Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Recommended Posts

I want nothing in this world more than to be a father. Yet I can’t bring myself to celebrate same-sex marriage.

 

Gay marriage has gone from unthinkable to reality in the blink of an eye. A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll shows that support for gay marriage is now at 61 percent—the highest it’s ever been. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case that many court-watchers believe will deliver the final blow to those seeking to prevent the redefinition of marriage. By all measures, this fight is over. Gay marriage won.

As a 30-year-old gay man, one would expect me to be ecstatic. After all, I’m at that age where people tend to settle down and get married. And there is nothing in this world I want more than to be a father and raise a family. Yet I can’t seem to bring myself to celebrate the triumph of same-sex marriage. Deep down, I know that every American, gay or straight, has suffered a great loss because of this.

I’m not alone in thinking this. The big secret in the LGBT community is that there are a significant number of gays and lesbians who oppose same-sex marriage, and an even larger number who are ambivalent. You don’t hear us speak out because gay rights activists (most of whom are straight) have a history of viciously stamping out any trace of individualism within the gay community. I asked to publish this article under a pseudonym, not because I fear harassment from Christian conservatives, but because I know this article will make me a target of the Gaystapo.

Marriage Is More than a Contract

The wheels of my Pride Parade float came off the moment I realized that the argument in support of gay marriage is predicated on one audaciously bald-faced lie: the lie that same-sex relationships are inherently equal to heterosexual relationships. It only takes a moment of objective thought to realize that the union of two men or two women is a drastically different arrangement than the union of a man and a woman. It’s about time we realize this very basic truth and stop pretending that all relationships are created equal.

This inherent inequality is often overlooked by same-sex marriage advocates because they lack a fundamental understanding of what marriage actually is. It seems as though most people view marriage as little more than a love contract. Two people fall in love, agree to stick together (for a while, at least), then sign on the dotted line. If marriage is just a love contract, then surely same-sex couples should be allowed to participate in this institution. After all, two men or two women are capable of loving each other just as well as a man and a woman.

But this vapid understanding of marriage leaves many questions unanswered. If marriage is little more than a love contract, why do we need government to get involved? Why was government invited to regulate marriages but not other interpersonal relationships, like friendships? Why does every religion hold marriage to be a sacred and divine institution? Surely marriage must be more than just a love contract.

Government Is Involved in Marriage Because It Creates Babies

People have forgotten that the defining feature of marriage, the thing that makes marriage marriage, is the sexual complementarity of the people involved. Marriage is often correctly viewed as an institution deeply rooted in religious tradition. But people sometimes forget that marriage is also based in science. When a heterosexual couple has sex, a biological reaction can occur that results in a new human life.

Government got into the marriage business to ensure that these new lives are created in a responsible manner. This capacity for creating new life is what makes marriage special. No matter how much we try, same-sex couples will never be able to create a new life. If you find that level of inequality offensive, take it up with Mother Nature. Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples relegates this once noble institution to nothing more than a lousy love contract. This harms all of society by turning marriage, the bedrock of society, into a meaningless anachronism.

A Good Dad Puts Kids First

Same-sex relationships not only lack the ability to create children, but I believe they are also suboptimal environments for raising children. On a personal level, this was an agonizing realization for me to come to. I have always wanted to be a father. I would give just about anything for the chance to have kids. But the first rule of fatherhood is that a good dad will put the needs of his children before his own—and every child needs a mom and a dad. Period. I could never forgive myself for ripping a child away from his mother so I could selfishly live out my dreams.

Same-sex relationships, by design, require children to be removed from one or more of their biological parents and raised absent a father or mother. This hardly seems fair. So much of what we do as a society prioritizes the needs of adults over the needs of children. Social Security and Medicare rob the young to pay the old. The Affordable Care Act requires young and healthy people to buy insurance to subsidize the cost for the old and sick. Our schools seem more concerned with keeping the teachers unions happy than they are educating our children. Haven’t children suffered enough to make adults’ lives more convenient? For once, it would be nice to see our society put the needs of children first. Let’s raise them in homes where they can enjoy having both a mom and a dad. We owe them that.

