Natural Family Values

Founded by Mormon polygamists, Kanab, Utah is a small, scenic western town facing new development and an influx of people from around the country who are moving into its quiet neighborhoods. In response to a perceived threat to their way of life, the religious majority struggles to assert its conservative identity as the mayor and city council unanimously approve a resolution defining the kind of families they would like to see move in.

The ‘Natural Family Resolution’ that the mayor and city council adopts, based on a memorandum from a conservative political think-tank, assigns proper gender roles to men and women and defines the family as ‘one man, one woman’ with a ‘full quiver’ of children.

Website: naturalfamilyvalues.com

Natural Family Values is an intimate portrait of a community at odds with itself, and what happens when democracy and theocracy clash.

From The Web
Join The Conversation
  • Greattuaha

    Wiw, what a place, so glad I fo not live there!!

    • Shane

      absolute vomit – but it will take time

    • Shane

      absolute vomit – but it will take time

    • Shane

      absolute vomit – but it will take time

  • Man

    “We’re becoming a community with a lot of… ‘diversity'”

    yeah what a tragedy you bigot

  • Man

    “We’re becoming a community with a lot of… ‘diversity'”

    yeah what a tragedy you bigot

    • Crazysole

      Sounds as if your mixed up there buddy… wouldn’t the bigots be the people determining who was allowed to live in the town?

  • pwndecaf

    The mayor is certainly lacking compassion and grace.  His response to the high school student’s article showed what a child the mayor really is.  His comments about the woman council member making a motion to rescind the resolution were just as telling.

    Mayor, you are the worst kind of bigot.  I hope you have been or will be removed from office soon.  You seemed to be the only person in the film that had no socially redeeming values.

  • pwndecaf

    The mayor is certainly lacking compassion and grace.  His response to the high school student’s article showed what a child the mayor really is.  His comments about the woman council member making a motion to rescind the resolution were just as telling.

    Mayor, you are the worst kind of bigot.  I hope you have been or will be removed from office soon.  You seemed to be the only person in the film that had no socially redeeming values.

  • AzhaHaap

    Nazis!

  • Olivia

    wow.. homophobic, sexist, and shoving their religion down peoples throat, this is not the USA i believe in, or want to be a part.

  • Olivia

    wow.. homophobic, sexist, and shoving their religion down peoples throat, this is not the USA i believe in, or want to be a part.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1437895267 Art Farmer

    i may move my 1000 strong pakistani family to this town, ive got some mexican buddies too.

  • N00ne23

    So long as these people stay in their little remote towns I don’t really care. Let them isolate themselves. I’d love for Texas to secede. Maybe they can all move there and get the hell out of OUR country. Though, I worry for the gay people who are born within these families. Hopefully they don’t find it too difficult to get the hell out.

  • Draben85

     This is a very interesting documentary that deals with some pretty complicated issues regarding the role of government in society. Now before i go off offending people let me disclaim that i am a libertarian. I really don’t care if your screwing horses in your spare time, go hard. I’m not being sarcastic. It doesn’t affect me. But what i think we are seeing is a response to a perceived double standard that exists.

     If the government got behind some cause to promote mexican santa’s, or transexual police(men?) many people would be all over it, praising the governments progressive stance. But the minute democracy doesn’t work in their favor, its amazing how fast these people switch gears into “That’s not government’s place!!!” The fact is; the ELECTED council didn’t make any law banning gay’s, and i suspect it had more to do with distancing the town from the image of polygamy. (1 man 1 woman vs. 1 man 13 women)

     Of course there are people who think that gay’s are “an affront to god”. That’s part of their religeon. But does that mean we should suspend their right to representation and free speech simply because it conflicts with our values? Now, im not saying that the documentary suggested that we do, im just pointing out a double standard that exists. A majority of the town is mormon, and want’s those values reflected in their representative sphere’s of influence. -AKA municipal policy.

