Behind The Movement For Ssm - Is Acceptance Inevitable?

[Ahab]

Some people seem to be chasing a red herring here.

The idea of marriage isn't being corrupted by those who support same sex marriage. Marriage is about putting things together to form one, like in plumbing or construction, and while the parts don't line up for a same sex couple like they do for an opposite sex couple, it's still a marriage of those 2 coming together to form one.

The issue should be about whether or not it is good or as good for same sex couples to come together in that way as it is for opposite sex couples to come together. They're both marriage, but a different type of marriage, just as it is different when a male part is joined to another male part rather than to a female part.

The same sex advocates are basically trying to say: Yeah Yeah Yeah it's all just as good and it doesn't really matter whether it's male to male or male to female. All that matters is that they are "happy".

Well, maybe they are happy, but they're not as happy as they could otherwise be. There were destined for something much greater and now they're choosing to accept less than they could have had, even if someone says that's okay. They're missing out on something, and they won't ever get what they could have had by not being that way.

[DavidB]

Ahab, you "plumbing analogy" fails; infertile people can not become one. Now if by "one" you mean insert "A into B" well, your reasoning still fails.

-----------------------------------------------

On a separate note...still waiting for scientific proof of the causation between ssm and decline in heterosexual marriage. The proof must be based upon the premise that "ssm cheapened traditional marriage, therefore heterosexual do not want to get married".

-----------------------------------------------

The oppenants to ssm largely, in my opinion engage untenable position, by first claiming traditional marriage - the "tradition of marriage has a long and sorted history" and by claiming to support "one man one woman", polygamy is considered barbarism and therefore is not part of the American tradition of marriage - so opponents to ssm have to finagle a definition of "tradition" that really isn't a "tradition" for the United States. (and it gets even worse when one claims "Biblical marriage" see OT "traditions" for marriage")

[Buckeye]

Ahab,

I actually think you are approaching the right question - whether SSM is good. For that, we examine the fruit. In my experience, I know a number of married gay and lesbian couples. The fruit is good. Just as good as the fruit from my hetersexual marriage and family. That is my experience and all I can offer.

One other testimony you should consider are those who are gay who have honestly tried to live within a heterosexual marriage and found it to be miseable, but then moved on to a homosexual relationship and found happiness. There are many, many, who testify this way. I tend to believe them.

I hope you weren't trying to belittle happiness by putting it in scare quotes. After all, happiness is the object and design of our existence. At least according to Joseph.

[Ahab]

Ahab,

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Why do people say that? I don't agree to disagree witih you. If you don't agree with me that is your choice but I don't agree to you not agreeing with me. That's is your choice and you are missing something by not agreeing with me.

I don't claim to know how things will be in the CK. But I don't have any reason to believe you know either.

What I've been talking about has been plainly revealed in public by those who have the keys of the kingdom.

For me, the best judgments come by looking at how things are here. If gay couples can form loving, strong and stable families (and I know a number of them), then why not also in the CK?

You must be talking about a different kind of family than what I think of as a family. To me, a family is formed when an opposite sex couple joins together, at which point they then have what it takes for them to develop their own family someday. All of that power is inherent in them, with one being male and the other being female... even if it takes a while, and even if it doesn't happen until they are exalted. Same sex couples don't have that power, in that sense, and hence they do not form a real family. That's why I refer to them as a same sex couple, because that's the most they can ever be, whethre or not they endure for all of eternity.

In the meantime, my offer still stands for you to provide any couples you know who have both biological and adopted children and who view their relationship to the biological in any way superior to the adopted.

I know and have known several couples like that and they can tell the difference beteween the children they created (or procreated) amongst the 2 of them and the children they adopted from other parents. It does make a difference because there is that difference, and they know what has caused the difference. Some of the children were orphaned by parents who died, so in those cases they're trying to fill in for that loss, and some of the children came from other kinds of broken homes where the parents put their children up for adoption, so somebody else could take care of them. In either case, it would have been better had their real parents been able to keep taking care of them and loving them, as they should.