At its core, the institution of marriage is all about creating and sustaining families. Over thousands of years of human civilization, the brightest minds have been unable to come up with a successful alternative. Yet in our hubris we assume we know better. Americans need to realize that same-sex relationships will never be equal to traditional marriages. You know what? I’m okay with that.

 

I’m Gay, And I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

 

 

Don't let gay activists fool you.  There are indeed plenty of homosexuals out there who are not in lock-step with them and who actually have an inkling, if not a deep understanding, of true principles regarding the family and marriage. Consider also the intolerant activist backlash against Bruce Jenner....

Share this post


Link to post

I give this over a 50/50 chance of being a non-gay person trying to drum up support. The anonymity is a little telling.

Share this post


Link to post

Don't let gay activists fool you.  There are indeed plenty of homosexuals out there who are not in lock-step with them and who actually have an inkling,  if not a deep understanding, of true principles regarding the family and marriage.

An interesting essay, but one so filled with misconceptions that one has to wonder whether it is authentic.  For example, the author seems oblivious to the biggest reasons for the strong push to make same sex marriage legal:  the legal rights that go along with it -- right to inherit, see your spouse in the hospital, right to file married taxes, etc.  Since much of that can be covered under civil partnership legislation, it may be wise to separate that from religious marriages.  Whatever the case, the Supreme Court is likely to decide that a much broader class of people will now be allowed get married under the Equal Protection of the Laws.  That decision will likely come down in June.

 

Also the author's claim that marriage is primarily a sexual reproductive matter (which is a Roman Cathoiic claim), and that same sex marrieds will be (in effect) stealing children from heterosexual couples is nonsense.  As though artificial insemination does not exist, or that there are no surrogate mothers, or that people don't marry for love and companionship, etc.  We must learn not to fob off our religious conceptions on others under color of law.  We were victims of that high-handed action in the 19th century.  We need to set a good example of what marriage and family should be without trying to force others to comply (Satan's way).

 

Consider also the intolerant activist backlash against Bruce Jenner....

Hadn't heard about that.  What are they saying against Jenner's transgender efforts?

Share this post


Link to post

I give this over a 50/50 chance of being a non-gay person trying to drum up support. The anonymity is a little telling.

 

I'm going to write an anonymous article as an asexual opposed to opposite sex marriage. 

Share this post


Link to post
hat same sex marrieds will be (in effect) stealing children from heterosexual couples is nonsense.

 

I got the impression the argument was more that they were 'stealing' one or more parent from a child, not that they were stealing children from heterosexual couples....if so, surrogacy and artifical insemination would mean that the child didn't not have one of its biological parents in the home.

Share this post


Link to post

I got the impression the argument was more that they were 'stealing' one or more parent from a child, not that they were stealing children from heterosexual couples....if so, surrogacy and artifical insemination would mean that the child didn't not have one of its biological parents in the home.

Exactly. I have no objection to gay couples adopting children that already exist. But deliberately depriving a child from the beginning of either a father or a mother is selfish and sexist IMHO. And yes, I have the same objection to "single parents by choice."

Moreover, marriage forms a new, complete unit of society. Same-sex relationships can't do that.

Share this post


Link to post

I give this over a 50/50 chance of being a non-gay person trying to drum up support. The anonymity is a little telling.

Share this post


Link to post

Exactly. I have no objection to gay couples adopting children that already exist. But deliberately depriving a child from the beginning of either a father or a mother is selfish and sexist IMHO. And yes, I have the same objection to "single parents by choice."

Moreover, marriage forms a new, complete unit of society. Same-sex relationships can't do that.

This assumes too much. You disrespect single parents so viciously. A friend was married to his wife in the Mesa temple and hard a beautiful daughter with his wife. Seven weeks after the baby was born, my friend's wife decided she didn't want to be a wife or mother and walked out and hasn't had contact since. That was 6 years ago. My friend has unselfishly chosen to remain single so as to focus on working and providing for his daughter and provide a stable home with lots of family support. Had he chosen to be selfish, he would have gotten back on the dating scene to replace his wife with someone different just so there was a female figure.

Thankfully, he has more sense than to engage a path so damaging. Both father and daughter are not merely living but thriving in a peaceful and loving home.

