Children first

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 2:10 p.m.

    "is it good to have children engaging in risky sexual behavior "

    No, so let's ban Mississippians from marrying because that state leads in STDs. After all, averages are totally legit ways to set policy right?

  • Flair Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 11:01 a.m.


    Studies of kids raised by homosexual parents are out there ... just google it. While there aren't hoards of studies, the ones that exist show "children raised by same-sex couples are NOT more likely to self-identify as bisexual, lesbian, or gay and most of them identify as heterosexual." Sexual orientation is not a learned behavior.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 8:49 a.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" you are wrong. The statistics show that children raised by homosexual parents are more likely to be involved in homosexuality. See "'Gay' family kids 7 times more likely to be homosexual" in WND. This study was confirmed by the US National Institute of Health in their study "Children of homosexuals more apt to be homosexuals? A reply to Morrison and to Cameron based on an examination of multiple sources of data." which states "Despite numerous attempts to bias the results in favour of the null hypothesis and allowing for up to 20 (of 63, 32%) coding errors, Cameron's (2006) hypothesis that gay and lesbian parents would be more likely to have gay, lesbian, bisexual or unsure (of sexual orientation) sons and daughters was confirmed."

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 8:06 a.m.

    Salt Lake, UT
    I would like to know what is the statistic of children raised in homosexual homes that that turned out homosexual themselves? Just curious. Children often mimic their parents in many areas.

    12:07 p.m. Dec. 30, 2013


    Let's make a guess-timate here and say it's 50/50,
    by the same token, 100% of the homosexuals were born to heterosexual couples.

    So chances are,
    You are MORE likely to be homosexual being raised in a heterosexual marriage,
    and LESS likely to be homosexual in a homosexual marriage.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 6:21 p.m.

    trekker asked: "I would like to know what is the statistic of children raised in homosexual homes that that turned out homosexual themselves? Just curious. Children often mimic their parents in many areas."

    I don't know, but I can tell you that nearly 95% of people born gay are from heterosexual marriages.

  • PolishBear Charleston, WV
    Dec. 30, 2013 6:17 p.m.

    TREKKER asks, "I would like to know what is the statistic of children raised in homosexual homes that that turned out homosexual themselves? Children often mimic their parents in many areas."

    It's irrelevant. Virtually every Gay person was raised by heterosexual parents. I know I was. And the one son of Lesbian parent that I know has grown up to be a healthy, well-adjusted HETEROSEXUAL young man.

    Sexual orientation has nothing to do with how one is RAISED. It is innate, rather a lot like being left-handed.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Dec. 30, 2013 5:43 p.m.

    I wish Conservatives would push half as much to "save" existing marriages,
    as they do to "deny" new marriages.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Dec. 30, 2013 12:24 p.m.

    To "Pagan" actually the kids are harmed by not having hetersexual parents. There are many studies out there that show that the children raised by homosexual couples are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior or are more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior.

    Tell us, is it good to have children engaging in risky sexual behavior or to have them engaging in homosexual behavior when they are not homosexual themselves?

  • trekker Salt Lake, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 12:07 p.m.

    I would like to know what is the statistic of children raised in homosexual homes that that turned out homosexual themselves? Just curious. Children often mimic their parents in many areas.

  • Samson01 S. Jordan, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 10:25 a.m.

    Unfortunately, whenever a generalized statement is made, you can bet that everyone will jump into the fray with their pet issues.

    So far we have:

    -What about Bush (actually Republicans in general starting with Reagan..)

    -Gay marriage and same sex parenting

    -Evil conservatives (in general)

    -Abortion rights (birth control thrown in for good measure - Just to equate the two)

    -Tax increases

    -Air pollution

    -Expanding social welfare programs

    -Increasing minimum wages


    -Religion's infringement on civil law.

    (We seem to be missing general amnesty for all illegal aliens...)

    I bet you didn't think there were so many experts concerning children around did you!

    See the problem with your statement is that everyone uses the "Do it for the children" argument to further any pet cause.

    So I might as well chime in with mine:

    If I really could do anything for "The Children" it would be to enable the wealth building capacity of our society based on free-market capitalism (not unrestrained...of course) Everything else is secondary to that. That would be my sole focus. Everything else would take care of itself and our children would have opportunity and needs met.

    Have a great day!

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 9:20 a.m.

    If it's truly about the children, divorce is mentioned far more times in the bible and effects more than 50% of the population instead of less than 5%.
    That being the case why aren't all of you, who are putting so much effort and emotion into the welfare of 5% of the populations children, doing the same for the majority of children in America and trying to make divorce illegal like the Bible says?

    I suspect it isn't really about the children, but very specific and narrow religious beliefs that have no place in a Free Country.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 8:49 a.m.

    I've thought about this often,
    and have pondered various situations using my own children,
    and then asking,
    How would I feel...

    If my wife was a single mother,
    If my children were orphaned,

    For the sake of my children;
    I would rather my wife was in a stable lesbian relationship than be doomed to go it alone.
    I would rather my children be adopted by a good stable gay or lesbian couple, than be bounced around from one foster home to another.
    In fact,
    I would rather my children grown-up gay/lesbian and have good solid loving commited realationships than be in an abusive hetrosexual relationships.

    A home filled with Love and Stability, Safety and Security is much more important than gender attration.

  • MercyNLovelie USA, CA
    Dec. 30, 2013 5:11 a.m.

    Research said men were more likely than women to be incarcerated, perpetrators of physical/sexual abuse, and die from avoidable illnesses, such as substance addiction. So maybe men shouldn't raise kids.

    Research said that children without a father in the home have higher risks of: suicide, poverty, promiscuity, drug abuse, and dropping out of school. So maybe men should raise kids.

