Responding to the Critics

The following is my response to the anti-Prop 8 website, Signing for Something, which claims to represent Latter-day Saints (Mormons) who oppose Proposition 8. The arguments made against Prop 8 are short-sighted, and do not accurately represent scientific evidence, or Latter-day Saint ideology or beliefs, although they claim to do so. I am sorry for anyone who becomes entangled in this web of intentional deceit. It is no coincidence or mistake that individuals involved with this website and it's goals face excommunication from the LDS church. Original text from SFS in italics.

My response to Signing for Something
http://signingforsomething.org/blog/?page_id=136

You are grossly mistaken in your views concerning gay marriage, and seem to have a disregard for the experts in the fields of family, and human psychology. I shall explain.

Studies show traditional families with a mother and a father have better social outcomes for their children.

This is true. But we fail to see how marriage freedom will reduce the number of traditional families. On the contrary, we see no downside to allowing stable, loving, long-term, same-sex relationships, which could result in better outcomes for adopted children than if they remained in custody of the state.


Homosexuality is a practice that was only removed from the American Psychological Association’s listing of mental disorders due to political pressure from homosexuals. Many experts still view it as such, since the majority of literature on the subject shows that it is NOT an inborn trait. Adopted children who are raised in pro-homosexual environments will be taught that such behavior is acceptable, which is a violation of Latter-day Saint belief. Even YOU cannot support such a premise.

Not only that, but science has shown that children that are placed in homosexual environments have a MUCH higher occurrence of being molested and otherwise abused. The information in the following article was used as court’s evidence in several states that eventually ruled against homosexual adoption.

Review Of Research On Homosexual Parenting, Adoption, And Foster Parenting
(http://www.narth.com/docs/RationaleBasisFinal0405.pdf)


Thomas S. Monson is a prophet of God. We should follow what the prophet says.

Thomas S. Monson is also a human. Humans will always make mistakes — as ancient and modern history has shown (remember why Jonah got swallowed by the fish?) God also endowed us with a conscience, and we don’t believe he intends for us to ignore our deepest, innermost feelings once a prophet speaks. Indeed, we as Mormons have always been counseled to get our own, personal confirmation regarding inspiration. We’ve done that, and our conscience won’t let us remain silent.


As Latter-day Saints, you should also be aware of Doctrine and Covenants 1:38, which says:
“What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.”

The direction that we are to gain a spiritual confirmation of the prophet’s role is not meant to be an everyday occurrence. We pray about it once, and when the Lord has given us this confirmation, it is our duty to obey his voice, with faith, as D&C 124:45-46 states:

“And if my people will hearken unto my voice, and unto the voice of my servants whom I have appointed to lead my people, behold, verily I say unto you, they shall not be moved out of their place.
46 But if they will not hearken to my voice, nor unto the voice of these men whom I have appointed, they shall not be blest, because they pollute mine holy grounds, and mine holy ordinances, and charters, and my holy words which I give unto them.”


California voters already decided on this issue. Democracy is all about majority rule, and the majority has spoken.

If you follow this same logic, Jim Crow laws would still be present in the South. Thankfully, America’s version of democracy is actually a democratic republic — not a true democracy — with special protections in place to keep the majority from taking away the rights of minorities. Our founding fathers had the foresight to protect against the “tyrannical majority” who would occasionally stomp on the rights of the minority, which is what the California Supreme Court ruled was happening with the marriage issue.


Homosexuals already have the same rights as all other citizens: to marry one person of the opposite sex. Since homosexuality has been scientifically proven to be a lifestyle “choice,” it does not force any special duty on the part of the rest of society to provide special rights to special interest groups. The prospect of enshrining homosexual relationships within the definition of marriage suggests that it is a behavior beneficial to our society, which it is not, as it does not allow for the proper development of children, nor does it perpetuate our society, which should be of utmost priority for the longevity of this so-called American experiment. These are considerations that must be taken into account, over and above the supposed civil rights argument.

Same-sex “marriage” goes too far. The law already provides the same protection for same-sex partners as it does traditional marriage partners.

We all know “separate but equal” really means “separate and unequal.” It was the same with segregated schools in the 1960s. The principles of equality on which our nation was founded demand we treat homosexuals with the same respect as heterosexuals, not classifying their legal relationships in a different, lesser category.


Society does not provide for the same respect toward alcoholics as it does sober men. Does that constitute unequal treatment? It does not, for alcoholism, like homosexuality, is a choice and has been shown to be detrimental to the health of the individual. We cannot, and should not, allow individuals to behave in just any way they choose, as this will lead to the ultimate destruction of our society, as it has in other societies historically.

This might affect our First Amendment rights, including the right to worship as we believe. For example, Catholics had to close their adoption agencies in Massachusetts because they legally couldn’t adopt babies to only heterosexual couples.

All churches would still be free to set their own marriage rules, as is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. We don’t see how adding marriage freedom could possibly pose any danger to other freedoms. However, we do see how churches directly lobbying for civil laws could pose a grave danger to the First Amendment by trying to make one religion’s beliefs the law of the land. This is un-American.

Regarding the adoption issue, we believe adoption agencies should follow the law. Adoption agencies are not churches — even if they’re owned by a church — and as such don’t deserve religious protection. Just like Mormons might choose not to open a chain of tobacco shops, they will have to make the choice whether or not to enter the adoption business based on current laws and their own sense of ethics. There will be plenty of other adoption agencies willing to take their place.


