Quantcast
Family

New documentary argues the traditional family is 'Irreplaceable'

Comments

Return To Article
  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    May 11, 2014 10:18 p.m.

    I'm a long time supporter of Marriage Equality and long time opponent of censorship. If you don't like the message of this film feel free not to watch it.

  • AZKID Mapleton, UT
    May 11, 2014 5:58 p.m.

    The traditional family is in decline, and along with it, western civilization. I am interested in preserving both. No-fault divorce, the selfishness of the current generation, and the end of shame are all to blame.

    To remedy the above, we should tighten up divorce laws, get people back to church, and shun--rather than embrace--things like premarital sex, unwed parenthood, unfaithfulness, and unnatural affection.

    We have a choice:

    Choose the traditional family and prosper.

    Or

    Keep pursuing that other nonsense and see social problems galore.

  • truth in all its forms henderson, NV
    May 10, 2014 11:36 p.m.

    This movie can not come out on a more appropriate weekend! I am going to take my mom and wife for mothers day. I am so grateful for my eternal traditional family. I am grateful to belong to the true church and I know that only a family comprised of a mother and father sealed together can save our society.

  • Pianoman Salt Lake City, UT
    May 10, 2014 10:58 p.m.

    "It really surprised me that a mainstream movie theatre would support a religious organization's propaganda film," said Rosenberg. He claims the film promotes the notion that nontraditional families (including single parents and LGBT families) are not valid.

    And similar groups (if not the same one that made the film) say that I'm not a Christian; that I'm a racist; that I have horns on my head; that I belong to a cult; that my home state is controlled by a theocracy; that I'm brainwashed; that I have multiple wives. A group whose members slammed doors in my face for two years and threatened me with physical violence, and managed to get a political candidate who belongs to my religion not elected because of his shared beliefs yet I've managed to continue living my life without boycotting them. So I don't see why the LGBT can't do the same.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    May 9, 2014 9:20 p.m.

    @ TekakaromatagiMalcolm ".... he would not want to dilute marriage's importance by redefining it to include unions that are obviously non-procreational."

    Where is procreation a requirement of civil marriage law? Can you support your claim that marriage is somehow "re-defined" or "diluted" by including people who use assisted reproduction? How so, list specific examples, otherwise your completely unsupported claim is hyperbole. Example 1..... Example 2..... Example 3..... I don't think you can back your claims, but perhaps I'm wrong.

    Also note that the constitution protects intimate relationships between homosexual couples. There is no such right to privacy protection for Aunts or Uncles or right to their social security. Marriage has a presumption of intimacy. This does not change when a same-sex couple marries. Moreover, you already have a legal relationship with your aunts and siblings that does not include sexual intimacy. Your desire to marry your Aunt has no relationship to same-sex couples or their sexual orientation and desire to form a legally recognized marital relationship.

    Even if you want to marry a kitchen table, you're free to seek that legal relief, just as you could 20 years ago.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    May 9, 2014 8:59 p.m.

    It has been over forty years since Mildred Loving was given the right to marry the person of her choice. The hatred and fears have long since vanished and she and her husband lived full lives together; so it will be for the same-sex couples. It is time to let that beacon of freedom shine brighter on all our brothers and sisters. We will be stronger for it.

    Bigotry and vile animus places same-sex couples in a unstable position of being in a second tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects and whose relationship the State has sought not to dignify. This humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.

  • JD Jones Salt Lake City, UT
    May 9, 2014 3:28 p.m.

    @Brio: You are simply repeating an unsubstantiated claims that studies support that children are better off with a Mom and a Dad. It's not true! The following is from wikipedia regarding LGBT parenting:

    "In 2006, Gregory M. Herek stated in American Psychologist: 'If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents.'

    The following major organization support LGBT parenting based on the scientific evidence demonstrating that children of same-sex parents fair just as well as children who have a Mom and a Dad as their parents:

    - American Academy of Pediatrics
    - American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
    - American Psychiatric Association
    - American Psychological Association
    - American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy
    - American Psychoanalytic Association

  • LiberalJimmy Salt Lake City, UT
    May 9, 2014 3:02 p.m.

    I'm liberal and pro SSM which means this post will be monitored closely by D.N. Editors. Daily I read the comments regarding this topic in particular and it completely baffles me how most against SSM continue to use "God", "The living Prophet on Earth", "The Bible" and other religious examples to assist them in proving their one dimensional point(s). These same people are in for a serious dose of reality once Judge Shelby's ruling is upheld. @Redshirts...Where do you receive your information? I feel like I've taken a time machine back into the 1700's whenever I read one of your extremely articulate and well thought out posts.

  • Thris Der UoU Terok Nor, OH
    May 9, 2014 12:23 p.m.

    @RedShirt:

    Coretta Scott King was the widow of Dr King and a civil right leader and icon in her own right.

    Her perceptions of her husband's position would be from a full decade after his reported comment to a stranger. She made multiple comments supporting full gay equality, and always connected it to the teachings and positions of her husband.

    Furthermore, as Dr King and others made clear, equal rights are not special rights.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 9, 2014 8:08 a.m.

    To "Trihs Der TalCech" rather than listen to MLK's kids, lets see what MLK said about gays.

    When a gay man spoke with MLK about what to, he was told the following:

    From the January 1958 edition of Ebony Magazine, MLK wrote "Your reasons for adopting this habit have now been consciously suppressed or unconsciously repressed. Therefore, it is necessary to deal with this problem by getting back to some of the experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. In order to do this I would suggest that you see a good psychiatrist who can assist you in bringing to the forefront of conscience all of those experiences and circumstances that led to the habit."

    Apparently MLK thought homosexuality was a mental disorder. Somehow I doubt that somebody that saw homosexuality as a mental disorder would fight for gay marriage. He had the same attitude that the LDS church has. Be kind, but they don't need special rights.

  • Trihs Der TalCech ISS Challenger, OH
    May 8, 2014 6:59 p.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi:

    They both kicked the door down. Unless marches, sit-ins, strikes and protests were just ineffective shufflin' politeness.

    I compared the actions of the two movements. I think there is more than a little hubris in claiming to know, nearly half-a-century after the fact what somebody would have said.

    However, this from Coretta Scott King:

    “Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood...This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group.” (Chicago Defender, April 1, 1998)

    "So I see this bill as a step forward for freedom and human rights in our country and a logical extension of the Bill of Rights and the civil rights reforms of the 1950’s and ‘60’s. The great promise of American democracy is that no group of people will be forced to suffer discrimination and injustice." (ENDA press conference, Washington, DC, June 23, 1994)

    Sounds pretty connected to me.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    May 8, 2014 2:04 p.m.

