Prop 8 trial witness: Being gay not a choice

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • rational thought
    Jan. 28, 2010 9:35 a.m.

    well, I see no one has an answer to my 10:23am post. It's a shame that you all want to degrade and badger people, and withhold rights from them, simply because your parents and your priests told you the people are "bad". I guess you all haven't changed much from the slave and segregation days. Bunch of white religious folks wanting to be in charge and tell everyone what to do and what's right and wrong.

    good luck with that when answering to the big guy. You really should stop calling yourselves christians since you act far from it and don't even seem to understand what it actually means....

  • Survivor Of Change Therapy
    Jan. 27, 2010 9:23 p.m.

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

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

  • Vince
    Jan. 27, 2010 6:40 p.m.

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

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

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

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

  • Vince
    Jan. 27, 2010 6:36 p.m.

    Childless marriage

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

    Evaluate the trends,

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

    Another source suggested by sociologist Laura Carroll indicates that,

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

  • Vince
    Jan. 27, 2010 6:27 p.m.


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

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

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 27, 2010 11:17 a.m.

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

    How is that 'in your face?'

  • rational thought
    Jan. 27, 2010 10:23 a.m.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • @AB
    Jan. 27, 2010 9:34 a.m.

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

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

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

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

  • Pagan
    Jan. 27, 2010 9:31 a.m.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Or have you never used air-conditioning?

  • Pagan
    Jan. 27, 2010 9:02 a.m.

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

    Who makes one rightous?

  • Vince
    Jan. 27, 2010 8:54 a.m.

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

    You wrote,

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

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

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

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

    Some statistics about children,

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


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

  • Vince
    Jan. 27, 2010 8:44 a.m.


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

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

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

  • Vince
    Jan. 27, 2010 8:39 a.m.


    Your argument makes sense at some level.

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

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

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

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

  • judging
    Jan. 27, 2010 8:27 a.m.

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

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

  • Pagan
    Jan. 27, 2010 7:25 a.m.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    These are not facts but rather opinions.

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

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

    'judge not lest....'

  • Judging others is not evil
    Jan. 27, 2010 1:38 a.m.

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

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

  • Pagan
    Jan. 26, 2010 7:12 p.m.


    Judging others is evil.

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

  • Pagan
    Jan. 26, 2010 4:01 p.m.

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

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

  • CB
    Jan. 26, 2010 3:58 p.m.

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

  • Christy
    Jan. 26, 2010 3:37 p.m.

    @Bank Robber

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

  • Christy
    Jan. 26, 2010 3:32 p.m.

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

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

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

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 26, 2010 2:46 p.m.

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

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

  • Einstein
    Jan. 26, 2010 1:39 p.m.

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

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 26, 2010 1:08 p.m.

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

    When did you try?

  • Pagan
    Jan. 26, 2010 1:07 p.m.

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

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

    I doubt it.

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

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 26, 2010 1:03 p.m.

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

  • to 12:39
    Jan. 26, 2010 12:54 p.m.

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

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 26, 2010 12:39 p.m.

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

  • philisophical drible
    Jan. 26, 2010 11:43 a.m.

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

  • Pagan
    Jan. 26, 2010 11:19 a.m.


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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Trowe
    Jan. 26, 2010 11:10 a.m.


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

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

  • Pagan
    Jan. 26, 2010 10:20 a.m.


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

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

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

  • Trowe
    Jan. 26, 2010 10:08 a.m.

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

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

  • Pagan
    Jan. 26, 2010 9:37 a.m.


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

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

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

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

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

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

    Again, religion is simply trying to stay valid.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 26, 2010 9:21 a.m.

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

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 26, 2010 9:19 a.m.

    'What's the purpose of homosexuality?'

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

  • Trowe
    Jan. 26, 2010 9:18 a.m.

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

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

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

  • TheLaw
    Jan. 26, 2010 8:54 a.m.

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

  • Not surprised
    Jan. 26, 2010 8:41 a.m.

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

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

  • Frank
    Jan. 26, 2010 8:23 a.m.

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

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

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

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

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

  • @The tradition of marriage
    Jan. 26, 2010 8:13 a.m.

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

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

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

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

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

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 26, 2010 7:58 a.m.

    Ok. So now the 'choice' of being gay is 'irelivant'. You can 'control' your actions, just like the straight community. By the way, it is estimated that someone in the world is engaging in sexual activity every 6 seconds.

    If something is inherrent, it is not an option. If something cannot be fought against, it is inevitible.

    Many in the religious community chastise the gay community for not 'controling yourself' and yet ignore the 50% divorce rate for traditional marriages. Not to mention the continuing escalation of teen pregnancy and the 40% of US children being raised in single-parent households.

    If you want to deny something based on a better example, fine. However, as we have established, straight people are no better off at being examples of morality than gay people.

  • Pagan
    Jan. 26, 2010 7:53 a.m.

    '...religious ceremonies shouldn't have legal standing. Baptisms don't, christenings don't, sacraments don't...why marriage?' - 4:36 p.m.


    I think I understand the confusion. Many share this. Religious marriage does NOT have any legal standing. You can get any religious ceremony (temple sealing for example) and it will have zero of the over 1,200 legally protected rights of marriage.

    Now, if you have it done at any city hall in America (I think it's $75 for a marriage license) it is legal. The religious ceremony is not. Many do it to support tradition however it has zero legal benifit.

    The gay community want's marriage in city halls. Legal recognition. It has never, ever petitioned to have those marriages in any religious place of worship. If that religion allows them, fine, but it has never been an issue to the gay community to force churches to marry gay couples.

    Until anti-gay marriage deniers brought it up.

  • Vince
    Jan. 26, 2010 12:01 a.m.

    This is the intended 'compassionate' counseling has provided for gays who attempted and who continue to attempt to change their sexual orientation through various forms of therapy.

    From the available data, four studies reported a "success" rate during conversion therapy of 0.4%, 0.0%, 0.5 and 0.04%. That is, conversion therapy has a failure rate in excess of 99.5% during each study.

    In the study were included the following organizations that perpetuate the "fix therapy."

    Exodus International
    Masters & Johnson
    Schroeder & Shidlo
    OCRT pilot study
    Spitzer and

  • Vince
    Jan. 25, 2010 11:30 p.m.

    Re: His opinion has no bearing

    I don't know that I agree what constitutes a real liberal or not.

    I can't think of a single instance in which civil rights were won by the voice of the people.

    The Bill of Rights
    Women's Emancipation
    Civil Rights of the 1960s
    Banning types of discrimination in regards to race, national origin, ethniticity, etc.

    all of the above were won by legislative action, court rulings, or executive orders.

    Majority rule or voice of the people can and has been overturned in the past. Remember Prop 187 in California?

    Your other argument defeats the purpose of marriage.

    You wrote, "gays are able to marry according to law."

    It makes as much sense as my saying that heterosexuals have the right to marry the same gender in Canada or Massachusetts.

    They don't want it.

    But they have the right.

    It is a nonsensical argument.

    However, you are right in one regard, the basic essence of the argument in the court right now is whether the ban on same sex marriage violates equal protection under the law.

    To that, however, are the all very common arguments regarding gays

  • His opinion has no bearing
    Jan. 25, 2010 8:19 p.m.


    "A psychologist took aim at one of the central justifications for California's ban on same-sex marriage in federal court Friday, saying researchers overwhelmingly agree that gays and lesbians make just as good parents as heterosexuals."

    It's good to hear his opinion on the matter but he can vote like everyone else. It is not the role of the Courts to decide whether something is good or bad public policy. Their role is to decide whether something is legal, to punish criminality and to decide whether something is constitutional or not. Whether gays or lesbians make good parents doesn't have anything to do with whether a constitutional amendment to a state constitution violates the U.S. Constitution which in this case doesn't.

    Those who profess to be liberals and who support a court overturning Prop. 8 aren't real liberals since real liberals would be appalled that anyone would want to overturn a vote of the majority based on such an irrational argument as the majority defining marriage as being between a man and woman violates the equal protection of the laws for gays even though gays are able to marry according to law

  • It is a choice
    Jan. 25, 2010 7:59 p.m.


  • Vince
    Jan. 25, 2010 7:02 p.m.