In the case of surrogacy, no child is being ripped from a parent. That is silly. The assertion that only heterosexual couples deserve or are capable of raising children is rather asinine, narcissistic unChristian.

Share this post


Link to post
For example, the author seems oblivious to the biggest reasons for the strong push to make same sex marriage legal:  the legal rights that go along with it -- right to inherit, see your spouse in the hospital, right to file married taxes, etc.  Since much of that can be covered under civil partnership legislation, it may be wise to separate that from religious marriages.

 

That's why it's a welfare issue and not a rights issue.  Welfare is targeted and not given to anyone, hence non recognition by the state of SSM is perfectly legal and constitutional; that and the fact that homosexuality does not rise to the level of suspect classification.  It becomes a moral issue in part because courts upholding state recognition of SSM are not following the law.

 

But more to the point of the article, some complain that it's anonymous, but recent history has absolutely demonstrated that anonymous has plenty of reason to fear retribution be it at the workplace, or publication of personal information as an implied threat, or on the college campus, dark sarcasm in the classroom, etc. 

 

And even more to the point of the article, he makes the unassailable point about children missing something being raised in a situation that is inherently without father or mother.

 

To cover all bases, to give government sanction to a much less than ideal lifestyle choice hurts us all because it paves the way for people (such as our children and spouses) to choose a less than ideal path in the face of temptation and weakness.

Share this post


Link to post

A religious argument in favor of heterosexual marriage as the basis of a family as the ONLY and BEST option is unrealistic, unreasonable, irrational and irresponsible.

Share this post


Link to post

A religious argument in favor of heterosexual marriage as the basis of a family as the ONLY and BEST option is unrealistic, unreasonable, irrational and irresponsible.

 

IMNSHO it is the best.  If the best is not available then other options must be considered.

Share this post


Link to post

That's why it's a welfare issue and not a rights issue.  Welfare is targeted and not given to anyone, hence non recognition by the state of SSM is perfectly legal and constitutional; that and the fact that homosexuality does not rise to the level of suspect classification.  It becomes a moral issue in part because courts upholding state recognition of SSM are not following the law.

 

But more to the point of the article, some complain that it's anonymous, but recent history has absolutely demonstrated that anonymous has plenty of reason to fear retribution be it at the workplace, or publication of personal information as an implied threat, or on the college campus, dark sarcasm in the classroom, etc. 

 

And even more to the point of the article, he makes the unassailable point about children missing something being raised in a situation that is inherently without father or mother.

 

To cover all bases, to give government sanction to a much less than ideal lifestyle choice hurts us all because it paves the way for people (such as our children and spouses) to choose a less than ideal path in the face of temptation and weakness.

 

Welfare isn't about marriage. It is about dependent children. The children are the innocents. Why do you want to punish the innocent through governmental actions?

Share this post


Link to post

IMNSHO it is the best.  If the best is not available then other options must be considered.

As an opinion that's fine but it is not a validly asserted fact.

Good to chat with you again, ERay. Much love.

Share this post


Link to post

As an opinion that's fine but it is not a validly asserted fact.

Good to chat with you again, ERay. Much love.

 

Good to chat with you too.  Hope all is going well?

 

 

The conclusions depend on which study one uses.  The results are deeply influenced by who commissioned and paid for it.

Share this post


Link to post

Good to chat with you too.  Hope all is going well?

 

 

The conclusions depend on which study one uses.  The results are deeply influenced by who commissioned and paid for it.

It's my last semester of my bachelors degree. So I'm batty.

I completely agree with what you said about conclusions. The best way to observe is on a case by case basis.

Share this post


Link to post

It's my last semester of my bachelors degree. So I'm batty.

I completely agree with what you said about conclusions. The best way to observe is on a case by case basis.

 

I am always in favor of married, stable heterosexual couples as the norm for parenting.  When that is not possible then single parent or ss couples who can show the stability needed.  Kids need all the help they can get. 

Share this post


Link to post

I am always in favor of married, stable heterosexual couples as the norm for parenting.  When that is not possible then single parent or ss couples who can show the stability needed.  Kids need all the help they can get.

Admirable and thoughtful. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post

I found myself greatly agreeing with the writer of the piece, especially since I've said similar things myself.

