Comments about ‘New documentary argues the traditional family is 'Irreplaceable'’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, May 5 2014 11:40 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Michael Roche
Provo, UT


Karen R.
Houston, TX

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.

Provo, UT

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"!

Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Bob A. Bohey
Marlborough, MA

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.

Midwest City, USA, OK

I hope this documentary is made more widely available.

American Fork, UT

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.

Salt Lake City, UT

"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.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

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.

1.96 Standard Deviations

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!

Boise, ID

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.

Seattle, WA

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.

Seattle, WA

"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.

Eugene, OR

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.

Alpine, UT

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.

Salt Lake City, UT

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.

1 Voice
orem, UT

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.

1.96 Standard Deviations


"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?

Seattle, WA

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.

Seattle, WA

@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.

to comment

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