    To Teacher,

    Further, in light of the ongoing case regarding Prop 8,

    from San Francisco Chronicle, January 16

    Gays make fine parents, psychologist testifies

    A psychologist took aim at one of the central justifications for California's ban on same-sex marriage in federal court Friday, saying researchers overwhelmingly agree that gays and lesbians make just as good parents as heterosexuals.

    More than 100 studies have found that "children who are raised by gay and lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted," Michael Lamb, chairman of the department of social and developmental psychology at Cambridge University in England, testified at the San Francisco trial of a lawsuit seeking to overturn Proposition 8.

    Lamb quoted the American Psychological Association's 2004 policy statement that gays and lesbians are "as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children." Seven other nationwide professional organizations have taken similar positions, he said.

  • Vince
    Jan. 25, 2010 6:52 p.m.

    Re: teacher

    Most gays come from heterosexual households.

    You're also sidestepping the issue that gay marriage may not equate same-sex adoption.

    Gay parents do and can raise children.

    How do you acount for gay parents who marry into heterosexual relationships, divorce, the gay parent, whether gay or lesbian, has the custody of the children, the gay custodial parent either marries or at least enters into a gay committed relationship, and how do you account for the part of same-sex parents where one of the parents is the bio parent?

    At that, there is also surrogacy.

    It sounds like the discrimination would not only be for same-sex parents to be married, but from having families as well.

  • The DSM Lie
    Jan. 25, 2010 6:48 p.m.

    Speaking as a licensed Mental Health professional, I can tell you that the process behind the approval of the "gay" lifestyle, as specified diagnostically in the DSM-IV and other manuals, is politically and financially motivated. Homosexuals have lobbied hard and successfully in a carefully orchestrated campaign over the past few decades to get their "lifestyle" first tolerated, then accepted, and eventually praised. They've done so in psychological circles and others (education, politics, the media, etc.). Remember this, the DSM is just a book of codes used to validate health expenditures by insurance companies. The APA buy-in to the homosexual movement shows, as some critics of psychology say, that mental health really is a "pseudo science" after all. What a shame!

  • Bank Robbery No Choice Either
    Jan. 25, 2010 6:39 p.m.

    Ever since I was born, I've had a strong urge to rob a bank. And to kill puppies. And to tell huge lies. And to steal candy from babies. And to spraypaint peoples' houses. And to run naked down the street. And to set buildings on fire. There is no choice. I just have to do it.

  • teacher
    Jan. 25, 2010 6:24 p.m.

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

  • MikeNaz
    Jan. 25, 2010 5:14 p.m.

    to NY:
    "Marriage is about creating a family by bringing together a man and a woman. Two guys or two gals hanging out is not the creation of a family."

    What about an old widow and widower who may be older than 60? Why should they get married? To have kids? I think not, but to have love, companionship and possibly death benefits. Now, what do you think?

  • re -- Trowe | 4:36 p.m
    Jan. 25, 2010 4:47 p.m.

    ["religious ceremonies shouldn't have legal standing. Baptisms don't, christenings don't, sacraments don't...why marriage?"]

    actually, religious ceremonial "marriages" (and temple "sealings") have no legal standing. The minister or whoever may sign the marriage certificate stating that he/she performed the vows, but that is simply as a witness, same as a court clerk.

    even now, you can get married in city hall without ever going to a church, but you CANNOT get married in a church without first going to city hall....

    bottom line is - marriage is a civil issue. Some people like to throw in a ritual or ceremony, but it's the civil part that gets you all the rights and benefits.

  • Trowe
    Jan. 25, 2010 4:36 p.m.

    To Pagan at 4:04.

    My point is not the churches will be forced to perform same-sex marriages against there will, only that those churchces to desire to perform them would be allowed to. I think that as long as marriages are performed in churches by ministers, the same-sex marriage community has a legitimate claim on the first ammendments free-exercise clause. Civil marriages performed by the state according to how the people of that state feel they should be performed, religious marriages for those who also want to do that, however, religious ceremonies shouldn't have legal standing. Baptisms don't, christenings don't, sacraments don't...why marriage?

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 25, 2010 4:34 p.m.

    to -- Trowe | 3:43 p.m

    churches have no business being in the mariage business. they should stick to ceremonies and stay out of certifications.

  • re -- Trowe | 3:43 p.m
    Jan. 25, 2010 4:32 p.m.

    ["Certainly churches will continue to practice their religion however they want, but the state will not be allowed to pick and choose which beliefs are valid."]

    and the state has no business picking and choosing which beliefs are valid.

    ["As I've said, let the churches be in the marriage business for religious purposes, but have the legal ceremony be performed by the state."]

    churches can do whatever they want as long as they don't break any laws and they don't take public funds.

    I doubt any gay people care what little rituals churches want to do for weddings. they want the state and the fed gov't to recognize their marriage so they can have the same rights as everyone else.

  • Whatever
    Jan. 25, 2010 4:28 p.m.

    Even if gays succeed in redefining and thus making civil marriage meaningless there is some hope. They will never be able to change what is most important, the sealing ordinance performed in the temple.

  • re -- Anonymous | 4:04 p.m
    Jan. 25, 2010 4:27 p.m.

    ["Do not legalize pathological behavior"]

    what pathological behavior do you not want legalized? I believe it would be against the constitution to make religions illegal.

  • Pagan
    Jan. 25, 2010 4:04 p.m.

    '...but that they would sue the goverment to overthrow the law which prohibits their church from performing marriages in the way they want to.' - 3:43 p.m.

    Trowe, I'm going to disgree here.

    My reason? Inter-racial marriage. After the supreme court rulling that allowed it church's still had the right to deny black and white couples to marry. Only by a church's allowance were these marriages allowed. Not the goverment.

    Also, the gay communtiy has never, ever, made it clear they want to 'force' religions to perform gay marriages. Only the goverment the gay community pays taxes into.

    As there has never been a case before, a claim during, and no evidence for this claim to be true in the future, I do not think this is a valid reason to deny someone marriage.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 25, 2010 4:04 p.m.

    Do not legalize pathological behavior.

  • Trowe
    Jan. 25, 2010 3:43 p.m.

    Vince | 12:57 p.m. Jan. 24, 2010

    This is the second time I posted this, the first time it didn't go through.

    Vince, my point was not that people would sue the churches, but that they would sue the goverment to overthrow the law which prohibits their church from performing marriages in the way they want to. Certainly churches will continue to practice their religion however they want, but the state will not be allowed to pick and choose which beliefs are valid. As I've said, let the churches be in the marriage business for religious purposes, but have the legal ceremony be performed by the state.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 25, 2010 2:05 p.m.

    "In my church we don't believe in homosexuals." - 12:33 p.m.

    I realize this is a quote from Angels in America but did anyone else notice how creepily this is similar to this quote:

    'There are no homosexuals in my country.' - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - leader of Iran.

  • Deviance in eye of beholder
    Jan. 25, 2010 12:33 p.m.

    "did you know that more people in the world think being mormon is "deviant" than people think gay is "deviant"?"

    This reminds me of the line by Harper in Angels in America:

    Harper (a Mormon married to a homosexual) says: "In my church we don't believe in homosexuals.

    Person to whom she is talking replies: "In my church we don't believe in Mormons."

  • Facts
    Jan. 25, 2010 11:05 a.m.

    The American Psychological Association has over 15,000 members. A study they released declared that attempts at ‘re-orientation’ are ‘harmful’ and less than 1% effective. (08/10/09)

    BYU 'Aversion Therapy' programs (we won't go into specifics) done in the 1970's coincides with this report.

    One of these participants was Don Harryman, who shared his experience in 'Peculiar People: Mormons and Same-Sex Orientation.'

    As such, the LDS church's official stance is to NO LONGER encourage those who are gay to marry a person of the opposite gender in hopes that it will 'go away.'

    Aversion therapy fell out of popularity and in 1994, the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians."

    The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from it's list's of mental disorders in 1978. Even communist China removed it in 2001.

    Bottom line, if being gay is a 'choice' it is still a better alternative than to marry someone and ruin both your lives based on the lie that is another person's idea of what is 'normal.'

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 25, 2010 10:44 a.m.

    10:10 a.m. - What this is about is forcing others to accept deviancy.

    I always find it entertaining when people talk about deviancy or imorallity while talking about a marriage that they are NOT a part of.