 

That being said, I do believe that the Supremes are going to rule with SSM.  I will be surprised if it goes otherwise.

 

And I'm of the position which ERayR laid out, and which Valentinius complimented.

 

Valentinius, just to comment on your friend who chose to stay away from the dating scene after his wife self-destructed and ran away from her responsibilities, I will not claim as a matter of fact that he was running away from his own responsibilities by choosing single parenthood, but I do believe in my humble opinion that he should have chosen otherwise.  My father remarried after my mother passed away when I was 7, and my new stepmother was one of the most important people on earth to me as I grew up.  She treated me as her own, and I loved her as my mother. 

 

And then there's the other side of it, that he could have blessed the life of a young woman who needed children to love and care for, and who needed a husband's love as well.  But I have not walked in his moccasins, so I shall not judge him.

Share this post


Link to post

Fair enough, Stargazer. My friend reasoned that the thought of leaving his daughter in the care of others while he went on dates would be irresponsible of him. On top of the mess, he was in med school at Midwestern University.

Share this post


Link to post

This assumes too much. You disrespect single parents so viciously. A friend was married to his wife in the Mesa temple and hard a beautiful daughter with his wife. Seven weeks after the baby was born, my friend's wife decided she didn't want to be a wife or mother and walked out and hasn't had contact since. That was 6 years ago. My friend has unselfishly chosen to remain single so as to focus on working and providing for his daughter and provide a stable home with lots of family support. Had he chosen to be selfish, he would have gotten back on the dating scene to replace his wife with someone different just so there was a female figure.

Thankfully, he has more sense than to engage a path so damaging. Both father and daughter are not merely living but thriving in a peaceful and loving home.

In the case of surrogacy, no child is being ripped from a parent. That is silly. The assertion that only heterosexual couples deserve or are capable of raising children is rather asinine, narcissistic unChristian.

By "single parents by choice" I mean those individuals who are not married or in a permanent relationship and have no intention of either at the time, but decide they want a baby so create one by artificial insemination or surrogacy, not the situation you describe. It is an individual deciding from the get-go that the child they plan to create has no need of the opposite-sex parent. That is selfish and sexist, completely different from a parent who finds themselves single because of bad circumstances but now is doing the best they can.

Share this post


Link to post

So YOU say. Your post is all opinion and no fact. If you wish to assert your post is fact the here's a nice little CFR.

Share this post


Link to post

So YOU say. Your post is all opinion and no fact. If you wish to assert your post is fact the here's a nice little CFR.

 

As is mine, yours and everybody else's.

Share this post


Link to post

Hey! You're supposed to be on my side!!

Share this post


Link to post

Hey! You're supposed to be on my side!!

I just calls em as I sees um.  And on some things I am still on your side.

Share this post


Link to post

I know. You're very reasonable for an ornery old man.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By nuclearfuels
      So now that President Nelson has shown us how he roles and how the inspiration he receives roles, I can't help but ask/ponder aloud with my cyber-ward-family/friends (I don't know any of you well enough to consider our relationship to be that of frenemies, my apologies):
      - I figure we have maybe two years until the BSA program (love it or hate it) will be replaced
      - Several years ago, maybe 10+ years, there was talk about mini-Temples being created in levels other the main entry level of stake centers; wondering if this idea might come back?  Really I'm just looking for an excuse to goto Ireland and a Temple openhouse seems to be that opportunity; slainte!
      - Wondering if any of you have written to General Authorities and asked about topics like these; anyone received a response?  Since "marriage" has been legally "redefined," I'm curious to ask the GA's if redefining marriage in the vein of Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and many others defined marriage.  Waiting for SCOTUS to "redefine marriage" again (before reinstituting), would be more palatable no doubt, but aren't we on kind of an accelerated time schedule/ last days etc.?  And when you attend the Temple, don't the Sisters outnumber the Brothers by a factor of 3 to 1, on average?
    • By MeeMee
      My question as I am still a new convert is how many times can you be sealed to someone or others. Say for example you were sealed to your current husband but he pass away. Years later down the line you meet someone and want to get sealed with the new husband instead. How does it work in the end. I never understand this and every time I ask someone nobody seems to really want to explain it. Please clarify only if you truly have the answer.
      Thank You
       