You “don’t see how adding marriage freedom could possibly pose any danger to other freedoms?” Do you see how adding sexual preference freedom has already endangered religious freedoms? Consider SB200, the ‘hate crimes’ law being considered in Colorado. Lawyers have already determined that this legislation can be used to outlaw the scriptures as ‘hate literature,” and it will be used in such a way if current homosexual activism is any sign. Plus, the anti-Christian agenda of homosexual groups has already been made clear. It’s time to stop pretending in the name of “compassion.” Furthermore, religious people rallying around a common moral standard does NOT constitute any involvement of “one religion” in American politics. This is not ONE church controlling the government, which is specifically what the First Amendment was all about; they wanted to avoid another Church of England. Religious people, on the other hand, have every right to defend the moral integrity of the nation. Besides, there are individuals from every religion involved in the fight against gay marriage, and even folks who have NO religion. Your argument is based on a false premise.


Traditional marriage contributes to societal well-being. This argument is about children and society, not the relationship of two adults.

Once again, we fail to see how marriage freedom harms traditional marriage. We agree that traditional marriage produces better social outcomes compared with children raised in broken homes. We believe this is because of the stable, loving home environment, not the genitalia of the parents.


The issue, as raised above, is not what genitalia the parents have, it is how the genitalia of the parents are used! Extensive research has shown that children are in greater danger of molestation and abuse in homosexual “family” situations than in heterosexual ones. Again, Latter-day Saints should also not wish to have children taught that such behaviors are acceptable.


Several European nations legalized same-sex marriage only to see their total number of marriages drop and the number of illegitimate children increase.

There is no cause-and-effect relationship here. Marriage rates have been dropping in parts of the industrialized world for many years, and out-of-wedlock births have been on the rise. There are many other factors that contribute to these statistics — not the least of which is the secularization of Europe — but the legalization of same-sex marriage isn’t one of them. It’s downright silly to think heterosexual couples base their marriage decisions on whether other people have that same right.


It is NOT silly, however, for society to be concerned for its future, and the well being of its most helpless citizens. Denying homosexuals the right to marry enforces those time-honored traditions, and indeed, commandments of God that have been shown to be best, as these are the behaviors that we should be promoting. We should be focusing our efforts on promoting those lifestyle choices, which will help prevent out-of-wedlock births, etc, instead of allowing the promotion of anti-family behaviors.

Legalizing homosexual marriage would open the door to polygamy.

Perhaps you’re right. But again, we don’t see how allowing non-traditional marriage has any impact whatsoever on the number or quality of traditional marriages. Besides, as Mormons, our church was founded by polygamists and still has polygamy-based teachings enshrined in the Doctrine and Covenants. Don’t you think this argument is a bit hypocritical?


This argument is NOT hypocritical, since polygamy was only allowed for a small percentage of Mormons, under the authority of the church leaders; the rule was always “one man, one woman, except when the Lord commands otherwise,” and in that case He did. As Jacob 2:27, 30 states:
“Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife… For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.”
The argument is also NOT about any reduction in the number of traditional marriages, but in the necessary allowance of ANY form of marriage, which it has been shown will definitely be an issue, and will not be stoppable once gay marriage is allowed. These relationships include polyamory (multiple wives and husbands in one “relationship”), and so-called “intergenerational” relationships (ie, pedophilia). See “Here Come the Brides,” at: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/494pqobc.asp).

If marriage freedom is approved, California’s school curriculum will be changed to mandate acceptance of homosexuality. Public school curriculum will actively discriminate against the values of its community’s families.

If the school’s curriculum is changed in a way that truly discriminates against your religious beliefs, you’ll have ample grounds for a lawsuit. Hire a lawyer. Otherwise, we see nothing wrong with schools teaching children not to look down on their peers for their largely uncontrollable personal attributes.


Once again, this is a gross misstatement of the situation. Homosexual activists have California courts in their back pockets. As the previously mentioned ‘hate crimes’ laws demonstrate, these activists will stop at nothing to incorporate their ideologies into mainstream American life. The last thing we, as parents, need is to have our children taught that they have the option of being either gay or straight. Homosexuals know that it is a choice, and they want the increased political weight that would come with an increase in their membership. Yale professor Kenji Yoshino, a prevalent expert on bisexuality, provides the following perspective:

“ ...heterosexuals and homosexuals have an interest in convincing bisexuals that they've got to make an all-or-nothing choice between heterosexuality and homosexuality.

Heterosexuals, for example, have an interest in preserving norms of monogamy, and bisexuality "destabilizes" norms of monogamy. Homosexuals, notes Yoshino, have an interest in defending the notion of an immutable homosexual orientation, since that is often the key to persuading a court that they have suffered discrimination. And homosexuals, adds Yoshino, have an interest in maximizing the number of people in their movement” (excerpt from Here Come the Brides, referenced above).

As Latter-day Saints, we definitely have “an interest in preserving norms of monogamy.”


If same-sex marriage is legalized, the government might erode religious freedom by forcing churches to accept homosexuality through employment law, education or other government mandates.

The government cannot and will not tell churches what to preach. The government may provide financial incentives to charities that meet the needs of the nation — including religious schools and other organizations — but this has no bearing on religious freedom. Churches are free to turn down these financial incentives if they conflict with church values. Also, employment law has a long, well-established history of allowing churches to include moral or religious beliefs in their hiring decisions. There is nothing to indicate this will change, and we would oppose any effort to reduce religious freedom in America.


The recent ruling of a California court shows otherwise, as they ruled that health care professionals cannot opt out of performing procedures that are against their personal morals and/or religious beliefs. This is a serious blow to the freedoms of both speech and religion, as defined in the constitution, and will only serve to deter religiously inclined individuals from serving in capacities where they may encounter such decisions. This has led us to replace one discrimination with another. There can be no neutral decision in this area, and we must, especially as Latter-day Saints, stand on the side of that which is best for society, and which has been clearly defined by God in the scriptures.