     This is kind of an extension of the gay marrage debate, where you have the crazy christians on one side, and the crazy fag’s on the other. -Shouldn’t both sides be fighting for freedom of religeon? If one denomination wants to wed gay’s and the other doesnt, shouldn’t they both have the right to do what they want? I don’t understand either side. Especially the gay community’s. I mean, even if the gay community gets everything they want, what have they won? -Now some closet pedophile in a collar who secretly thinks your going to burn in hell for all eternity is legally obligated to validate your love for your partner… That sounds like a pretty queer victory to me. (pun)

     Its ironic that many mormons have to “closet” their religious views over fear of a societal backlash. Now i’m not gay and i’m not religious, but it seems to me that the few of us who actually believe in freedom, free speech, and real equality are fewer by the year.

     It will be interesting to read the comments that arise from this one. Am i alone out there?

    • JimbosSnackShack

      The gay marriage debate has nothing to do with religion. There are all ready churches that will *happily* marry gay couples, it’s just that in most states they can’t do it *legally* … No one is forcing churches to marry anyone. Gay couples are demanding the same *legal* rights and protections afforded to straight couples. The true libertarian view of this debate is that government shouldn’t be involved in marrying people in the first place. If you decide you want to get married, congrats! You’re married. No paper work. No oversight. No authority deciding for you if it’s ok.

      • Lord Xenu

         I’m afraid your a little misinformed, my friend. I’m all for making marriage a non-legal institution but that’s not what the gay community nor the evangelicals are fighting for, so that’s neither here nor there. Also i was stating my libertarianism as a disclaimer to my bias, and NOT the basis for which my argument was framed. (which was about a double standard BTW; not gay marriage)

         quote “The gay marriage debate has nothing to do with religion”… -_-  Ok…  so then let’s assume it’s a either a state issue (which it is today) or its a federal issue, in either case it becomes illegal to refuse service (marriage) to someone who is gay just as it is illegal not to hire them for the same reason. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States) The only reason why ministers haven’t been arrested is because of the first amendment. Nothing to do with religion, huh?

         Although we are getting away from my original argument, please try to keep in mind that the gay community (GALA, etc) isn’t the epitome every gay person. It’s a political organization. A lobby group. Like PETA,  and ALF, etc. Members of these organizations are generally good people who have no fucking clue of the policy’s said groups support and lobby for. They only know what these groups want them to hear about.

         You may be surprised to hear that a few states DID afford the same legal rights rights to homosexuals, only they didn’t call it marriage, and these same groups still freaked. So when you go on about ” these groups are only fighting for…”, maby you should check out what they lobby for instead of just their rhetoric.

          What i object to is legislating thought crime (oh! I’m sorry i meant “hate crime”) in the name of political correctness. My grandpa didn’t storm Normandy 70 years ago so the government could start legislating which opinions are acceptable. He did it for freedom. And if that means putting up with a douche or two… or a town of them, so be it. That’s the cost of freedom, and I’ll happily pay it.

        • Lord Xenu

           My handle was originally overwritten by my email address which is why the handles are different.

    • JimbosSnackShack

      The gay marriage debate has nothing to do with religion. There are all ready churches that will *happily* marry gay couples, it’s just that in most states they can’t do it *legally* … No one is forcing churches to marry anyone. Gay couples are demanding the same *legal* rights and protections afforded to straight couples. The true libertarian view of this debate is that government shouldn’t be involved in marrying people in the first place. If you decide you want to get married, congrats! You’re married. No paper work. No oversight. No authority deciding for you if it’s ok.

  • http://twitter.com/panthera_f panthera f

    Thank god we dont live under fundy fucktard rule here :-)

    Land of the free ?? you must be joking.

  • Daniel Ross

    When I think of “Classic American” I think of Tom Padgitt.

  • Daniel Ross

    When I think of “Classic American” I think of Tom Padgitt.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1021900395 Ned Carter

    Bigots fed bigoted ideas by bigots. And they don’t understand that their OWN TOWN would never have made it if this idea had been inplace when the polygamists founded it. Stupid small minded one book reading morons.

  • Saint

    I agree with all of the viewpoints. I don’t agree with the government enforcement.