  • Pagan
    Jan. 25, 2010 10:43 a.m.

    'A compassionate society would provide counseling for people that struggle with same-sex attraction...' - 10:10 a.m.

    You are so blind.

    Brigham Young University attempted aversion therapy in the 1970's. They concluded that attempts at re-orientation are harmful. As such the LDS church no longer encourages people to try and change their orientation.

    And yet gay people 'should' marry a straight person to get the rights of marriage?

    How is allowing gay marraige promoting homosexuals? I thought they couldn't pro-create? Your idea of 'compassion' and love is skewed, if you cannot see that a long-term monogomys commitment to one person should be the end result of a relationship.

    Not to the person of YOUR choice, ignoring they're own.

    If I am a gay man and I ONLY have an option to marry a straight woman...

    then for it to be comparable...

    if your a straight man you should only be able to marry a gay man.

    If it is your mission to remove a persons sexuality from their own marriage begin with your own.

    Not someone else's.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 25, 2010 10:39 a.m.

    re -- gay people can and do marry | 10:10 a.m.

    "What this is about is forcing others to accept deviancy."

    did you know that more people in the world think being mormon is "deviant" than people think gay is "deviant"?

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 25, 2010 10:38 a.m.

    re -- gay people can and do marry | 10:10 a.m

    ["What this is about is forcing others to accept deviancy."]

    but we DO accept you. even though you're a deviant religious zealot, we totally accept you. So why wouldn't you accept non-deviant behavior (like same-sex marriage)?

    ["If a guy wants to have the same benefits as a man that marries a woman, he has to marry a woman"]

    wow. so now you make the rules? are you being even more deviant by telling everyone what to do?

    ["A compassionate society would provide counseling for people that struggle with same-sex attraction, not condone and promote homosexual lifestyles."]

    and a compassionate society will counsel people that believe in fairy tales, rather than let them make a fool of themselves. We certainly will provide you counseling to help you with your deviant lifestyle. it's ok, religion-boy

    ["If he marries a man and throws a tantrum that it's "the same" no reasonable person is going to listen to that"]

    and if a religious zealot throws a tantrum because he doesn't understand that it IS the same, then no reasonable person is going to listen.

  • gay people can and do marry
    Jan. 25, 2010 10:10 a.m.

    What this is about is forcing others to accept deviancy.

    If a guy wants to have the same benefits as a man that marries a woman, he has to marry a woman. If he marries a man and throws a tantrum that it's "the same" no reasonable person is going to listen to that any more than someone that claims that Darwinian theories are hateful because they indicate that heterosexual behavior is superior to homosexual behavior, therefore hate science! It's absolutely ridiculous.

    A compassionate society would provide counseling for people that struggle with same-sex attraction, not condone and promote homosexual lifestyles.

  • Pagan
    Jan. 25, 2010 10:10 a.m.

    'Deep down I think most people can see the lie but just want some way to validate their immoral choices.' - 8:40 a.m.

    Few problems with this statement.

    1) It is based on zero facts. All opinion. 'I think', 'immoral choices', etc.
    2) Laughable, what makes you morally superior to another? What makes you, or any religion for that matter, superior to others? Are we all not Gods children?

    If I followed this logic, it would sound something like:

    'Laughable is immoral. As such, he/she should have less rights than myself. Everyone with the letter 'p' in their name are an abomination under god. If we left Laughable on an island he/she could no pro-create. Therefore it is against nature and against God. It says so in a book of fiction called Harry Potter.'

    All faulty logic and opinion. And your opinion is not enough to deny a person's right to happiness in this country.

    If you have the ability to marry, why would you work to deny that to others?

    Do not covet something that was given to you freely.

  • re --- Laughable | 8:40 a.m
    Jan. 25, 2010 9:46 a.m.

    ["I just don't see how anyone capable of rational thought can buy into the idea that leading a gay lifestyle is not a choice."]

    and I don't see how any one with rational thought can think it IS a choice. tell me, laughing-boy - why would anyone want to purposely put themselves in the position of ridicule and abuse on purpose?

    and it doesn't matter if it is a choice or not. explain why that matters?

    ["Deep down I think most people can see the lie but just want some way to validate their immoral choices."]

    "immoral choices"? oh, come on, laughing-boy - did you really say "immoral"? so you're on of those religious zealots that thinks because you read it in a book that it is "immoral"? where's your indignation with the 3%-4% of the entire animal kingdom that is gay?

    you crack me up that you would think that it is "immoral" when it harms absolutely NO ONE. have you ever noticed that truly "immoral" things (and ilegal things) always have a victim?

    who is the victim in gay marriage, laughing-boy? there isn't one. it's only "immoral" to you.

  • Christy
    Jan. 25, 2010 9:32 a.m.

    Hey laughable - explain to me what you mean by 'gay lifestyle'.

  • Laughable
    Jan. 25, 2010 8:40 a.m.

    I just don't see how anyone capable of rational thought can buy into the idea that leading a gay lifestyle is not a choice. The notion is so absurd that I can't believe there is a discussion on the subject. Deep down I think most people can see the lie but just want some way to validate their immoral choices.

  • Pagan
    Jan. 25, 2010 8:28 a.m.

    'Marriage is about creating a family by bringing together a man and a woman.' (or a 'family') - 5:22 p.m.

    NY, I'm going to disagree with you. Half of marriages end in divorce. Of those, 40% of all children in the US are being raised by a single-parent. Also, children are never a requirement for marriage. Where is that on yours or anyone else's marraige certificate? I'd like to see it.

    'Let's legalize civil unions and be done with it.'

    Civil unions are already leagal in the US. However, the onese that exist do not offer the same or EQUAL rights of regular marriage. My example? CA domestic partners.

    Rights with CA domestic partners - 1100.
    Rights with CA marriage - 1138

    So this is less than, not equal too marriage. Also segragation failed in America. (Black and white schools, etc) Why would civil unions only be ok for gay people and not straight people?

    However, some think only gay people should settle for less. And that it's ok to ask something for someone else you wouldn't do yourself.

  • re: southern baptist grandmother
    Jan. 24, 2010 7:43 p.m.

    "God made all people, therefore he made homosexuals". God does NOT make homosexuals and if you believe this way then you must accept the notion that God is setting people up for failure. Why would God make people gay and then make homosexuality a sin? Not a very merciful and loving God if you ask me. People are most likely born gay due to whatever genetic or dna explanations. God loves all people gay and straight and he has asked us to do the same, "As i have loved you, love one another". Maybe loving one another and not judging is the only way we as a society will ever coexist in peace.

  • Actually Oregon
    Jan. 24, 2010 4:05 p.m.

    All marriages in France are civil marriages and must be performed by a civil authority.

    Religious ceremonies are not valid in and of themselves but are optional for those who want one.

    Religious ceremonies must be performed after the civil ceremony. They can be on the same day, but do not need to be.

  • Oregon
    Jan. 24, 2010 3:44 p.m.

    France has removed the legal term 'marriage' and issues 'civil union licenses' to any two consenting adults. People are then free to take this license and have a civil union ceremony or a marriage, whatever there own beliefs are. Churches are free to dictate who qualifies to be married in their religion.
    Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me.

  • Christy
    Jan. 24, 2010 3:32 p.m.

    "anyone that wants a ceremony in church, go ahead. do your thing!! just don't call it marriage. have a nice "religious union" at your church. just stop calling it marriage."

    I don't understand this. WHY NOT call it marriage? I don't understand what the big deal is. How does it negatively affect your life, your marriage, if a committed gay couple marries for life? Marriage isn't about replenishing the earth, because people can and do have children whether they're married or not. Rather, it's about making a life long commitment to the one you love, in front of everyone you love, and society recognizes this commitment.
    Where's the uproar over people who get married and divorced, married and divorced, married and divorced, leaving disaster in their wake? Is that ok, simply because they are 'replenishing' the earth as they go??

    And no, no one's trying to 'stop the reproduction of man'.

    And can someone tell me what is a 'petifile'??

  • Vince
    Jan. 24, 2010 1:03 p.m.

    "Homosexuality is unnatural"

    Heterosexuality is unnatural to those people that are gay and who are, through social, political, family, and religious pressure are made to conform to something that they are not.

    I am not saying it is bad.