    To "RanchHand" I have examined the research, and the research only shows that in abusive environments cultures that permit polygamy you still have abuse. NONE of the research looks at polygamy in non-abusive environments. The research looks at 2 groups, the FLDS and Muslims. In both of those cultures the abuse of women is permitted, so all that those studies show is that abuse continues when more than 1 woman is involved.

    Actually, if you die as part of a satanic ritual, the person performing the ritual will be charged with murder. It is against the law. Animal sacrifice is against the law, but it is ok to kill an animal to eat it. Again, where is your consistancy? Harm is harm. You will allow government to cause harm, but religions can't.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 8, 2014 11:40 a.m.

    @Tek;

    It isn't about "sex".

    If your aunt dies, your uncle inherits her estate, if he dies, she inherits his estate. All w/o extra taxes. You, like your cousins, would inherit via the regular channels upon the death of a relative.

    Same sex couples, who aren't allowed to marry, aren't allowed to "inherit" the extate of their other-half w/o additional taxes.

    How is an elderly couple any different than an LGBT couple? They're obviously incapable of procreation. Additionally, MANY LGBT couples have children through the same means used by infertile heterosexual couples. Marriage creates a familial bond where NONE previously existed. So, your argument using "procreation" is still a failure.

    You already know these things, but attempt to cloud the issue; a form of deceit.

    @RedShirtCalTech;

    Polygamy harms people. The women, the boys expelled, etc. Polygamy also leads to more violence in the societies where it is practiced (check the research).

    We were discussing human sacrifice, not animal sacrifice. If you want to die by satanic ritual, go ahead.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    May 8, 2014 11:00 a.m.

    To "RanchHand" actually polygamy harms nobody, and some women see it as liberating. What harm comes from halucinigenic substances? What is the difference between sacrificing a chicken to Baal and slaughtering a chicken to eat? Many of those religious practices that are illegal are not any different than legally recognized practices.

    Why is it that in Oregon I can have a doctor give me a lethal dose of medications if I choose, yet I can't go to the local satanic group and have them end my life?

    If the goal is preventing harm, then why do we allow harm when it is sanctioned by the government but not by religion?

    SSM can cause harm to others. According to the government, within gay culture there is a significantly higher incidence of abuse. Plus studies have shown that children raised in gay households are more likely to engage in risky sexual activity or pretend to be gay in order to be accepted by gay parents. Don't you think physical abuse or children engaging in risky behavior is a bad thing?

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    May 8, 2014 10:45 a.m.

    Ranch/RanchHand:

    "How does an infertile heterosexual couple, 100% incapable of procreation have a "fundamental right" to marriage then?" Infertility is not obvious in the same sense gender is obvious. They aren't obviously non-procreative.

    You argue against sibling marriages because they may have sex. Who said that just because a brother and a sister love one another and want to have the same benefits as a gay couple that it means therefore, they are going to have intercourse? Why not make it legal for them to marry and just ban intercourse? I love my elderly aunt and uncle and I would like to get their social security payments when they die. Why can't I marry them? Love is love.

    Your point appears to be that because there is sex involved that therefore the union should have a special status. Why does sex make the union different? Well, because if a heterosexual couple are going to have children then the marriage gives benefits because there is a strong correlation between childbearng and heterosexual unions while there is absolutely no correlation between gay unions and childbearing.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 8, 2014 10:33 a.m.

    Tek says:

    "Malcolm X's position would probably been that gays are free to live their lives but he would not want to dilute marriage's importance by redefining it to include unions that are obviously non-procreational."

    So he would have also excluded Elderly couples, infertile couples, disabled couples who couldn't reproduce due to excessive danger to the woman, etc.?

    Yes, I do have something to say. We are not a theocracy and in any case, you do not know what "god wants" anyway; all you have is speculation based upon the superstitions of ancient nomads.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    May 8, 2014 10:13 a.m.

    TrihsDer

    "A lot of conservatives said the same during the civil rights era. Wanted blacks to stand by the door and wait politely to be invited in. Martin and Malcolm kicked the door down."

    Martin Luther King did not kick the door down. Malcolm X did. In any event, using them to get moral authority is a false argument. Martin Luther King's objection to Jim Crow laws is that they were unjust laws because they went against God's laws. So can Focus on the Family argue that legalizing gay marriage is an unjust law because it is against God's laws. (Ranch/Ranchhand: Do you have a comment about that and theocracy, etc?)

    Malcolm X's position would probably been that gays are free to live their lives but he would not want to dilute marriage's importance by redefining it to include unions that are obviously non-procreational.

    (Malcolm X converted to Islam near the end of his life so he's probably rolling in his grave that you use his name for arguing on behalf of a view that is based on morality is relative.)

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 8, 2014 9:49 a.m.

    @Redshirt1701;

    Those religious things you mention that are prevented are done so because they cause harm to others. SSM poses NO HARM to anyone (not even you, though your imagination does seem to be running on overdrive).

    @Tekakaromatagi;

    How does an infertile heterosexual couple, 100% incapable of procreation have a "fundamental right" to marriage then? Should we prevent them from marrying? How about an elderly heterosexual couple incapable of procreation? Should we prevent them? No? Then your argument is fallacious as you're application is only to the one group incapable of procreation.

    Bigotry is not biology.

  • CBAX Provo, UT
    May 8, 2014 9:44 a.m.

    Flavor of the times.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    May 8, 2014 9:37 a.m.

    @Trihs Der TalCech
    "Two minutes research gave 18 times SCOTUS ruled marriage a fundamental right."
    Yes, according to Loving vs. Virginia marriage is a fundamental right because procreation is a fundamental right. How does restricting two people who are obviously non-procreational from marrying hinder their right to procreate?

    Biology is not bigotry.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 8, 2014 9:21 a.m.

    To "Trihs Der TalCech" you really do suck into the liberal revisionist history don't you.

    Of the Dixicrats that voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act only 3 Democrats left the Democrat party and joined the Republicans. It wasn't until Nixon that there were Democrats leaving the Democrat party and joining the Republicans. They were joining because of the small government message the Republicans were spreading. The Republicans during that time were very pro-civil rights. In fact the Dixiecrats that filibustered the Civil Rights Act remained faithful to the Democrat party for their entire political career.

    Even Politifact agrees that the GOP fought hard in favor of civil rights. See "Steele says GOP fought hard for civil rights bills in 1960s".

    See also "'Washington Post' Catches Democrats Rewriting Civil Rights History" at Breitbart.

    Also see "Republicans passed the first Civil Rights Act, in 1866" at Humanevents where they list out nearly 100 years of Democrats stopping conservatives from enacting civil rights.