[wenglund]

What Buckeye said.

I would add with regards to the Loving case, there is no specific provision in the Constitution that protects marriage.

Wikipedia says this about Loving which I find interesting because the logic of Pace, a subsequently overturned case, is the same that is used by many against SSM (and polygamy for that matter), specifically that the marriage prohibition applies to everyone:

" Prior to Loving v. Virginia, there were several cases on the subject of race-mixing. In Pace v. Alabama (1883), the Supreme Court ruled that the conviction of an Alabama couple for interracial sex, affirmed on appeal by the Alabama Supreme Court, did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Interracial marital sex was deemed a felony, whereas extramarital sex ("adultery or fornication") was only a misdemeanor. On appeal, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the criminalization of interracial sex was not a violation of the equal protection clause because whites and non-whites were punished in equal measure for the offense of engaging in interracial sex."

In overturning bans upon interracial marriage the Court took a results-based approach in the Loving decision where it observed that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy: “

"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."

What I take from Loving is that the Supreme Court could find that SSM is protected not because of a particular provision in the Constitution that protects it, but because disallowing it is heterosexist/homophobic. If it so decides this way, it may be affected by a statement made by Midred Loving in 2007:

“

"Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

"I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."

Quite the contrary. The Loving case turned on the point that marriage (as implicitly defined as between a man and a woman) is "one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival." Because marriage between a man and a woman was deemed a a basic civil right, laws restricting the freedom or equal exercise of that right were deemed unconstitutional. It was because interracial marriages were between a man and a woman that laws restricting it were struck down. The opposite is true for same-sex couples and the newly invented right of SSM.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 8, 2012 by wenglund

[Buckeye]

...

On a separate note...still waiting for scientific proof of the causation between ssm and decline in heterosexual marriage. The proof must be based upon the premise that "ssm cheapened traditional marriage, therefore heterosexual do not want to get married".

...

DavidB, I'm with you on this issue, but in my experience most honest opponents of SSM (and I have a number in my family) no longer claim causation. Rather, they view both the decline in heterosexual marriage and the movement for SSM as symptoms of the same malady. Kind of like saying "the reason it is snowing is not because the leaves fell off the trees; rather both the snow and the leaves falling off are due to the change in temperature". So I don't find much traction in pointing out that there is no causation.

For that matter, I don't find much traction in debating with people what is "fair" or "equal" or even right. The only thing that changes people's mind on this issue is getting to know gay people. To actual see the goodness in them and "taste of the fruit". Its the exact same with tearing down prejudice towards members of the church. Pointing to scriptures does nothing. Have a mormon family move into the neighborhood does.

[Ahab]

Ahab, you "plumbing analogy" fails; infertile people can not become one. Now if by "one" you mean insert "A into B" well, your reasoning still fails.

You apparently don't understand what I was talking about. Coming together with male to male or male to female parts isn't contingent on being fertile, and infertile people can still come together with either another male or a female with their parts.

What you say fails is not my reasoning but your understanding of my reasoning.

-----------------------------------------------

On a separate note...still waiting for scientific proof of the causation between ssm and decline in heterosexual marriage. The proof must be based upon the premise that "ssm cheapened traditional marriage, therefore heterosexual do not want to get married".

No, the proof doesn't need to be based on that premise. All it takes is evidence showing ssm somehow caused osm to decline, which can easily be shown with a bit of good reasoning. +1 for ssm is -1 for either osm or no marriage at all, and parts of all sexes are still getting together even if some people don't call it "marriage".

[Buckeye]

Why do people say that? I don't agree to disagree witih you. If you don't agree with me that is your choice but I don't agree to you not agreeing with me. That's is your choice and you are missing something by not agreeing with me.

I say it because that's the example church leaders set and which I am trying to follow.

"There may be situations where, with serious moral issues involved, we cannot bend on matters of principle. But in such instances we can politely disagree without being disagreeable. We can acknowledge the sincerity of those whose positions we cannot accept. We can speak of principles rather than personalities." - Gordon B. Hinckley

[wenglund]

I agree that, should this happen, it would be seen as more of a "dam breaking" or "watershed" moment as opposed to the steady state-by-state battles we are now seeing.