    Heterosexuality is good, wholesome and great for heterosexuals.

    But for gays.... if it is not meant to be it is not meant to be.

  • Vince
    Jan. 24, 2010 12:57 p.m.


    Churches can and do follow ecclesiastical protocol as to whom they will marry. Churches have had this tradition for right and it is in effect theirs.

    The churches that do effect same-sex marriages do so on their own accord - no one compels them to do so.

    There is no spin here, there are a great number of examples where churches do deny people the right to marry.


    In the Church, bishops can deny a temple marriage is one or both of the partners is not temple recommend holder.

    Bishops can and do deny a civil right marriage in a church building.

    There are other examples with other churches and how they follow their protocol, but you see my point....

    No one can turn around and sue a church because a marriage was denied therein.

  • To: Elementary School
    Jan. 24, 2010 11:54 a.m.

    Yes, I knew at an early age I was different. I tried to deny it, but I knew it. Don't you see it when there is that one boy who gets along better with girls than the other boys? How about the boy who sits out the game of kissing tag or another game when they have to be paired up with a girl? It happens, and it happens before we truly recognize our sexual identity.

  • Trowe
    Jan. 24, 2010 8:27 a.m.

    M | 11:46 p.m. Jan. 23, 2010

    Yes, that is currently how the situation is. However, I think you're completely missing the point. At some point the court is going to ask why it is that some churches' view of marriage is being given legal standing? (no matter how you spin it, when a minister of any church performs a religious ceremony the result of which is a legal marriage, the state is recognizing a religion's marriage view) When the court does look at that, I think they'll find that giving such legal standing equates to an establishment of religion, especially when it is denying other churches ability to perform marriages as they believe.

  • common sense
    Jan. 24, 2010 1:00 a.m.

    It's obvious that if the state grants certain benefits (social security, etc) to straight marriages it should also do the same for gay ones.

    Anything less is discrimination.

  • Trowe
    Jan. 23, 2010 11:21 p.m.

    M | 10:58 p.m. Jan. 23, 2010

    I think it is unlikely that polygamy will become legal, due to other issues...however, if the states continue to allow churches to perform legal ceremonies, I could see it happening. Much more likely solution is to get churches out of the legal business, and turn it in to a state thing. States could then decide what types of unions best serve the state, and churches could perform marriages according to their religious beliefs.

  • M
    Jan. 23, 2010 10:58 p.m.

    @ Trove,

    Really? So because the gov't doesn't recognize a church's marriage of certain individuals, the court would rule this as an infringement of religious rights? Hmm, last time I checked the gov't doesn't recognize polygamist marriages, so I guess the courts should step in and allow them to be recognized? They don't because there isn't any constitutional violation w/ regard to religion.

  • Trowe
    Jan. 23, 2010 8:43 p.m.


    My point is not that churches are being, or will be, denied the right to perform ceremonies. My point is that by RECOGNIZING the INDIVIDUALS being married in one church ceremony, and disregarding the others, the state is clearly giving preference to one type of church ceremony, while stating that another is somehow less valid. This recognition can easily seen to be as an establishment of which religions beliefs are recognized. Sooner or later the court will most likely rule that this recognition is a violation.

  • Trowe
    Jan. 23, 2010 7:52 p.m.

    @M | 7:14 p.m. Jan. 23, 2010

    I think I did understand you. My point is that I don't think that the constitution will allow for states to give the "marriages" performed in one church validity, while denying the "marriages" performed in others. Perhaps the court will decide that if states want to remain in the marraige license business, that they will have to also perform the marriages. After the civil marriage, people can then perform ceremonies in their various churches. As it currently stands, I think the court will find that having a state deny some religious marriage ceremonies while accepting others will violate the constitution's establishment/free exercise clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

  • M
    Jan. 23, 2010 7:14 p.m.

    @ Trowe:

    Of course not. The states recognize marriages performed by authorized persons, regardless of where they are performed. What I'm saying is that there is a difference between religious ceremonies and state sanctioned marriages. I know several people who have been "married" in churches in SLC. What I said (and obviously you didn't understand) is that the gov can't and won't prohibit religious gay marriages, it just won't recognize them as valid (not because they're in a church, but because they're between 2 people of the same sex).

  • Trowe
    Jan. 23, 2010 6:27 p.m.

    @M | 5:47 p.m. Jan. 23, 2010

    Not sure that the Constitution will allow states to get in the business of deciding which religious ceremonies are recognized, and which aren't. Are you proposing that no marriages performed in churches be recognized?

  • M
    Jan. 23, 2010 5:47 p.m.

    re: BYU alum

    How is banning governmental recognition of gay marriage inflicting on freedom of religion? Gay people can have all the religious marriage ceremonies they want. It's called separation of church and state. NOWHERE does prop 8 say that religious institutions can't perform marriage ceremonies. It only says that the government won't recognize 2 people of the same sex as being married.

  • byu alum
    Jan. 23, 2010 2:15 p.m.

    @Consider: Actually, *BANNING* gay marriage endangers the freedom of religion. Many religions want to marry gay couples. Their religious liberty is being trampled on by Prop 8.

    As Mormons, you'd think we would have a better appreciation for the state trampling on religious liberty due to unorthodox marriage rites.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 23, 2010 11:50 a.m.

    "Homosexuality is un-natural"

    There is homosexual activity in other primates. Being left handed isn't natural if nature means in the norm.

  • to observer
    Jan. 23, 2010 9:30 a.m.

    You have fallen prey to the propaganda that the pro prop 8 put out. All those examples are exaggerations or not in ANY STATE but countries that do not have our freedom of religion.

    Please check the internet on all of these and your eyes will be opened to how you have been led astray.''

  • Trowe
    Jan. 23, 2010 8:57 a.m.

    To Observer: Why didn't you quote any actual facts, rather than just making up stories intended as scare-tactics?

    To JM- glad to see you continue your "I've posted tons of studies and evidences..." and yet never actually posting any.

  • To Waaat
    Jan. 23, 2010 8:28 a.m.

    You might want to inform the defenders of Prop 8. It seems they take a few angles about homosexuality. If your argument was valid, the entire argument that they submitted would be in defense of the definition of marriage, not about discriminating against gays.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 23, 2010 8:23 a.m.

    For those who profess that being gay is against Christian principles, the issue here is that the Bible has not been brought into as part of the testimony.

    This is a legal courtroom, not a church.

    Having someone be gay does not lessen your belief in your Christian beliefs.

    Separation of church and state anyone?

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 23, 2010 8:22 a.m.

    Being straight isn't a choice either.

  • mark
    Jan. 23, 2010 12:20 a.m.

    "Our sole purpose here on earth is to replenish life."

    That is your sole purpose on earth two cents? To replenish life? Really. Well I think it is plenished now. You can find something else to do.

  • It's time...
    Jan. 22, 2010 11:56 p.m.

    For the government and states to get out of the marriage business and leave it to the churches.

    Good old fashion separation of Church and State.

  • Two cents.
    Jan. 22, 2010 11:38 p.m.

    I STRONGLY agree with "clarity for ye fogged". Our sole purpose here on earth is to replenish life. Why, then, are we so sidetracked by the attraction of male-male or female-female?? How in ANY WAY is marriage going to justify anything?? What will be different in the lifes of gays and lesbians if they are married? One man and one woman. Simply to raise children. If everyone were gay what would the world be like? How selfish we are to dig our country into a whole of dept. Now, what are we doing? Trying to stop the reproduction of man ... SELFISH.

  • Wiki
    Jan. 22, 2010 9:27 p.m.

    Just wikipedia "gay gene" and see where that takes you. In only a few minutes you will find several studies that show that homosexuality is due at least mostly due to genetics and prenatal conditions.

  • mark
    Jan. 22, 2010 8:54 p.m.

    @Gene Therapy | 5:06 p.m. Jan. 22, 2010

    "As a former scientist I can tell you that scientists usually find the results they are looking for. . ."

    I love it when people come on here and say "I am a scientist" (or former, too funny.) So, uh, what kinda scientist, oh excuse me, former scientist were you?

    You would think that people, I mean, excuse me, that scientists would understand how generic a term scientist is.

    So what kinda scientist were you?

    You know, if you really were a scientist (whatever that means) it is understandable that you are a former with your strange idea of how science works.