  • Trihs Der TalCech ISS Challenger, OH
    May 7, 2014 6:11 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701

    Nothing is a fact until the fat lady sings - since Windsor there have been 72 cases in 31 states and territories, and every ruling so far has been in favor of SSM.

    While Windsor left regulation of marriage to the states, every ruling so far says that does not mean the states can discriminate against SSM.

    If the District Courts continue the trend SSM will be legalized nationally, if there is a conflict SCOTUS may hear it in the fall session.

    Politics. Conservative vs Progressive, not Republican vs Democrat.

    For a century southern whites were Democrat because Lincoln was a Republican. After the Civil Rights Act of 64 - all but one northern Democrat voted for it, 20% of northern Republicans and 100% of southern Republicans were against it - the demographics started to change as the racist elements in the south connected with similar elements in the GOP. Today, southern whites are solidly Republican.

    Byrd? Yes, he was a disgrace - and the 1 northern (D) to vote "NO" in '64. One of many reasons I am an (I), not a (D) or (R).

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 7, 2014 3:49 p.m.

    To "Trihs Der TalCech" you make me laugh because you are so wrong.

    If you are going to take what the SCOTUS as pure fact, then you will also have to accept their recent ruling saying that marriage is a state issue and is to be decided by the states. Now, using the SCOTUS ruling that would mean that utah's Ammendment 3 is valid since it was passed per the constitutional requirements in the 10th Ammendment.

    Drinking is not the same as marriage. Drinking is not a right, that is a privelage.

    Actually Southern Democrats are quite liberal. You are forgetting the uber liberal Senator Byrd, you know that KKK leader the Democrats kept in office all those years. Lets not forget that the Southern Democrats. The Dixiecrats have been liberals as they have always looked for government solutions to everything. They are more conservative than today's uber left Democrats, but they are still liberal.

  • Trihs Der TalCech ISS Challenger, OH
    May 7, 2014 2:05 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701

    Two minutes research gave 18 times SCOTUS ruled marriage a fundamental right.

    SCOTUS established the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children"; and "has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."; Furthermore, "[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals."

    A constitutional Right. And no, calling marriage a "right" does not automatically include incest or polygamy, any more than lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 is a slippery slope to 3 year olds at the liquor store.

    Civics Lesson time. Southern Democrats are, historically, very conservative and often at odds with Democrats from the rest of the country. I lived in Georgia for 3 decades. I saw it first hand. The GOP was right-wing and conservative, after Goldwater it has lurched further and further right.

    Marriage or Civil Unions. SCOTUS has also established "separate but equal" is not ever equal.

    Marriage - the joining of two people in a legal union - will be the law.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 7, 2014 1:27 p.m.

    To "TrihsDer" but marriage is not a right. If it was a right then polygamy, incest, and any other thing you wanted to call marriage would be legal.

    Actually the people that opposed civil rights for blacks through the 1960's were Southern Democrats, liberals. I know that not all Republicans are conservative, but historically it is more conservative than the Democrats. Plus voting records only indicate party affiliation not political philosophy. Anyway, if you look at voting records, you find that Republicans consistantly had a greater percentage of their congressional deligates voting in FAVOR of civil rights.

    You are now getting confused. I never wanted to deny rights to gay unions. I want them to call their unions something other than marriage.

    To "RanchHand" freedom of religion also prevents polygamous marriages, human sacrifice, smoking of halucinagenic substances, most animal sacrifices, and all sorts of other things. Do you want to allow Satanists to be able to practice human sacrifice so that you can have gay marriage?

  • Candied Ginger Brooklyn, OH
    May 7, 2014 1:16 p.m.

    Hi, patriot

    You said, "I welcome all those who stuggle with same sex attraction into my faith"

    I don't struggle with it. When I was about 8 we had a college-age babysitter for the summer while my mom worked. My sister worked hard to do her hair and even dress like the young woman. My brother and I both had a crush on her - that is when I realized I was different.

    I did struggle, in middle school, around the issue of opposite-sex attraction. I saw absolutely no appeal in the boys at school. For a while I tried to emulate the other girls, pretending an interest in boys so I could fit in and so maybe some of the bullying would stop.

    In 9th grade I figured it out and stopped struggling with it, stopped trying pretend to be straight. I came all the way out in 11th grade and the only struggle I have had since then was with bullies.

    Today I have a wife and two wonderful children and am very happy.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    May 7, 2014 12:31 p.m.

    I'm happy to see movies like this coming out because in order to win the war against the radical left in this country more traditional Christian Americans are going to have to mobilize and spread their message. Ronald Reagan was once asked about his thoughts on the Cold War - he said "it's simple, we win and they lose". I think this is exactly the right attitude going forward in our fight against the atheistic , immoral , value-less left in this country. There is no room for compromise - only victory!!

    Now before you lefties jump all over me recognize I welcome all those who stuggle with same sex attraction into my faith (LDS church) and hope they can find peace as they try to follow the Savior. Having said that the BEST way to find that peace and happiness is by overcoming our "thorns in the flesh" and creating a traditional family for ourselves with Husband and wife. Many who stuggle with same sex attraction have overcome and have found happiness within a traditional family unit. That struggle may last beyond this life.

  • TrihsDer ISS Enterprise, OH
    May 7, 2014 11:05 a.m.

    @Redshirt1701

    I don't believe I said rights were "lost." Rights have, however, been denied - an example being amendment 3 which not only disallowed same-sex marriage, but also disallowed any law giving equivalent legal recognition to same-sex relationships.

    In some countries women are not allowed to drive solely because of their gender. That would be a more equivalent situation to denying same-sex marriage.

    You are conflating "conservative" with "Republican." Yes, at the time of the Civil War Republicans supported civil rights – well actually they supported the end of slavery. Conservatives across the south, however, fully opposed civil rights for blacks through the 60s.

    Marriage protections: please demonstrate how the legally married couple in "Windsor" could have protected each other without their marriage being recognized by the federal government. The case went to SCOTUS, where the legal inequality was recognized and remedied.

    I want all families to have legal recognition, legal status, and legal protection.

  • Daedalus, Stephen ARVADA, CO
    May 7, 2014 10:38 a.m.

    @MoNoMo asks: 'How does my legal same sex marriage demean your straight marriage in any way what so ever?'

    The worst impact I can think of is the added cost of the wedding gifts my wife and I will buy when (not if) SSM comes to Colorado. And maybe needing to buy a better-fitting suit.

