Why did you leave out this true fact?. Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

Despite what Mr. Card says, research has shown over and over again that there is no evidence that children of gay couples (either biological or adopted) are harmed by their environment.

In many cases these children seem to be more well adjusted than their "normally" raised counterparts. From T. Richard Sullivan, PhD affiliated with the School of Social Work, University of British Columbia, and Albert Baques, PhD, UCLA in Children and Families, 1999 we learn that “The assumption that a gay and lesbian orientation is harmful in any manner to child rearing reflects homophobia and the idealization of a particular family structure that is assumed to be morally superior. In fact though, research shows that no differences in well-being and normative functioning have been found between children reared by heterosexuals and those raised by lesbian or gay parents. This despite the fact that studies of over 1300 offspring of gay or lesbian parents in twelve different samples have indicated no evidence of significant disturbances in the development of sexual identity.”

I'm not in favor of gay marriage, however it is here to stay. It's already legal in Canada, Mexico and the most populous states. Let's move on.

Mr. Card talks about the superior environment for raising children. Let's take a look at Mr. Card's "superior environment".

Most children today do not live in so-called "traditional"…families with a stay-at-home mother and a father who works from 9:00 to 5:00.

According to Bureau of Census statistics, thirty-five percent of children today are born out-of-wedlock to single women, mostly young and impoverished; more than 50% of all marriages end in divorce; and married couples with children now make up only twenty-six percent of United States households.

It is unrealistic for Mr. Card to pretend that children can only be successfully reared in an idealized concept of family, the product of nostalgia for a time long, long past.

Mr. Card's notion of "traditional marriage" has shown itself to be a dismal failure.

Card is an excellent fiction writer.

A straw man argument is a work of fiction.

We are not surprised Card has given us a sophisticated straw man argument.

Card: “The claims of those who support gay marriage rest entirely on the idea that science has proved several things:”

No, our claims are not based “entirely” or even partially on reproductive science. They are based on principles of human equality as espoused by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. According to those principles, all citizens are equal under the law, regardless whether they choose or are “forced” by biology or genes to be gay.

Some neuroscience has shown that religion and belief in God are “pre-programmed” by biology and genes. That is not the basis for protecting legal equality for religious people.

Regardless whether religious people choose to be religious or are “forced” to be religious, our system of government does (and ought to) protect the rights of religious people to be equal under the law with those who are not religious.

To summarize, point 1 of your straw man is patently false. Point 2 is laughable: The concept of gay marriage itself testifies that its supporters “control” their behavior in a committed relationship. And point 3 is absurd. Science has never been the basis for a claim to equal rights under the law.

Moreover, Orson’s arguments smack of eugenics. The modern field of eugenics were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883, drawing on the recent work of his cousin Charles Darwin. [It is ironic that Card would partner with Darwin to argue against gay marriage.] Historically, eugenics advocates have used it as a justification for state-sponsored discrimination, forced sterilization of persons deemed genetically defective, and the killing of institutionalized populations. Eugenics was also used to rationalize certain aspects of the Holocaust. From Orson’s view, laws or amendments prohibiting gay marriage are a form of “mandatory“ or “authoritarian eugenics” in which the government mandates some form of a eugenics program.

I recommend you go back to writing the kind of science fiction you have been successful at, Orson. Anything having to do with jurisprudence, political ethics, or just plain good reasoning seems beyond your professional abilities.

Jessica; Arguing that one bad thing is not as bad a something even worse is not a very compelling argument.

Scott took the time to research his topic and gave a well reasoned and compelling argument for his point of view. Good research often comes up with conclusions that are not what we expect or want to hear. If you disagree with his conclusions on what he found, you are welcome to do what he did and do the research yourself.

I enjoyed the article and found it very reasonable and compelling. He didn't attack anyone, took a point of view that can be supported by available data and presented it in a straightforward and respectful manner.

Well done

Who made this Orson Scott Card such an authority? What is his scientific background? Why does the Deseret News keep letting him waive his red flag, if not to keep this on the forefront of their newspaper until after the election in California?

If I can't (or won't) do what it takes to make my lawnmower work right, we can therefore assume that the lawnmower, indeed, the very concept of lawnmowing, is a dismal failure, right? Our inability or unwillingness to perform ANY function correctly is not an indication of how valuable and productive that function may be. Keep looking at this issue, and look deeper.