  • Less government is better
    Jan. 22, 2010 8:47 p.m.

    Why should government tell us what is and what is not appropriate marriage? Government should have no say. No law should treat married, unmarried, homosexual, polygamist, or whomever, any differently.

  • Christy
    Jan. 22, 2010 8:30 p.m.

    @metamoracoug | 2:12 p.m. Jan. 22, 2010

    "I understand that some may think that "what happens behind bedroom doors" is nobody's business. Such reasoning is myopic, however. There are few decisions I make that do not effect others."

    It IS nobody's business. But it also does not define someone. Does it define you? It doesn't define me. And it does not define this issue regardless that most every opponent views this issue through that lens.

    There are few decisions you make that don't affect others? Like who you married, I'm assuming? Guess what? It affected me and all the people in my life ZERO %. Not one single iota.

  • dumb
    Jan. 22, 2010 8:26 p.m.

    to everybody here who is NOT GAY. When did you make the choice to not be gay. You prlly never chose to not be gay. Same thing with gay people they prolly didnt choose to be gay. Did you choose to be straight? no it was natural right? so prolly somebody didnt choose to be gay either.

  • mark
    Jan. 22, 2010 7:23 p.m.

    "I have pointed out several times that these statements, by the AAP, Times, etc, are probably propaganda, and that many professionals, members of the APA, AAP, do not agree with these statements, and know that studies have been manipulated. "

    No, you haven't pointed out anything, you have just said this without providing any reference or proof, and no, saying that your brother is a MD and that he agrees with you and so do your buddies is not proof.

  • to -- Phil | 5:50 p.m
    Jan. 22, 2010 6:03 p.m.

    ["I get really sick of hearing Gay individuals trying to say they don't have a choice."]

    doesn't matter if it is a choice or not, Phil. what's the difference?

    you think it's bad and wrong. you learned that in school and bible study. what if no one had ever told you that? would you still think the same way?

    gay marriage hurts no one. why do you people even care? (and i'm not gay - i'm 52 yr old white guy - and I think you all are ridiculous.)

  • to - JM | 5:21 p.m
    Jan. 22, 2010 5:56 p.m.

    ["There is conclusive evidence that most gays are not genetically forced into gayness"]

    so what? nothing wrong with being gay. why are you so intent in proving it is a choice? it's irrelevant. if there's nothing wrong with it, and it harms no one, then let them marry.

    besides, you can quote all the studies you want. none of them matter. because the fact is, no one would want purposely take all the ridicule given to gays. no studies required. simple common sense will answer your question, JM.

    try some common sense.

  • to -- JM | 5:09 p.m
    Jan. 22, 2010 5:52 p.m.

    ["but those who promote gayness, mainstream, or seek legal enforcement of the lifestyle through marriage, etc, are responsible for many tears"]

    being gay needs to be mainstream, JM. that is the ONLY way the "it is an abomination" view will ever go away.

    blacks were considered an abomination to the LDS church back in the day. we are ALL glad that isn't the case today. and in 50 years, the same wil be said of gays.

    sorry to ruin your day, but the reason gays want to marry is so that being gay will be socially acceptable, not "an abomination". because it is a totally normal phenomenon.

  • re -- JM | 4:45 p.m
    Jan. 22, 2010 5:48 p.m.

    ["Pagan and other activists have called for an end to morality. They seem to feel it is outdated, and that your children should be raised in a society without it. They also continue to post misinformation and propaganda."]

    hahaha. JM, you crack me up. Your living under the assumption that acting on being gay, or just doing gay things, is immoral. THATS YOUR PROBLEM. yes, you heard it in church and bible study and probably a bunch of other places. your parents always said it was wrong and nasty and immoral.

    but it isn't. it's perfectly natural. it happens CONSISTENTLY in 3%-4% of the ENTIRE ANIMAL KINGDOM.

    it doesn't threaten the extinction of the human race, as you have proported. and it doesn't even matter if it is a choice or not. there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH IT.

    if no one had ever told you anything about it, the MOST ou would say is that they obviously cannot bear children that way, which is simply an observation, not a condemnation. Other than that, you would think it was perfectly normal. and you would be right!!

    remove your stigma glasses and clear your mind, JM

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 22, 2010 5:42 p.m.

    re - We all have a choice | 5:04 p.m

    what does having a choice have to do with it? marriage is a civil contract between two consenting adults. it's NOT about sex or kids.

    so... why do you care if two people get married?

  • to --- Scott | 4:41 p.m
    Jan. 22, 2010 5:39 p.m.

    ["At the same time we can try to help maintain the definition of marriage in a manner that we believe is defined by God without trying to undermine the other rights that 'government' has tied to marriage."]

    God did not define marriage. if you mean because it is in the bible, marriage was around a LONG time before the bible. Man defined marriage. first as a legal contract between parents for the marriage of their children, often to join different tribes.

    the meaning of "marriage" has changed a number of times over the course of history.

    what makes you think it shouldn't change again? and what makes you think you know what God wants?

  • NY
    Jan. 22, 2010 5:22 p.m.

    Marriage is about creating a family by bringing together a man and a woman. Two guys or two gals hanging out is not the creation of a family. I really believe that civil unions is the way to go here. It gives same sex friends (or anybody else) the opportunity to enjoy every tax and estate planning benefit that married couples enjoy. Let's legalize civil unions and be done with it.

  • Observer
    Jan. 22, 2010 5:16 p.m.

    Well, I'm 27, married with two kids, LDS and live in UT, and I honestly don't really care if people who are gay want to get married. I say let 'em. I don't agree with it, but then again, I don't agree with a lot of things in this world, but they will still happen.
    What I think is sad, is how much hate exists in most of the comments on here (on both sides of the fence). In my experience, hate usually drives two sides further apart and escalates the situation.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 22, 2010 5:04 p.m.

    JM | 4:45 p.m,

    Propaganda? Pot, have you met kettle?

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 22, 2010 5:00 p.m.

    TO --- Want to fix this mess? | 4:40 p.m.

    ["This is how you do it. Get the Government out of the marriage business. From now on they no longer are allowed to issue Marriage Certificates. Instead if anyone wants to have LEGAL recognition of their relationship, they would have to get a Civil Union (gay or straight. Doesn't matter"]

    no - here's how you do it. Get churches out of the marriage business. from now on they are not allowed to issue marriage certificates. (oh - wait - they can't do it now...)

    anyone that wants a ceremony in church, go ahead. do your thing!! just don't call it marriage. have a nice "religious union" at your church. just stop calling it marriage. the states issue marriage licenses, not churches. marriage is NOT a religious institution, it is a civil matter. you want your god to bless it, go for it.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 22, 2010 4:57 p.m.

    I just don't get the relevence here. I agree that quoting the bible is hypocritical because no one is perfectly obeying all the laws in the bible, let people be gay, no problem with that. But if you want marriage on the grounds of it being natural and not a choice, you better be ok with plural, petifilic and incestual marriage, who can use the same arguement based on the grounds of their relationships being extremely prevelent in the animal kingdom. I don't think any of these natural urges can be classified as a choice for many people out there. Not that I place gays in the same catagory as incestuals and petifiles, I'm just saying that I need a much more convincing arguement before I vote for gay marriage.

  • @Want to fix this mess?
    Jan. 22, 2010 4:55 p.m.

    This is probably one of the best solutions I have seen from either side. I agree. Thank you.

  • Gene Therapy
    Jan. 22, 2010 4:51 p.m.

    Science does not pick sides in political debates. The technology for preventing genes from manifesting is developing rapidly now. If this technology can eliminate obesity it will probably also be able to "cure" children who cannot easily produce grandchildren. How popular would that vaccine be?

  • To "Anonymous | 12:50 p.m. "
    Jan. 22, 2010 4:45 p.m.

    Anonymous | 12:50 p.m.

    Gays can't live in Utah???

    What the heck are you talking about?

  • Scott
    Jan. 22, 2010 4:41 p.m.

    This is about the definition of marriage and the courts can etablish equal rights for all without changing the defintion of marriage as something other than between one man and one woman. The persecution that the gay and lesbian community feels is very understandable because it has been mean spirited and offensive which then reciprocates the same. Heterosexuals (my self included) should be very careful about passing judgement and acting like we know what someone else is feeling. At the same time we can try to help maintain the definition of marriage in a manner that we believe is defined by God without trying to undermine the other rights that 'government' has tied to marriage. The rights that government has tied to a marriage relationship can be considered for all without recognizing homosexual relationships as "marriage." This is a difficult and sensitive topic that needs to be addressed with a perspective of love and respect for all regardless of sexual orientation.

