Strong families have always been the essential foundation of every successful society. And for millennia, traditional marriage, defined as the union of a man and a woman, has been essential to the creation and protection of strong families.¹

Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman empire ... Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers.... (The Deseret News, August 6, 1862)

[A]ctivist judges will certainly impose same sex marriage on us.¹

In the same way early Mormons imposed polygamy on the rest of American society?

In reality, two men marrying each other has absolutely nothing to do with your household or your personal relationship with your wife. If it does, it's because you have chosen to make it your business.

Governments and society have uniformly granted benefits and protections to men and women in marriage because of their biological potential to bear and effectively raise the next generation. Since homosexual relationships are based entirely on "feelings" and a particular type of sexual activity, rather than on producing and nurturing the next generation, legalizing same sex "marriages" would create a new standard by which a "right" to marry would be recognized.¹

What about infertile couples? Should they be allowed to marry or not? What about aged couples past childbearing age? Interestingly, Utah state law allows first cousin marriage only in cases where the couples cannot procreate.² Implicit in that law is a double standard in reference to your argument above. Gays can't marry because they can't have children; older first cousins can marry because they can't have children.

Additionally, I am reminded of an elderly couple in our ward who met through the obituaries of their deceased spouses. Already "sealed for eternity" to their previous partners, they married during the twilight of their lives only for "time," until they would be reunited at death with their original, eternal companions. For now, they had married each other purely for love and companionship. Why is that acceptable for them but not for gay and lesbian couples?

…[T]he primary reason why homosexual activists are pushing to legalize same sex marriage is because it would constitute legal recognition of their sexual behavior…¹

First of all, homosexual sex is already legal in the United States. More importantly here, stating that gays can only express feelings based on sexual activity, being incapable of the full experience of love, is an affront to our very humanity and a denial of the reality we experience.

We would then be opening the door to any kind of "marriage" which met this standard, such as letting any number of people "marry" each other, allowing close blood relatives to "marry," permitting adults to "marry" children, and so on.1

How so? Would Mormon polygamous marriage have had the same effect on society?

Is any gay couple promoting marriage between adults and children? I submit that you are resorting to imagined, groundless fear-mongering here to make your case. It is implausible to state that marriage between siblings or parents and children would logically follow the legitimization of gay marriage. In countries where same sex marriage has been allowed, has there emerged debate favoring other such unions? No.

Studies show that the incidence of child abuse in same sex "families" is many times higher than in traditional families and that children in homosexual families are more likely to suffer emotional problems.¹

Homosexuals are responsible for a disproportionate amount of the sexual abuse of children. While less than 3% of the population is homosexual, 30% of all pedophilia cases involve homosexuals.¹

The American Association of Pediatrics, The American Psychological Association, the National Council for Adoptable Children, the Child Welfare League of America – and others – all disagree with you. According to the FBI, 95% of child molesters self-identify as heterosexual men.

They have the same fundamental rights as all other Americans. What they are demanding is special rights based on their sexual behavior.¹

There are over 1,000 rights that married couples receive under the law, even if they're wed in a drunken haze in Las Vegas.

To say that gays are seeking marriage only for sex is both disingenuous of you and irrational – many people have sex outside of marriage. If sex were all that gays wanted, they wouldn't push for marriage at all.

…homosexual activists must bear the burden of proof that homosexuality is something one is born into. Unfortunately for them, there is clear evidence that people are not born homosexual.¹

…studies of identical twins have found that when one twin is homosexual the likelihood of the other twin also being homosexual is only 50% or less.¹

Of course, sexuality and genetics are both complex issues. But showing that an identical twin of a gay person is 25 times more likely to be gay as well (50% vs. your cited 2% of the general population) is unquestionably a very clear case for a genetic role in sexual orientation.

Why do you disbelieve an entire segment of society who says that they didn't choose to be homosexual? In a prejudiced manner, you dismiss our combined experienced reality.

Incidentally, by stating so unequivocally that homosexuality is not inborn, you have stepped farther than President Hinckley. On December 26, 2004, when asked by Larry King if people were born gay he answered: "I don't know. I'm not an expert on these things. I don't pretend to be an expert on these things." Bishop, are you prepared to say that you know more about the causes of homosexuality than your prophet does?

Homosexuality is a symptom of a developmental disorder. The causes of this disorder are complex and not completely understood, but there is substantial and credible evidence that the environment in which a child is reared is a significant contributor.¹

Then what about the myriad homosexuals who come from households like mine? You know my parents – have you ever known two individuals more devoted to their church and their children? Where was the breakdown in my development? Did the community of Orem contribute to my homosexuality? Did the Canyon View 4th and 8th Wards somehow falter? I was never abused in any way, and I was never exposed to any sort of homosexuality while growing up. I also do not come from a home with an overbearing mother; my father was anything but absent. Was I not valiant enough in the church? You were one of my leaders – did you fail to correctly oversee my development?

The fact is, I knew I was gay before I knew what "gay" was. There was never any homosexual suggestion shaping my developing mind. On the contrary, I was wholly immersed in a heterosexual world. If I wasn't born this way, how could you possibly explain how I became this way?

Prevention, early intervention and treatment for homosexual behavior, while not 100% effective, does work. Such efforts to prevent homosexual orientation are most effective when this disorder is identified for what it is…¹

You are touting false promises that will bring about untold frustrations and create senseless self-hatred and guilt when the attempts at change fail. You're right, such "treatment" is not 100% effective – it doesn't even approach that level, and it's deceiving to word your statement the way you have done. Church leaders have bragged of up to a 20% success rate in the past, although those cases are never followed over time and don't account for the many "ex-gays" becoming "ex-ex-gays" or the bisexual part of the equation. It also ignores the severe psychological damage that might come from the pressure to declare one's changed sexual inclination. If you're going to suggest reparative therapy, then be honest about the messy and generally unsuccessful effects associated with such, rather than misleadingly throwing the "100%" rate in the same sentence.

As a class, homosexuals engage in behavior that is destructive both to the individuals and to society as a whole. Homosexual behavior is associated with a number of serious health risks, including HIV-AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.¹

Mormon prophets also once blamed monogamy for society's ills and diseases. Apostle Orson Pratt said: "This law of monogamy, or the monogamic system, laid the foundation for prostitution and the evils and diseases of the most revolting nature and character under which modern Christendom groans..." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, page 195)

Your and Brother Pratt's empty value judgments can simply be set aside.

On the AIDS issue, your argument is irrational, for the legalization of gay marriage would actually decrease the infection rate of AIDS by legitimizing relationships and thus discouraging promiscuity. It's a case of common-sense epidemiology: the fewer sex partners, the lower the rate of infection. Introducing marriage into the gay community could only increase fidelity between partners. Such has been the case in The Netherlands. According to the Dutch Ministry of Health, The Netherlands has reduced their AIDS transmission rates by 55% since instituting gay marriage.