To: A scholar,

I don't think you understood my comment. If you have read any of my previous posts you would understand that I am against gay marriage.

The point I was trying to make is that the "traditional family" argument really doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The concept of "traditional marriage" has failed horribly in America.

With that being said, there really is no stopping gay marriage (whether you support it or not). The courts are in favor of it and the majority of Americans support it. All we can do is watch.

There is no reason to rehash all the same old arguments.

Those who are against gay marriage oppose it because they have a fundamental religious repulsion to the idea of two men or two women having sex. They try to dress their opposition up in respectable words and arguments, like Brother Card did here, but when push comes to shove, it all comes down to these people believing gay sex is immoral, horrible, and dirty.

Those who support gay marriage, on the other hand, include those who enjoy gay sex as well as many, many others who think the moral status of gay sex is irrelevant. They believe that, regardless whether they, personally, are sickened by gay sex or not, they have a strong commitment to civil liberty and allowing liberty and equal protection under the law. They also think chronic drunks are appalling, but allow people the liberty to drink as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others. They may also find BYU’s arrogant, holier-than-thou attitude to be disgusting, but they don’t support amendments to the state constitution outlawing it.

Orson, this isn’t about whether homosexuality is sinful or not. It is about freedom and equality.

As a 30+ yr old gay man born and raised Mormon but who is now inactive, I can only tell you that regardless of whatever science has to say on the subject, this is my truth, my reality: I do not choose to have the feelings and desires that I experience. They just are. Anyone who will say that I choose to have these feelings and choose to experience these attractions is ignorant at best and just plain crazy at worst. I have NEVER, EVER WANTED to be gay or to have these feelings or attractions. I have ALWAYS wanted and even now would love to have a wife and children. I do not know why I experience same-sex attraction, I only know that for some strange, unexplained reason, I do. My choice as to what to do about it is quite stark. I either live a lonely, celibate, intimacy deprived life for the rest of my life, or, I don't. Given my religious convictions, this is the greatest challenge of my life--something I have long struggled with and will continue to question and ponder about until the day I die.

I have a question that I would like answered. I am not trying to ofend anyone, I just want to know.

I know that there are a lot of Gay and Lesbians who are very religous, have a very strong belief in
God, and try to follow his teachings.
But how do you they justify thier actions when the Bible so clearly states that homosexuality is wrong?
You are either following Gods laws or you are sinning.
For Gays and Lesbians to say that God made them that way, when he say it is wrong is a contridiction. And God doesn't work that way.
Please help me understand.

If the basis of your argument is “evolutionary normality” then your arguments do not support this premise. Homosexuality is manifest in virtually every species looked at. Some species have evolutionary advantage by engaging in homosexual relationships. Evolutionarily speaking, our closest relatives engage in a wide variety of sexual behaviours including homosexuality.

Evolutionarily speaking marriage is not natural. Marriage is a choice exclusive to our species. Many things make us unique. We are the only species capable of going to the moon, painting a masterpiece, communicating across the world, etc. Yet, we are still dictated by our evolutionary aggression as we are the only species capable of destroying the world; fortunately we have not as of yet. If marriage is so unnatural – an institution that grew and changed over time – why should we prevent those who choose to enter into a committed relationship? Humanity might be described as an unnatural species. I, for one, want to foster the unnatural human tendencies to love, tolerate, listen, have compassion for one another, and marry who they choose!

To Anonymous | 7:16 a.m.

Quotes from your religious leaders are NOT "true facts". They are the (biased) opinions of your leaders, and that is all. They are not true.

Gay marriage is not solely about children and breeding. While everyone would probably agree "Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love," few will agree that YOU and YOUR CHURCH have authority to define "righteousness" for everyone!

We agree parents "provide for their physical needs," but few agree with YOUR definition of “spiritual” and few want to “observe the commandments of YOUR God.”

The family is NOT “the fundamental unit of society;” the INDIVIDUAL person is the fundamental unit of society. Individuals have rights and liberties, not families. Individual liberty and equality are the basis of this and every other democratic society throughout human history.