  • Want to fix this mess?
    Jan. 22, 2010 4:40 p.m.

    This is how you do it. Get the Government out of the marriage business. From now on they no longer are allowed to issue Marriage Certificates. Instead if anyone wants to have LEGAL recognition of their relationship, they would have to get a Civil Union (gay or straight. Doesn't matter)

    You would have to go down to the courthouse to have it officiated over by a Justice of the Peace or some other Government official. Then if you want to be "married" you can go to your religious institution and have them preform the marriage ceremony. (Again Gay or Straight because not all relgions feel homosexuality is a sin)

    This would allow Homosexuals to get the rights and benefits from having their union legally recognized, and it would allow the religious folks to keep their "traditions" as well.

  • This I believe
    Jan. 22, 2010 4:35 p.m.

    RE: GregL
    Open your heart and your mind will follow

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 22, 2010 4:21 p.m.

    From an article published in the NY Times on 05 Nov 2009 titled, "What’s Good for the Kids"

    “These children do just fine,” says Abbie E. Goldberg, an assistant professor in the department of psychology at Clark University, who concedes there are some who will continue to believe that gay parents are a danger to their children, in spite of a growing web of psychological and sociological evidence to the contrary."

    "In most ways, the accumulated research shows, children of same-sex parents are not markedly different from those of heterosexual parents. They show no increased incidence of psychiatric disorders, are just as popular at school and have just as many friends. While girls raised by lesbian mothers seem slightly more likely to have more sexual partners, and boys slightly more likely to have fewer, than those raised by heterosexual mothers, neither sex is more likely to suffer from gender confusion nor to identify themselves as gay."

  • Elementary School
    Jan. 22, 2010 4:13 p.m.

    If any of the homosexuals who are posting on here can answer me sincerly and honestly about my question I will reconsider my stance. When in Elementary school and all the kids were going out or realizing their attraction did you ever honestly feel that you were attracted to the same sex and think that you wanted to ask little joey out instead of Sally? I have yet been able to get an answer out of any of the gay people I have asked this too. When do they tell me they realized they were gay. They say it was in their teenage years or early adult hood. Don't we always say how confused we are during our teenage and early adulthood. When are minds are the purest and not confused with all the sexual propaganda, can you say you were attracted to the same sex? If so I would love to hear your story.

  • Pagan
    Jan. 22, 2010 4:11 p.m.

    'Just to be clear if the courts rule that gay marriage is legal they rule in favor or polygamy and any form of marriage...' - 3:38 p.m.


    Can you cite the supreme court rulling in the last 30 days that supports that?

    Or are you simply making things up?

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 22, 2010 4:10 p.m.

    Marriage is a religious point....

    Uh, no. Marriages can, and do, happen at any city hall in Ameirca. The 'woulda, shoulda, coulda, argument about that marriage SHOULD have been kept in religion is moot. As goverment gives legal benifit to YOUR marriage, correct?

  • war or words
    Jan. 22, 2010 4:06 p.m.

    The conflict and dispute here is all about words, definitions, semantics. The biggest obstacle is redefining the traditional definition of marriage. Allowing marriage to mean more or less than the union of a woman and a man changes what marriage is and has been. People will fight to defend this definition. Personally, I support civil unions or domestic partnerships, as I suspect the vast majority of Americans would support as well. Marriage should stand as it is. The movement to redefine it will always encounter opposition.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 22, 2010 4:04 p.m.

    all I can say is that anytime you people want to have a REAL vote with no outside interference and no scare tactic ads and fliers, you let me know. I can make some money betting the pro-gay-marriage side. vegas, baby!

  • @GregL
    Jan. 22, 2010 3:57 p.m.

    I appreciate your beliefs, but disagree with them. I knew I was different at the age of 8 or 9. I never looked at porn, I never was abused physically/mentally.

    I believe that God is perfect as well, and when He made gay, He knew exactly what he was doing.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 22, 2010 3:51 p.m.

    "Such as that children raised by gays are more likely to be gay, thus more likely to have other ills.) "

    I need a citation for this statement. It goes against every study that I have read on this.

    Gay parents have the same percentage of their children that become gay as straight parents - about 2-4%.

    Do you know where you got this information?

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 22, 2010 3:49 p.m.

    Anonymous | 3:19 p.m. Jan. 22, 2010
    Homosexuality is un-natural. What is the purpose. Two men are not "sexually compatible" with one another. If you argue that they are, then I guess we are all "sexually compatible" with any number of species and objects as well. I don't want homosexuals to be persecuted, but I don't condone or agree with it either. Marriage is between a man and a woman'


    Is marriage only about sex? No, unless you have a very limited and myoptic one.

    Marriage is about attachment that you feel towards a certain individual. It has to do with respect, character, and feeling complete in their presence.

    Sex is merely an expression of the love you feel.

    Gay marriage is no different. I feel sorry for you if you do not understand this.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 22, 2010 3:48 p.m.

    'Some of these “professional” statements are misleading, and may be propaganda.' - 3:20 p.m.

    JM. So, are you upset that BYU supports that a person's orientation cannot be changed?

    Or that you have no facts to present that it CAN be changed? As you have presented no facts yourself, only tried in vain to cast doubt on the results spanning over 30 years done by many, many experts.

    No, no. 850,000 doctors and psychologists, including those from BYU, spanning over 30 years, are bias in favor of gay marriage, right?

    Please present one shred of fact in your next post.

  • re -- Anonymous | 3:19 p.m
    Jan. 22, 2010 3:43 p.m.

    ["Homosexuality is un-natural"]

    ok. lets get something straight (no pun intended). to you it seems unnatural because you are not gay. but come up with a different word (just like you want gays to come up with a different word than "marriage").

    you see, being gay is 100% natural. 3%-4% of the entire animal kingdom is gay. your statement is the same as saying left-handed or red-haired is unnatural. it's not. learn something about nature.

    ["Two men are not "sexually compatible" with one another."]

    Incorrect - I suggest you take an anatomy class.

    ["Many of the gays I've known have had some dysfunction in their youth, such as physical, mental or sexual abuse."]

    yes - from the likes of you. and yet they are still gay. ask yourself this... if gay is a choice, why would ANYONE choose to be gay?

    and then you have the people saying "just don't act on it". then they go home and sleep with their spouse. can't get much more hypocritical than that.

  • @?
    Jan. 22, 2010 3:38 p.m.

    Marriage is a religious point it should have never been included in government. Just to be clear if the courts rule that gay marriage is legal they rule in favor or polygamy and any form of marriage (seven men and seven women could marry). Are you ready for that?

  • This I believe
    Jan. 22, 2010 3:36 p.m.

    RE: GregL
    Open your heart and your mind will follow

  • re Involuntary H8er
    Jan. 22, 2010 3:35 p.m.

    Just comparing gay people to murderers and drug dealers tells us all we need to know about you. Involuntary? Don't think so.

  • mark
    Jan. 22, 2010 3:33 p.m.

    metamoracoug|2:12 p.m. Jan. 22, 2010
    "I understand that some may think that "what happens behind bedroom doors" is nobody's business. Such reasoning is myopic, however. There are few decisions I make that do not effect others."

    You are right! 100%! And seeing that you are right I want a list, in detail, of all the acts between you and whoever is behind that closed door with you, I also want the name of the person with you and that persons preferences. I want to know the number of times also. I also want a full history of all your past partners.

    Go ahead, you can just post them here, remember to use everybodies real name in your post. Please hurry and get the information together. We will wait. In fact I think I will just come over tonight and observe leave the door unlocked, I'm going to bring friends. We will let you know what we disagree with.

    And remember, you are right.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 22, 2010 3:27 p.m.

    re - --- Involuntary H8er | 2:35 p.m

    ["I think the laws are there to prevent drug use and crimes and to help drug abusers and other criminals recognize the err of their ways and go on to lead a constructive meaningful life."]

    so to be gay is a "err of their ways"? gays do not "lead a constructive meaningful life"?

    you do realize that a drug addiction and a drug dealer are two different things, right? and that most drug dealers DON'T do drugs? so your argument is wrong right off the bat. or are you naive?