    Seriously though, your SSM has no adverse impact on my straight marriage of 20 years.
    Nor will it have any incremental adverse impact on the decision of my kids to get married, contrary to the vague speculative fears of societal decay as voiced by other commenters.

    The scale and scope of the commitment required to maintain a relationship in the long-term – straight or gay, with kids or without – requires a ton of hard work and sacrifice. The more couples, regardless of orientation, that willingly sign up and stick with this type of commitment, through all the inevitable challenges, the more role models there will be for my kids, if/when the time comes for them to take the plunge and form a life-long bond with a spouse.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    May 7, 2014 10:32 a.m.

    @Laura Bilington: "Um, same-sex attraction isn’t a problem any more than being left-handed is a problem."

    Brilliant!!

    And, in my elementary years I remember the teachers in some of my classes trying to force the one poor left-handed kid to be straig... I mean right-handed.

    It didn't work. At best they developed some right hand dexterity, at worst it caused anxiety and led to a host of other problems.

    It hasn't been that long ago, historically speaking, that a left-hand child was considered to have been touched by evil forces in the womb. In Latin "dexter" means right-handed, "sinister" refers to left-handed.

    Now, the debate is about sexual orientation. Some claim it's a mark of evil. Some schools – within the last 25 or 30 years – have used electric shocks to try to "convert" homosexuals to straight.

    Mostly, it seems, religious people need a bogeyman to blame for hurricanes, crop failures, and social change.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 7, 2014 10:27 a.m.

    @RedShirtCalTech;
    "...then why do you have to go to courts to get laws changed rather than having the laws enacted that you want?"

    Because you don't have the right to pass laws that violate our rights. We will take you to court when you do that.

    Our freedom of religion was violated as the churches we attend that believe in allowing SSM were prevented from performing legal SS marriages. South Carolina actually fines clergy who do it. Our right to be treated in the same manner as heterosexual couples was also violated (a violation of the 14th Amendment). You know that already, of course, but you're willing to lie to yourself (and others) about it.
    Additionally, denying marriage to LGBT couples does absolutely nothing to "protect traditional families". Nothing.

    @Sven;

    Who cares what your "god" says? We are not a theocracy yet.

  • Sven Morgan, UT
    May 7, 2014 10:05 a.m.

    Laura Bilington said:

    "The gender mix of the families is irrelevant."

    Sorry Laura, God calls homosexual relationships a perversion. They are not normal, they are not healthy, and a society which embraces them, is a society in moral decay.

    Kids do best with a mom (female) and a dad (male). You can sit here and put forth all of the political correct garbage you want. The traditional family is the best environment for a child to grow up in.

    Thank you Focus on the Family for standing up for traditional marriage and the traditional family!

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 7, 2014 10:03 a.m.

    To "TrihsDer" so you are saying that no rights were lost because there were no rights to begin with. It is like making a law that says that 6 year olds cannot drive. Have they lost any rights?

    As for history, the facts are that starting with the Civil War, Conservatives have been pro-equal rights. It wasn't until the political winds changed directions that the liberals finally got on board.

    Is there anything stopping a gay couple from protecting children regardless of marital status? Now, when we protect traditional marriage that is helping real families. Do you not want to help families to form the best possible environment for children?

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    May 7, 2014 9:49 a.m.

    @1Voice wrote, “Changing the definition of marriage won’t solve the SS attraction problem. It does harm society if we fail to support the standard of traditional families and traditional marriage.”

    Um, same-sex attraction isn’t a problem any more than being left-handed is a problem. I’m assuming you don’t have a problem with the sale and use of special scissors, pruners, can openers, or serrated knives, since you recognize that the “traditional” design of these tools just doesn’t work for lefties. And laws which claim to "support" marriage but deny it to same-sex couples just don't work for gays either.

    Stable family units make a stable society. Within the families, the adults care for each other and for their children. The gender mix of the families is irrelevant.

  • TrihsDer ISS Enterprise, OH
    May 7, 2014 9:34 a.m.

    @RedShirtCalTech: "By fighting against redefining marriage it is anticipated that more importance will be put on marriage."

    Real world, not imaginary people on an imaginary desert island.

    Ten years ago the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized SSM. The right went into action and in the next election cycle over 30 states enacted laws and/or constitutional amendments against SSM and organizations and churches went into high gear bemoaning the "assault" on traditional marriage.

    What has been the result? Not a thought experiment here. Real stuff. And... the laws just kept gays from getting married. Didn't do anything at all to change straight views on marriage or straight divorce rates or lower out-of-wedlock births.

    Your "anticipation" is based on a false premise, as evidenced by your next statement:

    @RedShirtCalTech: "When you have higher marriage rates, you have fewer children living in poverty and lower crime rates."

    A real, non-imaginary reason Gays and Lesbians would like that protection for our children.

    A thought experiment: what if the money spent on "protecting traditional marriage" had actually been put into helping real families instead of excluding some families?

  • MoNoMo Fair Oaks, CA
    May 7, 2014 9:23 a.m.

    @ Red Shirt,

    "By fighting against redefining marriage it is anticipated that more importance will be put on marriage. When you have higher marriage rates, you have fewer children living in poverty and lower crime rates."

    It is "anticipated?" Seems like you are really searching for a reason without ANY facts to base it on. How does allowing gays to join in marriage make marriage overall less important?

    Sorry, but that just doesn't make sense - it seems like searching for a scapegoat to me.

  • TrihsDer ISS Enterprise, OH
    May 7, 2014 9:15 a.m.

    @RedShirt: "I don't know if gay marriage causes the devaluation of marriage or if when marriage is devalued that it opens the door for gay marriage."

    We are spending money, time and effort to join in marriage. When states allow SSM long lines form and stories are told of people who have shared their lives for decades celebrating their marriage.

    Meanwhile, OSM divorce rate hovers at 50% and many straights see no reason to be married.

    Try again. Not a poorly constructed "thought exercise" about imaginary events. Real information. Real people. Real world. You can actually see what they do, talk to them, ask why they do it.

    Seems to me that the problem is not gays wanting to get married, it is straights who simply don't value the institution any more.

    @RedShirt: "To "Ranch" yes, it is the gays fault for taking the wrong approach to legalizing gay unions."

    A lot of conservatives said the same during the civil rights era. Wanted blacks to stand by the door and wait politely to be invited in. Martin and Malcolm kicked the door down.

    Not waiting politely any more.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    May 7, 2014 9:05 a.m.

    RedShirtCalTech (addressing Ranch: "How were you losing your rights? ... How about religion?"

    This paper reported last week on a United Church of Christ minister facing six months in jail under North Carolina law for conducting same sex wedding ceremonies. Is that not a government infringement on the free exercise of religion?