The LDS Church’s disregard for individual rights and liberties is grounded in their aristocratic and theocratic form of government whereby individuals don’t matter unless they are from “prominent, righteous families” who have been “favored by God” by being selected arbitrarily for leadership in the Church. Such corrupt government is what the brilliant Founding Fathers declared Independence from in favor of individual liberty.

I enjoyed the article, too. I also enjoy reading discussion on this forum, except for those who accuse Card of eugenics or of setting up strawmen -- especially with no specific basis (or citation) to confirm their claim, and especially when said argument begins with a blatantly obvious logical fallacy.

Jessica: Thanks for your comments. I don't think the concept of traditional marriage has failed miserably. Its practice has been demonstrated through research to lead to less poverty, drug use, and other ills with high costs to society.

My lament is that traditional marriage is not practiced as much as it should be, and we are allowing social policy to move us further from that ideal by devaluing the ideal.

I agree that traditional marriage is being practiced less and less. I don't, however, think its demise is inevitable, and I think it is worth fighting for, despite the efforts of the alternative lifestyle crowd who will continue to talk it down in order to make their choices appear more palatable.

Homes with only one parent, homes with both parents working full-time, and homes with both parents of the same gender are less than the ideal, and I believe the ideal is worth trying to preserve.

thank you

What is "traditional marriage" anyway? In Utah, traditional marriage was polygamy.

To my gay friends: If science is what you want, documented research has shown you are not born a homosexual and there are no proven genetic components to being homosexual!

Homosexuals would like you to believe research excerpts that when a homosexual brain is compared to a heterosexual brain they are different thus proving their case. However, what they fail to expose is the “rest of the story” or research that these two brains were the same BEFORE the homosexual behavior and that homosexual behavior is what changes the chemistry of the brain thus making them different!

Homosexual uncontrolled desire and intense urges to be gay result from habitual perverse behavior, which overtime may become nearly impossible to reverse. Homosexual logic is founded upon their lack of control, perverse desire, resistance to change, and moral amnesia; therefore they shout, “I was born this way.”

But beyond and above any scientific arguments that may exist, God has the last word. God condemns and forbids homosexual conduct.

So many divergent arguments -
Yet one view that I have not read in the comments re:Orson Scott Card's article is: what have the First Presidency, the Twelve and the other General Authorities said about it?
Yes, we ARE individuals and entitled to opinions and feelings that differ from what the Brethren have said, but those differing views will not, shall not become Church policy.

To Gay mormon man:
Do you think being inactive is helping with your situation?
I understand it would be hard to attend church when you know you have personal issues in conflict with the teachings.
But just know that there isn't a single person in your ward who is perfect, and the mission of the church is to support each other inspite of that.

My2Cents wrote:

"Despite what Mr. Card says, research has shown over and over again that there is no evidence that children of gay couples (either biological or adopted) are harmed by their environment.

In many cases these children seem to be more well adjusted than their "normally" raised counterparts. From T. Richard Sullivan, PhD affiliated with the School of Social Work, University of British Columbia, and Albert Baques, PhD, UCLA in Children and Families, 1999 we learn that “The assumption that a gay and lesbian orientation is harmful in any manner to child rearing reflects homophobia and the idealization of a particular family structure that is assumed to be morally superior. In fact though, research shows that no differences in well-being and normative functioning have been found between children reared by heterosexuals and those raised by lesbian or gay parents. This despite the fact that studies of over 1300 offspring of gay or lesbian parents in twelve different samples have indicated no evidence of significant disturbances in the development of sexual identity.”

I wonder why Mr. Card did not use these statistics in his article?

I don't need or want science to tell me that Gays don't have a choice. I will just believe people when they say they were born that way, and not judge them.
I am pretty sure Jesus does not care who you are attracted to, it is all about how we treat each other, and the LDS Church is not doing so great with that little task right now.

If we all just stopped judging and hating each other because of sexual preference think about how much better the environment would be for our children.
I for one will not teach hate in my house.

To Evolutionary Normality?

You may have missed the point to Card's thesis regarding "normality," or "reproductive dysfunction." It may be true that there are anomalies in some species where homosexual behavior is apparent. HOWEVER, this cannot be "normal" if the species is to continue to exist. If it was normal, said species would ultimately cease to exist unless asexual reproduction became possible.

