Quantcast

Comments about ‘LDS Church commentary: Society needs strong families’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, May 6 2013 4:40 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

Yes America needs strong families and that is why....

Barack Obama is firmly behind the following....

1. Homosexual marriage
2. Late term abortion
3. Government paid contraception
4. The "un-afordable" health care act infamously known as Obamacare or as Harry Reid and other senate democrat's called it - a train wreck.
5. Planned parenthood (better know as drive through abortion)

Yes America needs strong families but America needs first a president who is pro-life and has the moral courage to stand for Christian principles.

John Charity Spring
Back Home in Davis County, UT

Patriot's statement is absolutely correct.. However, it is surprising that the censors let the comment through.

The left-wing extremists in charge of the national government have an open and stated agenda of attacking traditional marriage and family. Indeed, every social policy adopted by the Obama Administration is designed to break down the traditional family relationships that have held this Country together for well over 200 years.

Specifically, the left-wing has forced employers, even religious ones, to pay for birth control on demand. This encourages wanton and uncontrolled sexuality, and encourages young people to avoid marriage. The irrefutable result is that a large segment of the younger generation now has now more morals that a group of excited rabbits on a Spring day.

We can no longer pretend that strong families are unimportant. We already have enough crime, substance abuse, and immorality. We must return to electing morally strong leaders who will support marriage and family.

Diligent Dave
Logan, UT

It is occasionally surprising what the censors let through in comments. Indeed, for a purportedly pro-family media organ, it is also apalling what censors let through on the other end of the spectrum, while they typically squelch this end. Criticism of the organ is n'er allowed.

And, so it makes it difficult to fight the anti-family commentators who are permitted more of a free hand here, in an attempt to accomplish a supposed Solomon "split the baby" in half feat. After all, the organ claims neutrality. But can anyone on such important issues be truly 'neutral'?

One thing we also cannot be neutral in is human reproduction. And I'm not talking abortions. I'm talking about allowed things, medications and procedures that are not really discouraged much any more.

Last Sunday, I met a couple uho use to be in our same word, who had but two children. They said to me, "Two is enough for us." I am supposing they could have more, but choose purposely not to. IMO, they are cheating themselves. People, not money, are our true wealth. Our values, IMO, have become twisted, even perverse.

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

Patriot, John Charity Spring, and All,

We would do well do not politicize this issue. It is one where we can and must ally ourselves with good folks around the country. This will require crossing lines of religion, politics, culture, etc.

It is too important to become simply an "I am right and the rest of you are wrong" issue.

George
New York, NY

@patriot and john
I see nothing in the statements by the people quoted speaking to your claims. The not once suggest that the gender of the married parents has any bearing on the results. Probably because the research clearly shows there is no difference. They never once mention abortion but they do mention economic stratification which is what the affordable care act is hoping to try to better bridge in some small way but nice attempt at standing on the old soap box.

George
New York, NY

@patriot and john

a couple of the quotes from the article.

“This isn’t a moral issue,” Kotkin continued. “This is a societal issue.”

“Marriage is not a Christian thing, it’s not a Mormon thing, it’s not a Jewish thing, it’s a human thing,” Wilcox said.

Using it to push your religion onto others despite the facts only serves to further harm families.

patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

re:George

George - every citizen has the right - in America at least - to campaign for and vote for the kind of society that they want to live in and that they want their children and grand children to grow up in. That is called a 'free republic'. I see marriage as the foundation of society and I refer to the LDS Church and its proclamation on the family where they state that children have the best chance of a healthy and happy life with a father and mother in the home. Now I'm not stating anything new here George. Any study on society and the family prove overwhelmingly that the most successful families are those that have a father and a mother. One more thing - marriage is ordained of God our creator and it was He that said marriage was ONLY between a man and a woman. Our creator knows alot more about what works and what doesn't work George. Every attempt at some 'other' form of association whether it be homosexual or other is a dismal failure and statistics prove that out. Too many people confuse political correctness with truth - most the time they are polar opposites.

Gregorio
Norco, CA

We are a nation under God. We are families of a great nation that will only continue to be great if families stay strong. Government should be a guardian of family life and right living people her citizens, under moral law.

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@Gregorio --

"We are a nation under God."

Just a note -- the phrase "under God" was only added to the Pledge of Allegiance about 50 years ago. It's a johnny-come-lately compared to the long history of this country.

@patriot ==

"Any study on society and the family prove overwhelmingly that the most successful families are those that have a father and a mother. "

This is not actually true.

What studies do show is that children do best in homes with **two parents**, compared to just one. This isn't news to anyone.