    ["Loss of temper is mostly not a choice, so why do we punish murder?"]

    because it harms other people. as do drug dealers. gays harm no one (or at least they don't do it because they are gay - there are gay criminals though).

    until someone can give me a REAL reason not to allow gays to marry, I will support gay marriage. and if you try to give me reasons like that Tam guy in the article, then you have WAY less sense than I even thought possible. seek help.

  • Anon
    Jan. 22, 2010 3:26 p.m.

    What is all this ranting? As I understand, Prop 8 was only about gay marriage, not "you can choose to be gay" or "it's immoral to be gay" etc, etc,. It was about the definition of Marriage. And the people have spoken. I don't care if you're gay or what you do at home or in public (well, to a point on public), but the issue is marriage. Marriage has always been for men and women only and should always be. This is all about wanting to have about the only "right" they don't have; and by definition, shouldn't have.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 22, 2010 3:25 p.m.

    My deeply religious, Southern Baptist grandmother used to tell me, “we are all God’s children”. I believe this whole-heartedly. We have had homosexual people and animals for millions of years. If you believe God made all of us, you are conceding that God makes homosexuals.

    I don’t understand those of you who so passionately fight against gay rights and support things like counseling them into being straight. What is your problem? Two men kissing in California don’t affect you in any way. You are just so arrogant that you want to control their behavior and save them from themselves. Yes, Leviticus tells us that laying with another man as if with a woman is an abomination. But the Old Testament also tells us not to eat shellfish and to execute adulterers — how many of you are skipping the crabs at the buffet and shooting you neighbor for cheating on his wife?

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 22, 2010 3:24 p.m.

    Who would ever choose to be ostracized by their community and even family? Few if any would. Attraction is a visceral urge that cannot be denied. Since a young age, I looked at women and their physical features and had something inside of me that said yummy! Gay men and gay women feel the same thing when they look at members of their own gender. Attraction is not something you decide upon. People are born gay or straight — they may have curiosity or societal pressure that leads them to experiment with playing for other team — but they cannot deny what they are. This is not a choice. The religious right has funded studies hoping to prove that this is a choice and no scientific study has been able to reach that conclusion.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 22, 2010 3:20 p.m.

    Involuntary H8er | 2:35 p.m. Jan. 22, 2010
    Loss of temper is mostly not a choice, so why do we punish murder?

    Drug addiction is mostly not a choice, so why do we punish drug dealers?

    Inappropriate sexual attraction to children is not a choice, so why do we prosecute child molestors?


    Could it be that all of these have a victim? It is so simple really. Who is the victim in a homosexual relationship?

  • Elle
    Jan. 22, 2010 3:20 p.m.

    I have at least 2 cousins who are gay. I don't care what they are. They're my cousins and love them.
    I live in California. How many more times is this Prop 8 going to be in the voters faces? Majority of California says we don't agree on same sex marriage at least twice through election. So, how about the minority of gays and lesbians just accept that?
    Recently, in a nearby city, the majority of Christians gave in to an atheist's request to ban all Christmas decorations in public buildings. The lawmakers like puppy dogs easily gave in. What is the message here?
    The bottom line, how about the G&Ls get married in states that allow same sex marriage? Start there, but don't drag the entire state of CA into submitting to the same sex marriage, because it isn't accepted yet by majority of Californians. And, it isn't globally accepted yet by the people of the PLANET EARTH. Be grown up about it and deal with it.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 22, 2010 3:19 p.m.

    Homosexuality is un-natural. What is the purpose. Two men are not "sexually compatible" with one another. If you argue that they are, then I guess we are all "sexually compatible" with any number of species and objects as well. I don't want homosexuals to be persecuted, but I don't condone or agree with it either. Marriage is between a man and a woman'

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 22, 2010 3:12 p.m.

    Taking a line from PFLAG here... (Parents of Lesbian and Gays)

    'Someone you know and love is gay.'

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 22, 2010 3:11 p.m.

    'The people of California voted FOR Prop 8.'

    And yet gay marriage was legal before Prop 8, correct?

    'It is the law, the people have spoken.'

    Slavery was also a law in America supported by the people. Should we compare the two?

  • Pagan
    Jan. 22, 2010 3:10 p.m.

    Murder, Drug use, child abuse, tell me, when has the gay community advocated these?

    They have not.

    This is about marriage. Not a side issue like a comparison. Only straight people make that claim.

    Marriage to one person, for life. To be monogomys and to put one above all others. If this is bad, then why to straight people do it? And if they are 'better' at it, why do half of straight marriages end in divorce?

    I care what you believe in. You can believe and think what you like. When you start to dictate my own actions without willing to do so yourself, you are a hypocrite.

    Being gay is not a choice. Being unreasonable and unwilling to listen is.

  • lyman
    Jan. 22, 2010 3:03 p.m.

    GregL, what you believe has no affect on what is reality. What is you definition of natural? Found in nature? There goes your justification for discrimination. Homosexuality has always existed — IN NATURE. You can believe what you want, but homosexuality is not illegal in this country. Quit promoting opinion as fact.

  • re -- Give it up | 2:12 p.m
    Jan. 22, 2010 2:58 p.m.

    ["The people of California voted FOR Prop 8. It is the law, the people have spoken."]

    dude, you crack me up. and the websites and fliers that said
    "the gay agenda includes legalizing sex with kids" and
    "homosexuals were 12 times more likely than heterosexuals to molest children"
    "If sexual orientation is characterized as a civil right, so would pedophilia, polygamy and incest"

    were all legitimate concerns, right?

    if you zealots want to have a vote and not use stupid scare tactics, you would lose by a LOT. The problem is that religious people are VERY gullible and so they will believe anything you tell them. I mean, it's obvious, isn't it?

    if only we could find a group of religious people that didn't believe everything they are told.... but then they probably wouldn't be so religious because to be THAT religious means you accepted everything they told you, without question.

    ["Homosexuality is perverted."]

    i guess you're right, if you got your morals from an old book, and still live in the 1800s. but here in the 20th century we understand everyone is equal. (I said 20th since 21st would freak you out.)

  • Dorfman
    Jan. 22, 2010 2:56 p.m.

    @2:35 Nobody will answer your rational question, because no prop 8 supporter could or would even think about the notion of choosing to be scorned, beaten, and left alone as a freak.
    No, they would rather just follow mindless dogma and quote ancient scripture to make their choice of judging another human.
    So God-like are these people.

  • GregL
    Jan. 22, 2010 2:53 p.m.

    There's nothing normal or natural about gay sex. It's a perversion of nature, whether you believe in a god or not. Is homosexuality a choice? I doubt that most gays chose to be that way, but I think circumstances of upbringing can affect a persons attitude about sex. Many of the gays I've known have had some dysfunction in their youth, such as physical, mental or sexual abuse. Sexual promiscuity or addiction to pornography at a young age can adversely effect normal sexual appetites. I believe in a perfect God and I don't believe that he placed some of us here on earth with same-sex attraction.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 22, 2010 2:38 p.m.

    metamoracoug, what happens behind gay's closed doors does NOT directly affect you. And by the way gay sex is not illegal. Denying marriage for all will not make gay people go away. 3-7% of all the people around you are gay. That's a larger world population than there are Mormons. You may not like it, but get used to it. It’s not going to change anytime soon — like ever.

  • Involuntary H8er
    Jan. 22, 2010 2:35 p.m.

    Loss of temper is mostly not a choice, so why do we punish murder?

    Drug addiction is mostly not a choice, so why do we punish drug dealers?

    Inappropriate sexual attraction to children is not a choice, so why do we prosecute child molestors?

    There are a lot of non-choices in life when it comes to a person's desires, but the same cannot be said of one's actions. What this article calls "social stigmas" most of us call morals. Do I really hate gays for not wanting the government to condone their immoral relationship with the benefits of marriage? I don't know, do you hate drug abusers if you support stricter penalties for drug dealers? Do you hate a criminal if you hold them accountable for their crimes? I don't. I think the laws are there to prevent drug use and crimes and to help drug abusers and other criminals recognize the err of their ways and go on to lead a constructive meaningful life. I feel no different about same gender relationships regardless of whether same gender attraction is a choice or not.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 22, 2010 2:35 p.m.