Currently, I am not aware of any homo sapien that is capable of asexual reproduction. Homosexuality, therefore, must be an abnormality, or a "reproductive dysfunction," to the homo sapien species.

Notice that religion was not an issue in Card's article. Don't bring that in.

Nor should Card's past relating to authoring science fiction works be an issue. Well thought-out statements are nevertheless well thought-out statements regardless of the person's qualifications.

First and foremost, know that religion is not static, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be. Consider Mormonism - there have been changes in polygamy, priesthood (for both men and women), and many other doctrines.

I am not religious - not because I am gay, but because it doesn't make sense. However, there are several good arguments that support Christian gays or even Mormon gays. As I already said, things change. You no longer consider most of the edicts of the Old Testament in force. If you read the New Testament, you will notice that Jesus never once condemns homosexuality. If you read the Book of Mormon, there is no condemnation of homosexuality and the same for the D&C.

If you are a Mormon, you believe in continual revelation. You also believe that prophets can speak as men. You also believe in personal revelation. You also believe that there is a great deal that will be revealed. Gay Christians and Mormons have a personal relationship with the divine in which they know that God does not condemn their behaviour. They believe they were made that way by God, and that He has a purpose for them.

MS in Psychology,

You must have your degree from BYU, where "Revelation 101" is taught in the Science and Math Department.

No honest student of Psychology would EVER say: "Homosexual uncontrolled desire and intense urges to be gay result from habitual perverse behavior."

You need to have your M.S. credential retracted. You embarass BYU by your comments.

Wonderful article. It reflects my thoughts exactly, but he states it much better than I could. Part of life is learning to control urges. We would all be better off if we all learned self-control. Don't condemn the author for having the courage to write what he did. The political correctness police will be using him for target practice. Keep up the great work.

A few observations: (1) Whenever someone starts a thesis with the disclaimer that "some of my best friends are ..." you know right off the bat that a bashing will follow. (2) What is this obsession Mormons have with "true facts?" It is either a fact or it is not. (3) To all you heterosexuals out there, when did each of you "choose" to be straight? (4) Can the LDS church ever get past its fixation on trying to convince each other that its religion is "true." That smacks of doubt and insecurity, a shouting out for help in a dark room. OK, have at me.

I was excited when Card first announced that he was doing a series of columns on gay marriage because I thought someone would finally articulate the arguments in a coherent and compelling way. So far I have to say I have been disappointed.

Never mind the weak scientific basis (the best he can cite is secondary sources and not original research?), was anyone else as offended as I was by the shameless stereotyping of this statement, “After a lifetime spent in theater and the arts, of course, I am well-acquainted with many homosexuals…”? Wow!

Also, what Card fails to understand is that whether sexual orientation is innately genetic or environmental is totally irrelevant to the civil rights discussion. Genes do not confer rights. I will give him credit on the “variety” point, although he misapplies it. We all exist on a sexual orientation continuum. Most of us are somewhere in the midrange, not at the extremes. The only truly “abnormal” people are those who are 100% gay or 100% straight.

James wrote,

"What is "traditional marriage" anyway? In Utah, traditional marriage was polygamy."

Early LDS members suffered greatly for practicing polygamist marriages. Today, many gays are being persecuted and are suffering for wanting to excersise their marriage rights.

You would think that Utahns would be more tolerant of people's marriage choices because of Utah's past.

"Evolutionary normality" be damned. I'm a redhead and that makes me different from the "norm" since most people either have brown or black hair. I didn't choose it, it is just the way I am.

We are not all the same and should not be considered inferior or treated differently than those who are "normal."

A lot of people don't like redheads--I was teased all my life as a child, simply because I was different. Mr. Card's (I do not call him "brother") argument is just as specious.

Polygamy was never a traditional norm in Utah...ever. Yes, some practiced it and some continue to practice such, but norm? Nope

To Jeremy:

When chimpanzees engage in homosexual activity, it strengthens the bonds of the troop. When lions participate, it is a way of asserting dominance. Membership into some animal groups requires homosexual behaviour. Black swans will form threesomes only to kick out the female - their offspring have a greater chance of survival. Homosexual activity in animals does not end their species and seems to have evolutionary advantage in some species. To call it “reproductive dysfunction” doesn’t make sense given the fact that sexual relations even among animals is often more than just reproduction but about relationships.