    Religious freedom is a two way street. If the state requiring lay businesspeople (bakers, photographers) to serve gay couples getting married (or requiring a secular business to provide life insurance policies that includes contraception coverage) is a violation of religious freedom, then certainly the government prohibiting ordained clergy of established churches from performing religious rites in accordance with their doctrines and consciences is a loss of religious libery. Could there be a clearer case than that?

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    May 7, 2014 8:59 a.m.

    To "MoNoMo" it doesn't, however, it does indicate societal decay and is something seen in nations where you have lower marriage rates.

    By fighting against redefining marriage it is anticipated that more importance will be put on marriage. When you have higher marriage rates, you have fewer children living in poverty and lower crime rates.

    The question is why do you want to see society deteriorate further?

  • MoNoMo Fair Oaks, CA
    May 7, 2014 8:40 a.m.

    AND - still no rational answer to: How does my legal same sex marriage demean your straight marriage in any way what so ever?

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    May 7, 2014 8:40 a.m.

    To "Ranch" if it is working, then why do you have to go to courts to get laws changed rather than having the laws enacted that you want?

    How were you losing your rights? Did you have your freedom of speech restricted by law? How about religion? What rights did have that were lost?

    To "MoNoMo" I hate to tell you, but a lot of the US laws are based on Biblical commandments. Murder in all forms is against the law, apparently that Biblical commandment was codefied. The New Testament teaches tolerance for other religions, and that is now known as "Freedom of religion."

    FYI Gay marriage has nothing to do with divorce rates, but you see that when marriage rates are low (that means few people actually bother getting married in the first place) you have gay marriage also.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    May 7, 2014 8:28 a.m.

    @RedShirt;

    Our approach is working, so, obviously it is the "right approach". Our previous approach wasn't working at all, in fact we were regressing and losing our rights.

    @Laura B.;

    Please, you're confusing the poor guy.

  • MoNoMo Fair Oaks, CA
    May 7, 2014 8:23 a.m.

    @ 1.96 Standard deviation and Red Shirt:

    Thank you for you response. I respect your right to believe in anything you wish. I happen to believe differently and do NOT believe religious beliefs should be codified into secular law. God created all of us and straight people keep producing gay kids? I do think we are a deviation, but NOT deviates.

    With 2 to 5% percent of the population being gay, I would dispute that gays marrying have had any impact on straight marriages. (2 to 5% will demean marriage for the other 95% of the population? Makes no rational sense.)

    Divorce rates were around 50% before we started getting married. Don't automatically blame the gays for straight people's issues, we had nothing to do with it. I was raised in a Mormon family with three siblings, I'm the only gay one. Each of my siblings have at least one divorce. My 19 year gay relationship has outlasted all their marriages. How are we to blame again?

    As far as the equality view - it IS a civil rights issue. Marriage provides rights and protections of over 1200 federal laws dealing with a multitude of issues. (ie. Medical, inheritance, insurance, death rights, children, taxes .......)

    Civil rights?

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    May 7, 2014 8:17 a.m.

    Lost in DC wrote, “But just because not all have the ideal is no reason to equate the less ideal with the ideal.”

    You are so right, DC. Adults who have not completed their education or training before they procreate do NOT make for ideal families. Adults who choose to smoke or gamble or not obey the law do NOT make for ideal families. People who have blindly accepted the prejudices they were taught in their own childhoods do not grow into respectful, caring adults, and they don’t make for ideal families.

    Do you think these people--the overwhelming majority of whom are straight-- should be given the same right to marriage and parenthood as the people who you think are “ideal”?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 7, 2014 8:07 a.m.

    To "TrihsDer" I never said that one causes the other. I just said that when you see gay marriage being adopted you also see marriage being devalued. I don't know if gay marriage causes the devaluation of marriage or if when marriage is devalued that it opens the door for gay marriage. Either way it only shows that when scociety is in decline you will see gay marriage legalized. We should probably be more concerned with the decline in society, but that would probably offend more people and is harder to combat all at once.

    To "Ranch" yes, it is the gays fault for taking the wrong approach to legalizing gay unions.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    May 7, 2014 6:37 a.m.

    1.96 Standard Deviations says:

    "For me, ...I see same-sex marriage as a moral issue and not a civil rights issue. "

    --- Then do not have one. Your opinion, the way you "see" things applies to you and nobody else is required to live by your personal beliefs or opinions - they apply to YOU.

    "I believe God set the proper pattern for marriage, which is between man and woman."

    Then that is what YOU should have; again, your beliefs about what "god wants" do NOT apply to anybody else. EVER.

    "I could cite other reasons why I support traditional marriage (such as secular reason), ..."

    But you never ever do, do you. You always resort to the religious reason. And in any case, "I support traditional marriage" does NOT mean that you can't also support marriage equality.

    @RedShirt;

    That's right; it's all "the gays" fault.

    @1 Voice;

    Equality under the law means that when the government treats one group in a particular manner, it treats all groups in the same manner; you're the one lacking understanding of meaning.

    @RedWings;

    "The New Normal" was pulled from Utah's channels because of right-wing hypocrisy.

  • Kass SLC, UT
    May 7, 2014 12:31 a.m.

    My objection to mainstream theaters showing this film is that I am sure they will charge full price and FotF will consider all profits as fund raising - but hopefully those who choose to see this movie will be aware of who and what they are supporting and will have considered that in their decision making.

    I think instead of boycotting the movie and raising attention for it, groups that support same-sex marriage - such as 145 - should buy advertising time in front of the movie.

  • Candied Ginger Brooklyn, OH
    May 6, 2014 9:06 p.m.

    @1 Voice

    "You seem to be defining love as sexual attraction and SS attraction as love. This type of love is not the most important ingredient for what makes a good marriage or a functional family. The gender and commitment of the parents is important!"

    I see love as love - I happen to love a woman because I am attracted to women and have been for as long as I can remember. Yes, I find her very attractive. She is a dedicated provider so I can be a stay-at-home mom for now. She does car care and isn't afraid of spiders and also grills a perfect steak. She is wonderful with the kids. I love every minute we have together.

    I am not sure how that is any different than my parents or my brother and his wife or any other straight couples.

    You seem to assume that "same sex attraction" refers to sex or lust or something. It doesn't. It means I am attracted to women the same way your are attracted to whoever you are attracted to.

    Please, don't demean my relationship.

  • TrihsDer NEO, OH
    May 6, 2014 8:54 p.m.

    @RedShirt: "As countries adopt gay marriage it has been found that attitudes towards marriage change and marriage becomes less desireable."