However, studies have ALSO shown that children do just as well with two parents of the same gender as with two parents of opposite genders.

Every reputable professional group of child-development experts in this country *supports* gay marriage -- because they know that what children really need most is STABILITY. Marriage promotes stability -- and that includes gay marriage -- so gay marriage is good for kids.

"Every attempt at some 'other' form of association whether it be homosexual or other is a dismal failure and statistics prove that out."

Where?? Please show us some of these supposed statistics. Thanks in advance!

George
New York, NY

@patriot
You are certainly free to have your own opinions on this issue you are not however free to make up your own "facts" rod distorts the comments of the people I the article and expect other will not challenge your claims. The research is very early not in support of your claims and the experts quotes in this article also do not support your claims.

patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

re:Contrarius

"children do just as well with two parents of the same gender as with two parents of opposite genders"

This is nonsense and you have absolutely no proof. Homosexual marriage is only a few years old and the adoption of children into a homosexual home is certainly NOT condoned or supported as a healthy and normal situation for children except by gay-activist's. The ONLY thing we can go by are the facts regarding the self destructive nature of homosexuality (high suicide, high drug abuse, high depression and other forms of mental illness). These are FACTS and throwing innocent children into this toxic mix and calling it normal is ridiculous.

"Every reputable professional group of child-development experts in this country *supports* gay marriage"

I suspect your list of reputable professionals here happen to be ALL gay activists as well...correct? You live in a small world Contrarius.

I know it. I Live it. I Love it.
Salt Lake City, UT

This was a wonderful commentary!

My favorite part...

"David Brooks of the New York Times goes further, explaining how maximizing personal freedom does not necessarily give people what they want. Rather, he argues, individuals are better served "when they are enshrouded in commitments that transcend personal choice - commitments to family, God, craft and country.""

Every night I worry and hope for these things to improve. I don't think I'm strong enough to withstand some of the consequences I see around the corner if they don't. I know that the work continues to help as many as possible. But as much as I understand it in principle it can be hard to retain it in my memory. Men's hearts are truly failing them today.

After a recent personal slump, this scripture recently has helped me to regain hope and faith...

"Wherefore, whoso believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world, yea, even a place at the right hand of God, which hope cometh of faith, maketh an anchor to the souls of men, which would make them sure and steadfast, always abounding in good works, being led to glorify God."

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@patriot --

"I suspect your list of reputable professionals here happen to be ALL gay activists as well...correct?"

Um, nope. Sorry to disappoint ya. ;-)

Supporting groups include:

American Academy of Pediatrics
American Academy of Family Practitioners
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
American Psychological Association
American Psychiatric Association
National Association of Social Workers

From AAP's position statement: "“There is an emerging consensus, based on extensive review of the scientific literature, that children growing up in households headed by gay men or lesbians are not disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents" and "“ ‘Marriage strengthens families and benefits child development".

From APA's position statement: "Research has shown that marriage provides substantial psychological and physical health benefits due to the moral, economic and social support extended to married couples. Conversely, recent empirical evidence has illustrated the harmful psychological effect of policies restricting marriage rights for same-sex couples. Additionally, children raised by same-sex couples have been shown to be on par with the children of opposite-sex couples in their psychological adjustment, cognitive abilities and social functioning."

Still waiting for those "statistics" you claimed to have, patriot! :-)

Owl
Salt Lake City, UT

Thanks for this article. The deterioration of families is the elephant in the living room that some in society refuse to acknowledge. Yes, it's not cool - do your own thing, but there are consequences. Family integrity is ancient and not a new concept.

BillNyeTSG
South Jordan, UT

I am pro-traditional marriage. I think we all agree that Family is important, particularly where benefits to children are concerned. However, I see merit to the idea that gay-marriage might be considered a stabilizing force in an otherwise destabilizing world. The contention is rather simple: children are going to come into the world regardless of marital relationships. Homosexual couples can already conceive (though it is through non-traditional means such as surrogacy, in-vitro, etc.).

As such, shouldn't we provide additional stability for their children? Are we comfortable denying their children the apparent benefits of nuclear families in good conscience simply because of who their parents are?

I don't think this idea necessarily impinges on marriage in its current (admittedly sub-optimal) state. An argument can definitely be made for idealized marriage, but as long as our society fails at the ideal (and may indefinitely) perhaps we should seek to improve rather than prohibit stability.

An argument can be made for more research prior to codifying any "new" marriage, but it doesn't change the status quo. Homosexual people can have children. Should their children be afforded marriage stability?

to comment

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