Whether one is "rationalizing immorality" or promoting moral relationships seems to depend on what conclusions one reaches about homosexuality. In their guest editorial, Lynn and Marian Wardle seem to have concluded that moral relationships are not possible for homosexuals. They have concluded that homosexuality is chosen and can be overcome and that parents should not "endorse or excuse their mistakes, but help them overcome them." Their conclusions are anachronistic at best and deeply prejudicial at worst.

Our conclusions about homosexuality differ dramatically from the Wardles. We believe that homosexuality is not chosen but is experienced honestly and involuntarily. We do not believe that it is amenable to significant change. Our beliefs are supported by every major professional organization dealing with homosexuality including the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers and the Academy of Pediatrics.

We also believe that both homosexual and heterosexual relationships have the capacity to be moral or immoral. In our view, the morality of a relationship should be judged on the way the relationship is conducted, not on whom is involved in the relationship. To suggest that all same-sex relationships are immoral strikes us as arbitrary and contradicts our own observations of many same-sex relationships.

We fail to understand how supporting same-sex unions pose a threat to traditional marriage between a man and a woman. To the contrary, support for same-sex unions establishes marriage as a laudable goal for everyone to achieve.

The Wardles suggest that "proposals to legalize same-sex marriage suggest a radical social experiment that would seriously damage the institution of marriage, sow confusion and wreak social distress." This same rhetoric was employed by right wing conservatives in the 1950s in the opposition to interracial marriage and most recently in Denmark prior to that country's approval of registered partnerships in 1989. What has been the result of Denmark's 10-year experience? The institution of marriage remains intact and rather than social distress, even religious fundamentalists admit that approval of registered partnerships has resulted in NO social ills. Are the Wardles not acquainted with the Denmark experience or have they chosen to ignore it to bolster their case against same-sex unions?

The bottom line is that different folks will reach different conclusions about the morality of same-sex relationships based on their personal experience, education and religious beliefs. We have before us, an honest difference of opinion. Society must be able to accommodate both views. The Wardles are entitled to their own conclusions but when they try to force their view on our family and deny the right of our gay children to enjoy the same civil rights as heterosexuals, we will object.

Gary and Millie Watts
Provo