    • By TOmNossor
      Hello!
      I enjoy reading Catholic thought and I wanted to share.  I believe the call for SSM and many other criticisms of the CoJCoLDS (primarily from those who still hold to some sense of its being “true”) is a product of lack of rigorous thought.  An emotionalism where we substitute how we feel about things for sound principles derived by seeking God with faith and reason.
      First two links:
      Article by Archbishop of Philadelphia:
      https://www.firstthings.com/article/2018/03/believe-that-you-may-understand
      Faith and Reason by JPII:
      http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html
      I will admit that I have only read parts of Faith and Reason, but I hope to rectify this.
      I think the Catholic Church is in crisis partially because its highest leaders have left behind sound thinking on issues for a hoped pastoral love of all.  This is from First Things:


      More poignantly from an interview with Bishop Chaput:



      It is my opinion that there are many very concerning things coming for the Pope and the leadership around him.  I fear he has forgotten (and I think it likely that many around him have forgotten) the second half of: “Truth without love is imperious self-righteousness. Love without truth is cowardly self-indulgence.” With an organization so committed to preserving the “truth once delivered,” how (with or without God’s supernatural guidance) can such a thing happen.  How can it happen to the CoJCoLDS?
      Somebody who wrestles with issues like advocating for or against SSM will become a general authority (not me).  In my personal life, I feel the desire to embrace love without the restraining influence of truth.  In the name of love sometime not just self love, I can stray from God’s path.  As my attempt at my best self online, I feel the desire to embrace love without mentioning truth to those with whom I dialogue even though I do not face the same issues they do (I like to not speak of their sin or emphasize that I too am a sinner to eliminate or soften the truth).  How much tougher will this be for the future bishop who can clearly see the pain in those he loves and knows that speaking truth to them will make him a lone voice in a world that has ceased to care about truth.
      There are two things about the difficult and recent declaration concerning children of same sex couples.  First, is that it would be somewhat cruel to ask a child to explain the reason his/her parents have embraced a way of living out of alignment with God’s teaching.  The second is having not been cruel, those who likely believe that SSM is a wonderful institution that has blessed their lives will continue to grow and learn and progress in the church.  
      As I said in a recent thread, I think it quite possible that one day our church will embrace SSM in many and perhaps all ways.  IMO today this would be the love without truth result.  If this happens in the future, it will not be the end of the church, but too much of this love without truth could be (I have faith that God is in control and can steer away from this).  But, one of the ways God steers away from this is by calling us to THINK correctly.
      I believe that wrong thinking after Vatican II has lead to the place where the Catholic Church is today and while some of the things Pope Francis is doing may briefly increase the number of folks in the pews, I believe ultimately it will further water down truth and lead to more indifference to the things of God.
      I do not think the highest leaders of the CoJCoLDS have succumbed to the thinking Pope Francis has embraced.  And I believe that the highest leaders of the CoJCoLDS receive revelation and inspiration to guide God’s church.  That being said, I have little doubt that Bishops and Stake Presidents struggle with these issues.  Without a commitment to have both TRUTH and LOVE, I think errors can happen.  As these error permeate the church AND society, there may be one day when our God (who I think is pragmatic) will recognize that it does more harm than good to continue to teach the truth in certain ways.  Someday, the pain caused by the truth and the prevalence of societies tolerant arms willing to offer an ultimately cold loveless embrace, could make it better for the church to water down the gospel in certain areas (no more United Order comes to mind).  Alternatively, if the gospel understanding of these issues is correct and discussion and dialogue helps folks to find ways to love in truth, perhaps pragmatic solution will not be required.  
      Anyway, there is great value in learning from wise folks like JPII and Arch Bishop Chaput.  I believe God is in charge.  I believe the CoJCoLDS passed through its first 200 years in a way far more remarkable than the years 33-233AD were for New Testament Christians and evidence God’s continuing inspiration and revelation for the whole body of the church.  That being said, God’s hand is occasionally the wise and intelligent council of our brothers and sisters.  The society into which President Nelson held his first press conference is hostile to God’s truths.  I believe that the church is guided by God through President Nelson, but ALL of us imbibe inappropriately of the ideas evidenced in this press conference hostility (in the name of love or in the name of self-indulgence or in the name of …but we imbibe).  May right reasoning and truth from God provide a counter force to societies pull!  
      Charity, TOm  
      P.S.  In case it is somehow veiled by what I say above, I do not think I am superior in my thinking to all others.  I offer the above because it is what seems true to me.  If it didn’t seem true to me, my best self, would find something else to embrace that I think is true.  I desire to align my beliefs with what God believes to be true!  
      This also means I want to read and discuss thoughts about the above.
    • By HappyJackWagon
      I want to respond to a couple of statements made by Julianne from the now closed "Weed" thread, because she absolutely nails it. She is spot on and I think the discussion at this level needs to occur before any progress can be made on the SSM issue.
      She wrote...
      Speaking as a straight, white, man, I recognize that I come to the traditional church teachings of priesthood, sealing, polygamy/polyandry, and SSM from a certain privileged position. The church's teachings and practices benefit me and they always have. Even though there is little to no evidence for how celestial families will actually be organized and function in the CK I used to think I had it all figured out. Obviously, I thought, marriage is essential to have legal physical intimacy which is necessary for creating offspring with one or multiple wives. Yet there is no firm teaching about how spirits are created. Are they born like a baby is born into mortality? There is no evidence or teaching for that, but it is widely assumed. That assumption then justifies polygamy while discrediting polyandry and even SSM. After all, if the entire purpose is to create spirit offspring and it is thought that it happens in a way similar to creating biological offspring, then it makes sense. But that is ALL based on assumptions.
      Based on these assumptions many are willing to condemn others to lives (and possibly even an eternity) of loneliness.
      So (we) don't even know what the afterlife looks like. It is unknown. Yet we think (we) have enough information to condemn and judge others, and since most of us come at it from positions of privilege, we are in the position to enforce our dogma upon the less privileged. The church is not unique in behaving this way. It is how society has always worked. But recognizing the assumptions for what they are and being humble about how much we really don't know, can help society improve.
      Julianne also stated...
      How can one categorically dismiss SSM when there is little to nothing known about family organization in the next life, even regarding a variety of heterosexual family organizations. Which sealings will be valid? Polygamy/polyandry? Only those which benefit men? Who are the children sealed to? There is a lot of "The Lord will work it out" mentality, which is fine because it acknowledges a lack of understanding and knowledge. The problem comes when one then loses all humility and attempts to define how family relationships will or will not work for other people. I agree with Julianne that the polygamy/polyandry topic is closely tied to the SSM topic and must be ironed out.
      So maybe this can be a thread that can be commented on instead of derailing other threads when this subject comes up.
       