FWIW, I think one outgrowth of Tuesday's results is that the Supreme Court is less likely to strike down Prop 8 or DOMA on the ground that there is a constitutional right to marry. It may still stike them on other grounds, but since it is clear which way the wind is blowing, the Court will be less inclined to jump too quickly as that could cause a backlask ala Roe-v-Wade.

I don't believe it should happen. So, we don't agree. To me, it would be quite inane if it did happen. Whatever strained legal wrangling that has been pressed into service over the years to eventually affect such a plausible SCOTUS ruling (the legal equivalent to boiling a frog by slowly raising the tempurature), would ultimately defy the beneficial purpose for which marital laws were first instituted, and do violence to a perfectly reasonable and useful and edifying definition. This is to be expected when the wave of pop cultural emotions are unchecked by reason and a full and correct grasp of the issue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 8, 2012 by wenglund

[Ahab]

I say it because that's the example church leaders set and which I am trying to follow.

"There may be situations where, with serious moral issues involved, we cannot bend on matters of principle. But in such instances we can politely disagree without being disagreeable. We can acknowledge the sincerity of those whose positions we cannot accept. We can speak of principles rather than personalities." - Gordon B. Hinckley

What he said doesn't sounds the same as how what "agreeing to disagree" sounds to me.

I know we're not always going to agree on everything when some of us don't agree with what God has told us, but I'm not going to agree to disagree with you or anyone else. My vote is for all of us to agree with what God has told us, both individually and collectively.

[DavidB]

You apparently don't understand what I was talking about. Coming together with male to male or male to female parts isn't contingent on being fertile, and infertile people can still come together with either another male or a female with their parts.

What you say fails is not my reasoning but your understanding of my reasoning.

-----------------------------------------------

No, the proof doesn't need to be based on that premise. All it takes is evidence showing ssm somehow caused osm to decline, which can easily be shown with a bit of good reasoning. +1 for ssm is -1 for either osm or no marriage at all, and parts of all sexes are still getting together even if some people don't call it "marriage".

Yes try a good.bit of reasoning, your claim of "one" is based solely on sexual act(s).

And your reasoning fails with your false assumption on +1 -1.

Edited November 8, 2012 by DavidB

[cinepro]

No, the proof doesn't need to be based on that premise. All it takes is evidence showing ssm somehow caused osm to decline, which can easily be shown with a bit of good reasoning. +1 for ssm is -1 for either osm or no marriage at all, and parts of all sexes are still getting together even if some people don't call it "marriage".

When do we get the bit of good reasoning?

[wenglund]

DavidB, I'm with you on this issue, but in my experience most honest opponents of SSM (and I have a number in my family) no longer claim causation. Rather, they view both the decline in heterosexual marriage and the movement for SSM as symptoms of the same malady. Kind of like saying "the reason it is snowing is not because the leaves fell off the trees; rather both the snow and the leaves falling off are due to the change in temperature". So I don't find much traction in pointing out that there is no causation.

Honest people can and have made a reasonable causal case for the decline in marriages due to the mangling and diluting of the definition of marriage through the emotive and insipid arguments for and eventual legalization of SSM. Indeed, common sense would suggest that, since the word "marriage" was legally defined and employed so as to encourage its legal application, then the mangling and diluting of that word may very well have had a chilling affect on its legal application. In other words, by diminishing the meaningfulness, significance, and value associated with the word "marriage," one might reasonably expect less people would care about it and get married. This causal affect was evinced when the notion of "marriage" was first under attack during the "free love sexual revolution," when large numbers of people stopped getting married and started living together (interestingly enough, in the early stages of the gay movement, leading advocates for that cause came out strongly against marriage and the movement, itself, factored heavily into the sexual revolution), and has since manifest itself with the onset of domestic partnerships and SSM, Honest people would reasonably acknowledge this and thoughtfully take it into consideration.