If you want to call something unnatural, as was my point, it is the institution of marriage. I agree with this unnatural institution and believe that people should have the choice to participate in it.

Jeremy,

Ever hear of ANTS and BEES? They are a species that "naturally" reproduces without any but a very few queens giving birth. All the "drone" males could easily be said to be "gay" in that, whatever affection ants and bees show for one another most certainly is shown between members of the same-sex.

The big problem with the anti-gay-rights crowd is they invoke biological arguments that are not supported by the facts about biology on this planet. There are almost infinite different ways various species "reproduce" and none of them is more "natural" than any other. Even among human beings throughout human history, there have been countless different arrangements for human reproduction, from surrogates to concubines to artificial insemination to--well, you name it, it has been done and legitimized in some culture somewhere in the world. Biological arguments cannot possibly support opposition to gay marriage! Card's feeble attempts are flawed and destined to fail from the outset!

Opposition to gay marriage rights cannot be based on biology, nor on political/civil theory, nor on appeal to religious authority (unless everyone agrees on the authority).

There is NO rational basis for opposing gay marriage rights! None!

Dear Anonymous,

You are wrong again! My MS is not from BYU.

And all your gay ranting and raging against truth, moral principles, and especially against God will never make your perverse lifestyle acceptable especially on Judgment Day. By the way, that is not my call it is the Lord’s revealed word.

You obviously are not a student of psychology in not understanding the power of habituated behavior being highly addictive! Homosexuality is learned behavior whether it came about through rape, sexual abuse or perverse self-indulgence. How conveniently you overlooked in your response the research I previously addressed.

By the way, if your parents had been homosexuals you would not have been conceived. Ponder that one!

Honestly!

As usual, science is so far ahead of religion it isn't even funny. There are still people who insist that babies must be born “naturally” rather than using the medical science that enables us to deliver by cesarean section. The science has outpaced the religious dogma. Other people believe it is not “natural” or “normal” to conceive by artificial insemination or with the use of fertility drugs. But the science made the religious dogmas obsolete.

Same-sex couples are only a few years away from being able to reproduce through genetic cloning. In this way, gay couples can enjoy all the same reproductive advantages that heterosexual couples enjoy. The science has made all those religious bugaboos obsolete and irrelevant. Soon, only a small residual of people harboring archaic, asinine, obsolete religious dogmas will be opposed to same-sex couples being married AND procreating via cloning!

Religionists, if the past 6,000 years of human history was a competition between God and Science, SCIENCE WINS!

In general I think Mr. Card's comments are insightful and accurate.

However I think his argument that same gender attraction is not a disorder because it is not like schizophrenia is totally unfounded. Mr. Card shows that he is woefully unaware of the broad number of disorders that exist. Many of the advances in our civilization have been made by people who suffered from ADD, Autism or other disorders, although in general they managed to live before they were so diagnosed.

Psychological counseling can provide aid to people who suffer from same gender attraction, and programs along these lines have been shown to have helped many people. Mr. Card should not spout off about disorder diagnosis without understanding what is and is not a disorder. Most disorders are not extreme cases, and many people with disorders are positive contributors to society.

To Jessica,

I am for traditional marriage. I only oppose same gender marriage because it is destructive to traditional marriage.

In Norway out of wedlock birth rates soured from 35% before same-gender marriage was legalized to 53% by about a decade latter. Same gender marriage will hurt and undermine traditional marriage more than what other factors have.

Also, if anyone has a strawman it is you who bring up 9 to 5 work schedules. This is not what we mean by "Traditional Marriage". We are not speaking against men like Greg Olsen who has a free-lance artists works in a studio behind his house on whatever schedule he feels like, or my friend Brother Kennedy who worked the night shift at a dairy or Vaughn J. Featherstone who was to work by 6:00 if not earlier because he worked for a grocery store and had to be there to recieve the morning produce.

So lets focus on fidelity and not hours worked. On the other hand an increase in families having dinner together would be a good thing, but I have never condemned anyone for working the night shift.

To Brother Churck Shcroder,

No homosexuals have been thrown in jail for trying to get married. Your analogy is totally wrong.