    You appear to be mixing causation with correlation. Changes in marriage include widely available and reliable birth control, women having opportunity for education and fulfilling employment, societal changes that allow women to be seen as full humans and not property of men.

    In fact, declines in marriage preceded the advent of SSM by many years.

    Trying to say SSM changed attitudes on marriage is like saying your wet shoes caused the puddle you stepped in during a rain storm.

    If anything, gay men and lesbians see the value of marriage and wish to bring the stability and protection it offers to their relationships. If anything, the partnerships that SSM couples have will help straight couples see that marriage can be a good thing and does not have to follow rigid and artificial gender roles based on ancient agrarian religious models.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    May 6, 2014 8:07 p.m.

    Good film - great message especially in today's toxic culture where good is evil and evil is good.

  • slcdenizen Murray, UT
    May 6, 2014 4:51 p.m.

    This looks like a fine documentary/ project. With the recent increase in support for SSM, it's important to see the different perspectives, especially from religious foundations. Historically, a successful marriage involved a man, a young teen girl, and substantial cash or livestock payment. Once things had settled down, a mistress or concubine would be introduced to the mix to keep the husband satisfied while the wife was busy raising the children. I hope this documentary reasserts this traditional marriage structure. I see far too many women being educated during their teen years instead of being married off by their fathers and getting a head start on child bearing.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    May 6, 2014 4:50 p.m.

    RedWings

    The only hypocrisy you're seeing here is of your own creation. The reason the theater pulled the film is because the theater owner decided to. I support SSM but I don't think they should have pulled the movie.

    The reason network television keeps these shows on is because the medium operates totally differently. Trust me, if these shows you hate weren't getting ratings they would be cancelled. The theater owner has some control over what their theater shows. The people in charge of the tv shows you don't like are massive corporations that only care about the bottom line and keep shows on as long as they get ratings. The two businesses are very different. You could do what I do when I come across a TV show I find repulsive and just turn the channel. You are also of course welcome to protest against the network running the show but unlike the theater owner whose audience is much smaller and more local - the networks are dealing with a nation wide audience of millions. There is no lefty conspiracy out to destroy the world - just huge corporations out to make money.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    May 6, 2014 4:38 p.m.

    @ 1Voice

    you should read some of the other comments before mine, then turn on your sarcasm meter and read mine again.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    May 6, 2014 3:49 p.m.

    Why is it that a theater will pull the movie over a protest from the LGBT, but I am stuck with shows on network TV exhalting the gay lifestyle and I have to deal with it? Maybe the LGBT community could take their own advice: "If you don't like it, don't watch it"...

    Hypocrisy reigns on the far left..

  • 1 Voice orem, UT
    May 6, 2014 2:59 p.m.

    @the Wraith

    You don’t seem to understand what equality under the law means. It means laws are established for the betterment of society. The law is then administered the same for all people. Equality under the law doesn’t mean you get to change the law to suit your wishes. You can still love whom you wish to love however you don’t get to redefine marriage as defined by law based on what is best for society.

    No one is telling you what to think or believe. You have your right to your opinion as I do to disagree. Redefining marriage to include SSM is not a constitutional right of you or the federal government. The consequences of changing the definition of marriage to include SSM because individuals think you have the right to marry who they wish regardless of what is best for society renders states unable to regulate marriage at all. Polygomy, bigamy, etc are all fair game. This makes marriage meaningless. It stops society for supporting that which is best for society – Traditional marriage.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    May 6, 2014 1:06 p.m.

    I just love being told what I believe in. As a progressive I support a lot of things. Apparently I also much, at all costs, silence the speech of those who don't agree with me. That's a shame because I was really hoping that because I believe in equality under the law that I could support the right of people to exercise their free speech, even if I don't agree with what they say. I suppose I don't have a choice though since apparently all us progressives have a hive mind and we all want to silence everyone who isn't one of our collective.

    Oh and one more thing that everyone should learn, it's one of the first things I learned in high school and it was reinforced in college over and over. Correlation does NOT equal causation. Just because two things are correlated doesn't mean one causes the other. Usually there is a third or even fourth variable that is causing both.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    May 6, 2014 12:44 p.m.

    My husband and I have seen the trailer for this documentary twice while at the movies. After viewing the trailer, my main concern is that the film does not accurately characterize the situation.

    In the voice over, the narrator says:

    "I've always believed in traditional family, but every day in the media I seem to be told that I've got it wrong".

    . . . and then later

    "So I have to ask the question, does culture have it right? or is there something better?"

    Does this narrator really believe that "the media" and "culture" counter and oppose the traditional family? I don't. Or is his problem that there are media and cultural messages that affirm a --VARIETY-- of family structures, besides the traditional mother-father-children? I mean, really, I don't know anyone who isn't in favor of strong, loving families with responsible parents? Both my husband and I come from such families. We're just glad that there's room in those particular traditional families for us, even though we don't look exactly like the traditional configuration.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    May 6, 2014 12:20 p.m.

    @ RedShirt

    I haven't seen the movie so I can't say what I think of the protest.

    My statement about Focus on the Family is based on what I've seen of their literature and the effect its "teachings" have had on my family.

    I don't find you funny at all.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 6, 2014 12:08 p.m.

    To "MoNoMo" it isn't about what it will do to my marriage. The bigger concern is for marriages in the future and the foundation of society.

    As countries adopt gay marriage it has been found that attitudes towards marriage change and marriage becomes less desireable. As marriage becomes less desireable you end up with more children being born out of wedlock and more single mothers. More single mothers means more children being raised in poverty and higher crime rates.

    The fight isn't for the here and now, but for the future of our kids and cities.

  • 1.96 Standard Deviations OREM, UT
    May 6, 2014 11:55 a.m.

    MoNoMo:

    "Can Someone please give me a rational answer to: How does my legal same sex marriage demean your straight marriage in any way what so ever?"

    For me, the challenge is we are "speaking two different languages." I see same-sex marriage as a moral issue and not a civil rights issue. It is hard to see eye to eye with these different mindsets.

    I believe God set the proper pattern for marriage, which is between man and woman. This kind of relationship can also continue in the hereafter if we are sealed/married by someone with Gd's authority. Same-sex marriages performed by men cannot continue in the hereafter, as they are contrary to the pattern God has set.

    I could cite other reasons why I support traditional marriage (such as secular reason), but when it comes down to it, I choose to follow God rather than men -- He is much wiser.

  • Bendana 99352, WA
    May 6, 2014 11:44 a.m.

    I think I would carefully examine the motives of any organization that has been designated a "hate group" by the SPLC. Carefully worded bigotry is still bigotry.

  • 1.96 Standard Deviations OREM, UT
    May 6, 2014 11:40 a.m.