    Research said two lesbians raise children better than heteros because their kids have better grades and emotional intelligence. So maybe women should raise kids alone.

    Research said women and children living in households without men are the highest target group at risk of violent crime. So maybe women shouldn't raise kids alone.

    After 30+ years of "evidence," only married, monogamous, biological parents have the least risk to children. All other types raise the risk.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 1:23 p.m.

    'We used to understand that as adults, we had a responsibility to look after the interests of children at the expense of our own interests.'

    And yet, we do not spend $2 million dollars trying to legislate Octo-mom, correct?

    Only on gay marriage in utah.

    Why is that?

    "In most ways, the accumulated research shows, children of same-sex parents are NOT markedly different from those of heterosexual parents."

    - 'Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents' - POLICY STATEMENT - PEDIATRICS Vol. 109 No. 2 February 2002, pp. 339-340 - Pulished: 02/01/10

    Many will claim the American Academy of Pediatrics is a 'liberal' source. And yet, present NOTHING in the way of actual examples of children being harmed by same gender parents.

    It's very simple.

    If you do not have any evidence, 2013 years into the claim…

    it is a lie.

    We all know what Jesus said about 'False Witness.'

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Dec. 29, 2013 12:58 p.m.

    Conservatives then predicted that women getting the vote would "end of the world", "doom society", and "destroy the traditional family".

    Conservatives have been proven wrong before,
    they will be proven wrong again.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 10:27 a.m.

    The old refrain "Oh, won't someone puh-leeze think of the children?" Sure. First things first, how about making sure their mother is an empowered member of her society? Give her birth control options, health care, and maternity leave. Taxes need to be increased; it takes a village to raise a child; that village is going to have to pony up a bit more. Same thing can work for gay couples. Any couple willing to make the commitment to one another which will endure the ridicule and discrimination they face in a place like Utah has got to be capable of providing a stable environment for a child. Yeah, we need to make some changes.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 8:57 a.m.

    It is indeed revealing that the demise of child labor was a primary rationale for enabling women to vote.

    At the time, these were contentious issues, both allowing women to vote, and having the government deny "economic freedom" to children, and employers

    Looking out for the children is a good prism to judge current conditions and issues.

    Certainly, the air pollution issue in northern Utah has a detrimental effect on children.

    Expanding Medicaid in Utah would undoubtedly benefit many families, and by extension, many children.

    Unquestionably we are running up too much debt, and economic inequalities are widening to the detriment of society, and today's children who will grown up to be tomorrow's adults. Increasing the minimum wage is a measured move to improve both minimum wage workers and society, and by extension, many children.

    Just as womens suffrage was justified as a way to protect children - and thereby restrict the unfettered freedom of economic interests who benefitted from child labor - sensible governance to restrict some, for the freedom of all, has clear merits.

  • isrred South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 8:57 a.m.

    There are already hundreds of thousands of children in foster care and other systems just hoping and waiting for a "forever family". Who are you to decide for those children that a loving, committed, married same-sex couple is not good enough to be their family? That living with their love, affection, and support would be worse than living in foster care or an orphanage?

    There are no unplanned pregnancies, no "oopsie babies", no unwanted children in same-sex parented households. We are not the problem. Heterosexual couples seem to do a nice enough job threatening the well being of children.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 29, 2013 8:30 a.m.

    Maybe you should review history and be reminded of children working in factories - and remember the time before we had laws against child abuse and neglect - remember the time when women and children were dying due to unhealthy pregnancies or pregnancies spaced too close together - remember when children died from lack of food and access to medical care.

    If you don't want to study history to see these things, study the modern world paying particular attention to countries where women's rights are limited.

    As for children being raised by homosexual individuals or couples - what would you suggest as the alternative? Orphanages? Continual foster care with no hope of adoption? Forcible removal from biological parents? Laws prohibiting technological reproductive assistance so the child is never conceived or born at all? Forced sterilization of "undesirables"?

    As for national debt, again perhaps you should study history and the world around you.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Dec. 29, 2013 8:26 a.m.


    Who doesn't agree? Children should come first! But your reasoning is off. For example, no child being raised by same-sex parents is well served by a second-class status that automatically comes attached if that child's parents cannot marry. If you really believe that children should come first then you should praise the recent change in Utah which will make a truly meaningful difference to the many Utah children who can now say, "my parents are married".

  • PolishBear Charleston, WV
    Dec. 29, 2013 7:23 a.m.

    Obviously the author of this letter believes that marriage equality for law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples will have some profound detrimental affect of children. I'd like to respond with three points.

    1: Heterosexual couples have never been required to marry to make babies, and single people are not prevented from adopting children. Children born out of wedlock are not forcibly removed from their parents.

    2: The ability or even desire to make babies has never been a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license. I have many married friends who have married as an expression of their commitment to one another, but have chosen not to have children. Does this make their marriage any less important?

    3: Gay individuals and couples always have and always will raise countless adopted children to healthy, well-adjusted adulthood. And IF (as is often suggested) marriage provides a more stable environment for the rearing of children, what sense does it make to deny Gay couples who DO have children the option to marry?

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 2:11 a.m.

    Okay, Jacob, you state the the debt is a big problem that we shouldn't leave to our children. I agree. I've been yelling about the debt since Ronald Reagan sent it skyrocketing. I hope you were concerned about the debt during the last administration when the Republicans, the Republican president and both The Republican House and the Republican Senate, were sending a balanced budget back through the roof. Oops. Some people don't want to admit that anything happened prior to the current President. They're gonna get all over me for recognizing the world existed before Obama entered office.

    But never mind. You say you want to deal with the debt? Great. Then let's get taxes raised for all of us. For you, for me, for the rich. Let's get it done, and let's quit pretending we can deal with it without actually paying for it.