This is not an issue of civil rights, it is an issue of public policy. If same gender marriage were to be given the positive endorsement of public policy than it would mean it would be proactively supported by the public schools. I promise I will vote against every millage renowal and favor the repeal of every tax in existance if same gender marriage is legalized. I would rather see the public school system collapse than see it used to promote same gender marriage and homosexual behavior.

To Science Wins,

I think you majorly misunderstand science. You are probably the only person who advocates unrestrained c-section births. They are more dangerous than natural births, and I have never seen the debate as particularly religious.

The religius element was more centered on the use of medication verses not. However why everyone should be judged by views that were mainly held by Anglicans I do not know.

There is broad opposition to cloning in the world. The main hold up to outright bans are those who want to use it to harvest organs from the unborn. We are not on the verge of human cloning and seeing what cloning has done to sheep should make us weary of running head long into this new effort.

I can tell you when during the 20th century the most ground breaking research was done into such issues as exposure to extreme temperature and starvation, but I will leave it to you to figure out when the great forward movement in scientific inquiry was, although I am sure you already know.

To MS in Psychology,

How is it someone professing to have so much education can fail to see reason and truth? It seems obvious to me that you evaluate everything you see and read through gospel lenses as you are unwilling to see that religious teachings do not always represent truth. I certainly hope you are not in the counselling profession as your demeanour will definitely cause more harm than good.

Asserting credentials has little effect when others who have similar education refute what you say. I would be ashamed to go to a university that taught that sexuality was a result of "learned behavior whether it came about through rape, sexual abuse or perverse self-indulgence."

To MS in Psychology,

You are wrong and an embarassment to the discipline.

You see, John Lambert proves my last statement.

Asinine.

I am with President Packer and others that we need to evaluate academic disciplines through the gospel and not the other way around.

I know some of you will attack this as narow minded, anti-intelectual and such. However God knows everything, has complete knowledge, and loves us. He has a plan for our happiness and salvation. We will be best off by following it, and can best follow it by following the counsel of his prophets.

I would rather be mocked by so called intelectuals than go against the will of God.

To: BA Psychology, BEd

It is obvious to me that you have it backward: It is scientific theory that falls short of truth. All truth belongs to God! My lenses of perception will always follow God’s truth. And thank God that many of us in psychology are honest and hold true to our values and morals no matter what man-made scientific theory of the day academicians wish to dangle before their students and in scientific journals. Beware and don’t confuse truth with mere theories of man to be passed off as truth!

Furthermore speak for yourself, maybe YOUR "religious teachings do not always represent the truth”. And FYI, educators, physicians, counselors, and scientists with similar education and credentials refute each other continually. Where have you been???

Also don’t confuse sexuality with homosexuality obviously you don’t know the difference between the two. If you are going to quote me at least do it correctly.

I agree you should be ashamed!

To: PhD in Psychology

You are a perfect example that all the education in the world will never replace truth and intelligence from God! You are not only wrong, but you are highly educated and wrong.

OSC has as much authority on sexuality as Dr. Laura has on morality.

Lambert,

When you are in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.

"majorly misunderstand science"? Where did you go to school?

"advocates unrestrained c-section births"? Nobody advocated unrestrained c-section births. The point is that science has made "unnatural" c-section births common. Until your wife has 5 children by c-section, don't tell me it isn't "religious."

"There is broad opposition to cloning in the world." So? What has that got to do with the argument? Cloning will soon be as common a way of reproduction as fertility drugs, artificial insemination, and surrogates, all "unnatural" and "abnormal" means of procreation, according to religious freaks.

"should make us weary of running head long into this new effort." Weary? Where did you go to school again?

Your last paragraph makes no sense whatsoever. What have you been smoking?

If you are the best the LDS Church can offer to defend its position against equal marriage rights for gays, what is there to worry about? Gay marriage will be completely legal with no problem!

Do you guys know how ridiculous these comments sound to anyone outside of Utah seem? It's no wonder many people view Mormonism as a strange cult.

I am John Pack Lambert, but have now gone to using this name.

My mom did have five children by c-section. C-sections have been around for over 2000 years.

I will continue to argue that unrestrained science is unethical. It is possible to do many tests on people, but that does not make them ethical.

The best way to raise a child is with a father and a mother.

To Jessica,

I am outside of Utah and these comments do not sound ridiculous to me. So your argument they sound ridiculous to everyone outside of Utah has no validity in fact.