion.

Explain why gay = "bad". Don't say "can't have kids" because lots of hetero marriages can't have kids.

Don't say "God said so" because God purposely makes 3%-4% of the population gay. Are you saying He made a mistake? and if so, how do you rationalize that when God is perfect? Don't say "it's a test" because that's just ridiculous.

The ONLY reason you all think being gay is "bad" is because you were raised to believe that, through social stigma. If no one ever told you that gay was "bad" then you would find it simply "different" at worst.

so... what is wrong with being gay? and if there's nothing wrong with it, why do you not want them to be able to marry?

and yes, gays want to be able to marry so they can get benefits, but also to REMOVE the social stigma that makes you consider them "bad". In 50 years, people will consider gays simply "different".


I'd rather be 'different' than 'discriminated' against. That would mean you can dislike me but you can't use that as an excuse to hurt me in some way.

How is that 'in your face?'



Gays will not go off into some island somewhere so all these arguments about presenting "what would happen if" are invalid. They have been invalid for as long as gays have been around.

Gays do have children. The fact that gays have children in hetero relationships does not make them confused heterosexuals or bisexuals. A great degree of personal identity and assimilating into the hetero-normative is to a large extent influenced by socio-religious pressure.


Childless marriage

As to the argument that some have that somehow having children is a prerequisite for marriage.

Evaluate the trends,

The National Center of Health Statistics confirms that the percentage of women of childbearing age who define themsleves as voluntarily childless is on the rise: from 2.4 percent in 1982, to 4.3 percent in 1990, to 6.6 percent in 1995 (the most recent available figure). That's 4.1 million women saying no to motherhood in 1995.

Another source suggested by sociologist Laura Carroll indicates that,

"According tostudies and statistics, childfree couples are on the rise. American Demographics Magazine projects that the number of married couples without children will rise by 50%, to more than 31 million, by the year 2010. Several articles have appeared in a Portland newspaper (The Oregonian) that discloses recent US census figures, and recent information on the growing numbers of childless women since 1970. "


Finally, as far as preserving the family unit where children have both a mother and a father, consider the following,

About 1.7 million babies were born to unmarried women in 2007, a 26 percent rise from 1.4 million in 2002 and more than double the number in 1980, according to the new report. Unmarried women accounted for 39.7 percent of all U.S. births in 2007 -- up from 34 percent in 2002 and more than double the percentage in 1980.

"If you see 10 babies in the room, four them were born to women who were not married

Source, The Washington Post
May 14, 2009 "Number of Unwed Mothers Has Risen Sharply in U.S"

Survivor Of Change Therapy

Having been through "reparative therapy" or "change therapy" I agree with the article that sexual orientation CANNOT be changed. During my 2 years of this therapy I met so many depressed and abused people (abused by religion!). How long do gay people have to suffer because of so much ignorance?

For all you straight people, do you think your sexual orientation could change with therapy? Also, when did you choose to be attracted to the opposite sex?

to comment

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