    Tiago:

    I have a book made by some relatives about some of my LDS pioneer ancestors who had much different mindset toward marriage. Perhaps their mindset can be of help.

    For example, the book recounts that some men made promises among themselves that if they were to die, the living man would marry the wife (now widow) of the deceased man, in order to provide for and protect her and the children. This kind of marriage was also, apparently, accepted by the women.

    This kind of marriage was not based on attraction or "romantic" love -- it was based on promises, charity, duty, protection, welfare, etc., and it worked for them. Their example shows to me, that today's concept of "romantic" love or attraction does not need to be a pre-requisite to have a successful or happy marriage (marriage being defined as between man and woman).

  • MoNoMo Fair Oaks, CA
    May 6, 2014 11:36 a.m.

    Can Someone please give me a rational answer to: How does my legal same sex marriage demean your straight marriage in any way what so ever?

    We've been together for 19 years and legally married in CA before Prop H8. We've worked hard, played taxes and I was fortunate enough to retire at 49. I also helped raise two children that are both straight and well adjusted.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 6, 2014 11:10 a.m.

    To "Karen R" you are funny. You talk about Focus on the Family being intolerant right after we see that a SSM group protested and got the film pulled from a theater. Don't you find it ironic that you are supporting an intolerant group protesting a group you claim is intolerant?

    To "I M LDS 2" how is the ideal family organized, in your opinion? How is the ideal family organized according to the LDS church? Don't you think it is good to promote the ideal family organization?

  • 1 Voice orem, UT
    May 6, 2014 10:35 a.m.

    @tiego

    You seem to be defining love as sexual attraction and SS attraction as love. This type of love is not the most important ingredient for what makes a good marriage or a functional family. The gender and commitment of the parents is important!

    Traditional marriage and traditional families are a time tested and socially beneficial institution. Societies are better when the support traditional families. No not all traditional families are perfect but adding more imperfection to the standard doesn’t help.

    Redefining marriage based simply on the right to marry someone you think you love is problematic. Using that definition would make it impossible for states to regulate marriage in any way as it would be discriminatory to individuals who claim marriage based on declared love (eg polygamy, bigamy, siblings, roommates, etc.). We should support traditional marriage and families because it is what’s best for society. Incidentally, I also support the principle that sexual relationships outside the institutions of traditional marriage causes many problems for society (e.g. unwed mothers).

  • Sven Morgan, UT
    May 6, 2014 10:31 a.m.

    Imagine that, a movie that promotes a mom and dad, and the traditional family is an affront to Leftists like Mr. Rosenberg. Just wow.

    Once again, the intolerance of the Left is on full display for all to see. To those who celebrate LGBT relationships; if you don't like the message this movie/documentary from FOF is presenting, DON'T SEE IT! Nobody is forcing you to go and watch it. Many of us find the pro LGBT/ anti-traditional family messages presented by many Hollywood movies also offensive. Our solution? WE DON'T SEE THE MOVIE! But to the Left, this simply isn't enough; Progressives, at all costs, must silence the speech of those whom they disagree with.


    The traditional family should be encouraged and strived for in our society. Nobody is dissing the single mom (or single dad for that matter), but this isn't the ideal life for a child. Seventy percent of Black children have no father in the home. There is a direct correlation between Black children with no fathers, and the disproportionally high crime rate they commit.

    Good for Focus on the Family! We need this message desperately in our culture!

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    May 6, 2014 10:30 a.m.

    @1.96 Standard Deviations
    I accept President Monson 100% as God's prophet on the earth. I would literally die for my belief in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.
    I know the church leaders understand how complicated the reality of SSA is. As I have counseled with many local leaders, they have always been loving and understanding. I don't have so much confidence in Focus on the Family, but I do believe their intentions are good.
    Your question about attraction vs. love goes to the root of what I wish people who don't have SSA could understand. Feeling SSA means you fall in love with people of your own gender. Even if I never let a single unchaste thought about guys into my mind (and I rarely do), I still am not capable of falling in love romantically with a woman. I'm talking about the love that makes you want to come home to someone, talk for hours, cook her dinner, rub her back. I can't imagine marriage without that love. Could you choose to feel that for someone you don't? I wish I could, but I can't.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    May 6, 2014 10:14 a.m.

    @Brio
    I agree completely with your statement "Whenever traditional family relationships weaken, so does that society."
    My definition of traditional family is based on love (two adults who love each other) while yours is based on gender (a male + a female adult).
    I believe that supporting marriage for gay people strengthens traditional family relationships.
    Marriage ties two people together. It ties parents to children. It ties the couple to each others' extended families. Loving marriage does exactly the same thing for gay people that it does for straight people--it makes life better for them, their children, their family, and community.
    The reality I have seen living in Washington where gay people can marry verifies my belief. Search for ldswalkwithyou on youtube to see how faithful families have found that loving their LGBT family members has strengthened their own families and created optimal outcomes for all involved.
    Focus on the Family teaches exclusion and "tough love." I believe in inclusion and unconditional love.

  • 1.96 Standard Deviations OREM, UT
    May 6, 2014 10:06 a.m.

    Tiago:

    "To be clear, being gay means that you are only capable of falling in love with someone of your own gender."

    Tiago, I understand the challenges you presented in your scenarios. It is especially challenging to be faithful LDS with same-gender attraction. As, Elder Andersen stated in the last general conference:

    "Of special concern to us should be those who struggle with same-sex attraction. It is a whirlwind of enormous velocity. I want to express my love and admiration for those who courageously confront this trial of faith and stay true to the commandments of God!"

    Why do you equate love with attraction? Sounds like something Hollywood would teach. Not to be misconstrued outside of traditional marriage, President Thomas S. Monson has said: "Choose your love; love your choice."

    Do you accept President Monson's words that you have a choice who you can love? Do you believe our ability to choose is stronger or weaker than our "fleshy" desires?

  • 1 Voice orem, UT
    May 6, 2014 10:06 a.m.

    Traditional marriage and families are the standard. This doesn’t make them perfect (since people are involved) but not being perfect isn’t a reason to advocate for redefining the definition of marriage to include SSM. I say this not because I am homophobic or hateful, I am not. We should encourage traditional families and the traditional definition of marriage, as that is what is best for society. We also acknowledge and support individuals who for whatever reason find they must raise children outside of a traditional family (Widows, single mothers, grandparents raising grandkids).

    SS attraction is another issue. @Tiago. No one is saying you need to marry someone you don’t love or you can’t choose to commit to a SS partner if that makes you happy. That’s part of agency.