    Have you noticed a grand commission? In the talk radio Fox News culture high school drop outs metamorphize into self proclaimed experts on everything. To become a doctor you need to have gone to a university then a medical school. You are required to pass a test to become a professional engineer. Too be a expert in the culture of talk radio and Fox News lacking qualifications is no barrier to you.

    Not one expert has ever explained why someone would choose to become a homosexual. If being gay is a choose it logically followers that their a perceived benefit must be attach as a motivation to make that choice.

    Lets see the reason and the benefits that you experts see that would make being gay seem more beneficial than to be a heterosexual?

    I will be waiting for your answers.

  • A Father's Perspective
    Jan. 22, 2010 2:34 p.m.

    I had my suspicions when he was three and knew by the time he was ten that my son was gay. He didn't acknowledge it until he was 17, but trust me when I say that this was not a choice. The pain and ridicule he experienced was profound. He dated girls, "tried" his best to be straight, but the reality is he was born gay and I've accepted that and love him all the same. We're your neighbors, your friends...please learn from us and trust us on this perspective. And please, love and support our gay children so that they can be happy members of Utah society.

  • metamoracoug
    Jan. 22, 2010 2:12 p.m.

    I understand that some may think that "what happens behind bedroom doors" is nobody's business. Such reasoning is myopic, however. There are few decisions I make that do not effect others.

  • Give it up
    Jan. 22, 2010 2:12 p.m.

    The people of California voted FOR Prop 8. It is the law, the people have spoken. Marriage is only between a man and a woman. Homosexuals chose who they have sex with. Homosexuality is perverted. They need to wise up and realize that. It's not some little game they are playing where they can chose to do any weird and perverted thing they want. Sounds like one lone homosexual writing all the pro-homo comments on here. Get a life. No one wants you trying to convince them that homosexuality is acceptable. It's not and it's not going to be.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 22, 2010 2:02 p.m.

    Why ask gay people to remain celibate till they die and not straight people?

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 22, 2010 1:55 p.m.

    "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Ghandi

  • Bert
    Jan. 22, 2010 1:32 p.m.

    What no Adam & Steve?

    I don’t know about your God, but over the hill from the garden of Eden, God did create Adam & Steve in the valley of Fabulousity. He also created Eve & Inez on the mountain of Machismo. I think you're missing some of the chapters in the old book of yours.

    Don’t worry so much about something that has no direct effect on you or your life.

  • Pagan
    Jan. 22, 2010 1:18 p.m.

    'The bible makes many things very clear.' - 12:14 p.m.

    Dean, many also consider the book a work of fiction.

    Have you read the good works of Harry Potter?

    Continue to have your faith. Your morals are not in question. But do not be under the assumption that your morals can dicatate another person's life.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 22, 2010 1:15 p.m.

    Who cares if it's a choice or not.

    Spoken like someone who has never been fired for who they date...
    instead of what they do.

  • Dorfman
    Jan. 22, 2010 1:13 p.m.

    "Adam and Steve"? Gosh, that sure original. It's so funny also.
    What brilliant republican minds we have among us.
    Ah, the true Christian values of Jesus.
    Aint it wonderfull?

  • mark
    Jan. 22, 2010 1:06 p.m.

    "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!!! I'm not a hater but the facts are the facts."

    Facts? Facts?! Uh, you realize that God did not create Adam and Eve, right? That's a fairy tale, you know, just like the tooth fairy.

    Do all conservatives and religious people live in a fantasy world?

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 22, 2010 1:03 p.m.

    The pro-gay-marriage movement is a pro-marriage movement. It is being championed by and for gay people who WANT to get married, who WANT to be in committed relationships, and WANT to be in permanent, monogamous, disciplined relationships.

    The anti-gay-marriage crowd are against gays getting married, or at least they are against gays marrying consenting adults with whom they are sexually compatible.

  • OscarJ
    Jan. 22, 2010 1:00 p.m.

    Wow, so many people here who aren’t personally affected by the Gay issue think they have it figured out. Just because you explain a theory or quote another person who hasn’t a clue how it is to be gay, or read some dogmatic passage from a centuries old book doesn’t make you correct.

    To really understand what’s its like, talk to people who fight discrimination every day. People who were afraid of being found out every day of their lives and exiled from their families. Get to know your neighbors who are gay. Ask them over for dinner or go to a movie together. Get to know someone other than middle class white uber religious people…and “I have a gay nephew in Idaho so I know” doesn’t count.

    You don’t have to agree or like what someone else does, but get to know us. There have always been gay people. There WILL always be gay people. We won’t ever go away.

  • @Twins
    Jan. 22, 2010 12:58 p.m.

    Identical twins are not fully "identical." So, it is possible for "identical twins" to not both be gay and the gay one is still "born that way." It's a question of gene expression. Not all twins share "handedness," either. Only about 60% of twins are both left-handed and it's around the same percentage for homosexuality in twins.

    They have identical genes, but not all genes are expressed. We have one set of genes and a backup set of genes (except the Y chromosome in males does not have a backup). If one bit of DNA is damaged, the backup is used, which may have a mutation from the other DNA it is backing up.

    Let's say one twin's first bit of DNA could be expressed fine, but the other twin's first bit of DNA somehow becomes damaged, so the body goes to the backup set of DNA, which has the variation or mutation and that gets expressed, which causes him to have some slight variation from his identical twin, such as being left-handed when his twin is right-handed. So, in short, "identical" twins are never fully identical.

  • The tradition of marriage
    Jan. 22, 2010 12:55 p.m.

    has developed for many reasons; perhaps the most important of which is to sustain long-term relationships that are likely to lead to the creation of children. We should think hard about our priorities before we broaden the definition to include other sorts of relationships. Is it more important to comfort a segment of society that feels rejected or to continue to do what we can to encourage healthy parental situations.

  • Oh
    Jan. 22, 2010 12:53 p.m.

    I'd wondered why all the headlines about this trial were anti-Prop 8, and thinking there was some bias goingon, but now I see the prosecution has been conducting its side of the trial. Hopefully there will be balancing headlines as the defense presents its case.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 22, 2010 12:50 p.m.

    This is such a non-issue...America is weary of this topic...Move on the Majority have spoken....Gays can always choose to live in Europe or Iran...but in Utah? Gay Marriage is never going to happen!

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 22, 2010 12:35 p.m.

    Who cares if it's a choice or not.

    It's no ones business but theirs. Worry about yourselves and don't worry whats going on in other people's bedrooms.

    For those who start quoting the bible keep this in mind. I don't believe in your bible or your god. Your rules don't apply to me.

  • Re: Yes
    Jan. 22, 2010 12:34 p.m.

    I'm sure you, like all those who believe that being gay is a choice, control your urges, that why you're probably obese, out of shape and borderline diabetic. Why is it so easy to point fingers when a good look in the mirror would be much more appropriate.

  • dean
    Jan. 22, 2010 12:14 p.m.

    The bible makes many things very clear. Do you want to accept all of them, such as it being a sin to marry someone who is divorced? You can't pick and choose.

  • to still...
    Jan. 22, 2010 12:09 p.m.

    Hate and intolerance are sins too. How about controlling yourself?

  • Pagan
    Jan. 22, 2010 11:45 a.m.

    'Being gay is not a choice.'

    So, why punish them for it?

    Less and less reason to hate out there.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 22, 2010 11:43 a.m.

    So, during the civil rights era, the argument was made that one cannot condone a person of color for...being a person of color, right?
    But we can do that to gay people?

    How does that make sense?

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 22, 2010 11:42 a.m.

    This wont stop until the gay community can marry. I say let them.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 22, 2010 11:41 a.m.

    Just let them marry. We have better things to do.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 22, 2010 11:32 a.m.

    So, a person cannot 'choose' being gay, but people still ask them to 'control' those urges?

    Lets be real. Many ask people to not have sexual relations until marriage. Many of those reasons are sound. Less sexually transmited disease, less unwanted pregancies, etc.

    And then some work to deny marriage to gay people.

    So, that would be to 'control' (or not have any) sexual relationships till when?

    The end of your life?

    I don't know many heterosexuals (over 50) that do that.

    Why ask the gay community to do it?