For that matter, I don't find much traction in debating with people what is "fair" or "equal" or even right. The only thing that changes people's mind on this issue is getting to know gay people. To actual see the goodness in them and "taste of the fruit". Its the exact same with tearing down prejudice towards members of the church. Pointing to scriptures does nothing. Have a mormon family move into the neighborhood does.

I have known a number of homosexuals over the years. Some of them have, on balance, been good and decent people, and others have been not so good (like the older homosexuals that illegally propositioned me on several occasions in my youth, and the older homosexual that raped a friend of mine in his youth, leading later to his suicidal tendencies). I am also familiar with various social statistics that are less than flattering of homosexuals. However, what affected my mind wasn't emotions based on whether my experience with homosexuals was positive or negative, but rather a balanced mix of emotions and reason in figuring what will work best for everyone, individually and collectively, both temporally and spiritually. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tacenda]

May I share my experience as a heterosexual father? I love my children immensely. I am their biological father, but each year that simple fact becomes less and less important and it becomes less and less a part of why I am their "father". For me, fatherhood, motherhood, and parenthood are really about sacrifice, setting examples, providing teaching, providing physical and spiritual nourishment, protecting, suffering together, succeeding together, and on and on. It has next to nothing to do with providing a sperm or an egg.

In the same manner, I don't regard my Father in Heaven as a father simply because eons ago he might have played a part in some spiritual birth. Rather, even if such an act occurred (and we really have no doctrine saying it did), that act would be infinitely miniscule compared to the real reasons he is my father - again, sacrifice, setting examples, providing teaching, providing physical and spiritual nourishment, protecting, suffering together, succeeding together, and on and on. That is why, for me, both Elohim and Jehovah can rightly be called "Father", even though at least one of them did not contribute to my spiritual birth. Carrying this point to its extension, it seems right to me that I (we) do not have simply one heavenly father and mother, but hundreds and thousands of them.

In the same manner, I see the Relief Society moving towards a full embrace of all women as mothers, even if they never physically give birth to a child. Somehow, church leadership thinks women can completely fulfill motherhood in ways other than passing on DNA. Maybe, just maybe, there is a similar way we can include gay and lesbian couples in the plan of salvation.

But lets assume the hypothetical situation where spiritual offspring are "birthed" to exalted beings after the same manner as takes place in mortality, I can still find ample room for gays and lesbians to be in my exaltation in such a scenario. I, for one, would be happy to entrust my gay brothers and sisters with many of the spiritual children that my wife and I bring into being. Let's call it "adoption". Over time, my contribution to their existence would be drwarfed by that of their adopted parents. Thus, in the same way that adoptive parents in this life can fully be parents, so can adoptive parents in the next life fully be parents.

Agree to the max!

[Ahab]

Yes try a good.bit of reasoning, your claim of "one" is based solely on sexual act(s).

Because that's the way 2 people usually become 1 when they are "married". Marriage isn't necessarily about love, or creating children, or becoming "one" with someone in soul and spirit. A good marriage can involve all of that, but it's not automatically fundamental in marriage itself. I know people who have been "married" for 50+ years but who live together as relative strangers, spending a lot more time away from each other than they spend together, and even when they do spend time together it's not as if they're happy about being together. Marriage in its most basic form is simply about 2 things coming together or joining together as one, in any way, and it can even happen with any 2 pieces of plumbing.

Some people talk about marriage as if it's necessarily something fantastic or surreal and then before you know it they're getting divorced or divided, left and right. The fact that they were married doesn't seem to mean much of anything, in the end.

And your reasoning fails with your false assumption on +1 -1.

Two men who marry each other are not marrying women at the same time. They're marrying men and not marrying women.

In basic math that is +1 -1. Try harder to understand the reasoning.

[Ahab]

When do we get the bit of good reasoning?

I don't know when you'll get it, but I just gave you enough to work with to see that it's there.