      *Julianne, I hope I didn't misunderstand or misrepresent you. I really appreciated where you were trying to take the discussion.
    • By cinepro
      First, let me say that the press conference was perhaps the first time I've ever heard President Nelson speak off-the-cuff (i.e. not reading prepared remarks), and I was not instilled with confidence.  I enjoyed listening to the first presentation where the First Presidency was introduced, but my heart sank when listening to the Press Conference afterward.
      Specifically, the first question and response, heard at 2:05:10 here:
      I listened to this driving in to work today, and I just couldn't believe it.  The question was "how do you plan to approach LGBT issues?"
      The response doesn't appear to be in the same universe as the question, other than them both being in English.  They don't mention "LGBT issues", or homosexuality, or same-sex attraction, or anything specific to the question.  They respond using highly coded and contextualized words that someone familiar with LDS doctrines might be able to interpret, but how is that the proper response in a press conference?
      My interpretation of President Nelson's and Oaks' response is that they said this:
      "Thanks Brady.  No changes expected.  Homosexual actions are still considered a sin, and members of the Church will still be expected to resist those impulses.  We also still oppose same-sex marriage.  We believe this is how God's plan works, and will lead them to happiness in the eternities even though it may be painful here on Earth.  We love and pray for all those with same-sex attractions, but there won't be any changes on this."
      Why couldn't they just say something clear and unambiguous?  Was the question that unexpected that it caught them off-guard?
       
×