    Changing the definition of marriage won’t solve the SS attraction problem. It does harm society if we fail to support the standard of traditional families and traditional marriage.

    Marriage isn’t a constitutional right, it is an institution. We value traditional families as the standard because it is best for society. We should support the traditional definition of marriage as a result.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    May 6, 2014 10:02 a.m.

    Kudos to Focus on The Family for producing a much needed voice in support of traditional marriage which is what is ordained of God and proven to be the best model for nurturing and raising children to become responsible adults. I think we are starting to see many thoughtful people take a stand in favor of traditional marriage and families as they see this basic foundation of society under attack and being devalued by those who favor an alternative agenda for society. There is a lot of hope for the future as we see that good choices can triumph over poor choices and we can have faith in our God and how he teaches us correct principles to guide our individual lives and also family life.

  • Brio Alpine, UT
    May 6, 2014 9:52 a.m.

    Its very telling when SSM advocates can not see and admit the total obvious. And that is that raising children in a traditional family setting is the ideal atmosphere for them and has shown to be the most likely way for them to have the fewest personal and societal issues as adults.

    Is it possible to raise a good and responsible child in a non-traditional setting? Of course. But the odds have shown it to be substantially better in a traditional setting with an actual father and mother, instead of having someone just playing the role of one or the other. Exceptions happen, but that is never the best way to base important policies or practices.

    Sorry if that statement offends anyone. But it's the obvious truth which needs to be seen and understood in a society that has become too whimsical and overly concerned with political correctness. Too many studies have shown and continue to show it as truth. Whenever traditional family relationships weaken, so does that society. It's not rocket science. It's obvious history that anyone but a ideological blinded activist can see and understand. Those activists always jump on comment boards.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    May 6, 2014 9:46 a.m.

    When governments try to pass laws banning all men and women from marrying and having children, then I'll defend the "traditional family." Until that happens, this sort of thing is just paranoid and selfish.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    May 6, 2014 9:23 a.m.

    @IDC
    "I applaud those who do the best they can."
    What do you believe is the best that a gay person can do? What would you recommend for your child if you find out he or she is gay? What would you do yourself if you were gay?

    To be clear, being gay means that you are only capable of falling in love with someone of your own gender. While conscious thoughts and actions can be repressed and controlled, who you love does not change. So, choices are 1) Be single for the rest of your life, 2) Marry someone who you are not in love with in what looks like a traditional marriage but is actually a mixed-orientation marriage, 3) Commit to a same-sex partner who you are romantically in love with, 4) Never settle down or commit to anyone, just have fun.
    Which one is the best option?
    If you are unfamiliar with mixed-orientation marriages, I encourage you to read the wikipedia article on them, look at the Straight Spouses Network, and LDS Voices of Hope.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    May 6, 2014 9:12 a.m.

    This movie promotes the "simple and natural design formula" which is that the union of an adult man + an adult woman = marriage. What role does love play Focus on the Family's idea of marriage and family? Is gender more important than love?
    How does Focus on the Family teach families to deal when gender and love conflict?
    For example, how does it show parents reacting when they find out one of their own children experience same gender attraction? Doe the families show "tough love" or unconditional love?
    How does it show adults who experience same gender attraction dealing with it? Does it show them living alone and celibate? Is that part of the simple and natural design? Does it show them marrying a person of the opposite gender who they are not romantically attracted to? Does it show how that works out for everyone? Does it show any committed gay couples in faithful relationships?
    A real investigation of family would show the reality and let the viewer decide what is good. I'm afraid this film will not deal with reality and will not teach the value of love.

  • IDC Boise, ID
    May 6, 2014 9:07 a.m.

    If traditional families are best, then good for them. If we don't know if traditional families are best, good for them for fighting what they believe in. I believe traditional families are best. Not everyone can have a traditional family and I applaud those who do the best they can.

  • 1.96 Standard Deviations OREM, UT
    May 6, 2014 8:54 a.m.

    From the article: " 'It really surprised me that a mainstream movie theatre would support a religious organization's propaganda film,' said Rosenberg"

    A film about the importance and sanctity of traditional marriage and family is now propaganda? Holy moly, how far some people have fallen. Talk about calling something bitter when it is actually sweet, and calling it evil when it is actually good!

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    May 6, 2014 8:47 a.m.

    the traditional family is the ideal. We should all strive for the ideal.

    We should also recognize that not all have the ideal, some because of their own poor choices and some because of the bad choices of others.

    But just because not all have the ideal is no reason to equate the less ideal with the ideal.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    May 6, 2014 8:35 a.m.

    "Irreplaceable" is rated PG. Even Focus on the Family can't produce a film suitable for all (read "family") audiences?

    KAren R.: "But it's from Focus on the Family, an organization steeped in intolerance..."

    Several years ago I was listening to Focus on the Family's radio program "Family News in Focus" with James Dobson. He introduced a guest, a Jewish child psychologist, with a statement to the effect of, "She is not a believer, but what she has to say is still worthwhile." Why it was necessary for Dobson to bring up her faith and why he felt it necessary to defend her work in a secular field says something about FotF and the show's audience.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 6, 2014 8:35 a.m.

    I sense an opportunity for them to grind their axe and use this as an opportunity to take a few swipes at same sex marriage.

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    May 6, 2014 8:32 a.m.

    I hope this documentary is made more widely available.

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    May 6, 2014 7:29 a.m.

    No need to read past the words Focus on the Family to understand that this "documentary" is nothing more than a self hyping PR stunt.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    May 6, 2014 7:27 a.m.

    I cherish my family.

    I want the two wonderful women down the block, longtime neighbors who've been together for many years, to be able to cherish their family,too.

    Love, respect, and equality under the law are what's truly irreplaceable.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    May 6, 2014 6:08 a.m.

    I believe in the "traditional family". But I also believe in non-traditional families: you know, like Jesus' blended family that started out with a single mother and a child born out of wedlock, then sort of added a step Dad. And I believe in those many wonderful non-traditional families where the grandparents are stepping up to parent kids whose "real parents" have not been able to do so. Kids need adults who love them and support them in life, and if two people of the same gender want to be parents to kids who need them, I believe in those families, regardless whether some religious groups arbitrarily call them "non-traditional" or not.

    Families of ALL shapes and sizes are truly "irreplaceable"!

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    May 6, 2014 5:34 a.m.

    If it doesn't take swipes at "nontraditional" families and it looks at ways parents have found to help their children thrive, then I'm all for it.

    But it's from Focus on the Family, an organization steeped in intolerance, so I'll reserve judgment until I see it.

  • Michael Roche Provo, UT
    May 6, 2014 5:11 a.m.

    First?