[Bikeemikey]

No, the proof doesn't need to be based on that premise. All it takes is evidence showing ssm somehow caused osm to decline, which can easily be shown with a bit of good reasoning. +1 for ssm is -1 for either osm or no marriage at all, and parts of all sexes are still getting together even if some people don't call it "marriage".

Keep hunting your great white whale captain, you missed it with this one.

Many of us on this thread agree with the following: Let churches that want to marry homo or hetro sexual couples (or groups for that matter) do it. That is their religious freedom. It is not however automatically a right for such a marriage to be legally recognized. In my opinion those who are not comfortable with this don't understand the principles of religious freedom.

However, the legally recognized is important as it provides certain societal advantages (tax for example). The legally recognized portion, as has been very well articulated by many posters (Wade Englund for example) incentivizes certain things within society. Some claim this incentive process makes society better.

I think it is time to remove marriage as a legislative tool to reward and incentive. Marriage is an institution, not an outcome. If you want to incentivize outcomes then do it, marriage is not an outcome.

We can incentivize behavior and outcomes better than with marriage. Offer lower tax burdens for relationships with kids. We can have a decreasing tax scale as couples stay together longer. Allow tax relief when kids go to college. Lets have the govt. tax parents based on kids GPA's. Let's have family tax increases if a kids commits crime. If you want society to be a certain way then marriage is to indirect of a tool to get you there, you need more specific incentives.

The incentives we need can be more effective without marriage being involved.

Of course if you want a healthier, more educated population with lower crime and longer term committed relationships you could just move to New Zealand, Australia, or Northern Europe where all those things exist and marriage is at a much lower rate than in the US.

These indicators are high in these countries because the govt. legislate and incentivize them directly, not indirectly via marriage.

Edited November 8, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[sethpayne]

In a meeting with area bishops and stake presidencies a few years ago with Elder Perry and Elder Halstrom (presidency of the seventy), this very question was raised in the Q&A. Here was the answer (composite of both Perry's and Halstrom's responses), from memory:

The FP and Q12 deal with things of significant importance. *Significant* . When these 15 are united on something, that is something that needs to be taken very seriously by Church members. The question is raised as to why the Church poured such resources into California (including asking members to give of their time and means, even leaving their comfort levels), but not Iowa or Massachussetts. Why not Denmark? Etc. Only a small part of the answer is that you have to pick your battles, and California was winnable while others were not. The actual answer is that the Lord told us to move at that time in that place, and we obeyed. We expect that we will likely ultimately lose on this issue in the Supreme Court, so why do anything at all? Because the Lord told us to at that time in that place. The effects of obeying the Lord are not always immediately evident, but one immediate effect was winning significant hearts and minds by acting as we did in that time and in that place. These benefits are incalculable, even if the eventual outcome is a "loss."

I would have thought the Lord to be more politically savvy.

[rongo]

I would have thought the Lord to be more politically savvy.

"For my ways are not your ways" . . .

I'm wondering if those who oppose the Church's stance on this thread don't really have experience receiving revelation. When you know that the Lord has told you to do something, whether it's feasible, "politically savvy," popular, etc. is really beside the point. Cf. Abraham sacrificing Isaac, Nauvoo polygamy, and untold modern-day experiences of many.

What struck me about what the Brethren said (in my hearing, anyway) was that it was important to move *now* and *there*, even though all of this will ultimately not be upheld by the Supreme Court. "Political savviness" is pretty clearly *not* the objective ----- we often don't know the objective or end.

Edited November 8, 2012 by rongo

[Ahab]

Keep hunting your great white whale captain, you missed it with this one.

Says you and others who agree with your thoughts. Not the first time many people have been wrong about something.

Many of us on this thread agree with the following: Let churches that want to marry homo or hetro sexual couples (or groups for that matter) do it. That is their religious freedom. It may not however be a right for such a marriage to be legally recognized. In my opinion those who are not comfortable with this don't understand the principles of religious freedom.

By "let" you mean allow, and I know many people in many religiions agree that any form of marriage, either ssm or osm, should be allowed.

To be legally recognized that marriage ordinance, which precipitates the marriage itself, must be allowed by a government as a law, and I know many states are moving toward accepting that ordinance into their laws.

The fact that some religions allow it, and some governments allow it, doesn't mean it's right and good and allowed by God's law, though. Those who know what God has said regarding ssm know that it's an abominable evil that some members of society are allowing, even though 2 members of the same sex should not be doing that.

I recognize the fact that members of all religions can do as they please, but just because they can do as they please doesn't mean that what they are doing is good or acceptable to God. Sooner or later you'll find out what God thinks about it.

However, the legally recognized is important as it provides certain societal advantages (tax for example). The legally recognized portion, as has been very well articulated by many posters (Wade Englund for example) incentivizes certain things within society. Some claim this incentive process makes society better.

Making something "legal" only makes it something the collective society doesn't condemn. It doesn't make it something good, and ssm is still as evil as it ever was.

I think it is time to remove marriage as a legislative tool to reward and incentive. Marriage is an institution, not an outcome. If you want to incentivize outcomes then do it, marriage is not an outcome.

What do you mean it's not an outcome. It's not as if everyone is automatically married. People do something to get married, and mariage is the outcome of what they have done. In this case, it happens when 2 bodies join together as 1 body by coming together.

We can incentivize behavior and outcomes better than with marriage. Offer lower tax burdens for relationships with kids. We can have a decreasing tax scale as couples stay together longer. Allow tax relief when kids go to college. Lets have the govt. tax parents based on kids GPA's. Let's have family tax increases if a kids commits crime. If you want society to be a certain way then marriage is not going to get you there, you need more specific incentives. Not of this has anything to do with marriage.

I think I agree with you here. Some people are using other people's desire to be married as a tool to achieve something else.

Of course if you want a healthier, more educated population with lower crime and longer term committed relationships you could just move to New Zealand, Australia, or Northern Europe where all those things exist and marriage is at a much lower rate than in the US. They exist because the govt. legislate and incentivize them directly, not indirectly via marriage.

Look, the only thing I'm against as far as 2 people of the same sex getting "married" is the sex act, itself. If they want to be life long room mates or house mates and the very bestest of buddies, sharing everything they own equally and giving each other their power of attorney and even having the same last name while abstaining from sexual relations with each other and anyone else of the same sex, I'm all for that.

I just don't approve of people of the same sex coming together in sexual relations, which is what the term "marriage" was actually meant to refer to, at it's core.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Ahab

[sethpayne]

"For my ways are not your ways" . . .

I'm wondering if those who oppose the Church's stance on this thread don't really have experience receiving revelation. When you know that the Lord has told you to do something, whether it's feasible, "politically savvy," popular, etc. is really beside the point. Cf. Abraham sacrificing Isaac, Nauvoo polygamy, and untold modern-day experiences of many.

What struck me about what the Brethren said (in my hearing, anyway) was that it was important to move *now* and *there*, even though all of this will ultimately not be upheld by the Supreme Court. "Political savviness" is pretty clearly *not* the objective ----- we often don't know the objective or end.

I find this suggestion incredibly insulting. Perhaps it is precisely because we have received our own personal revelation that we support SSM initiatives.

We have always been counseled to go and seek our own answers. Did the Lord promise that we would all receive the same answer? Not that I recall.

I respect the fact that personal revelation has led you to your decisions regarding SSM. Please have the courtesy to allow others the same privilege.

Edited November 8, 2012 by sethpayne

[Ahab]

I find this suggestion incredibly insulting. Perhaps it is precisely because we have received our own personal revelation that we support SSM initiatives.

We have always been counseled to go and seek our own answers. Did the Lord promise that we would all receive the same answer? Not that I recall.

I respect the fact that personal revelation has led you to your decisions regarding SSM. Please have the courtesy to allow others the same privilege.

I agree that you have a valid point. Not receiving revelation from God on one issue doesn't mean you've never received revelation from God on another issue.

You're missing the fact that all of us will agree with each other once we all receive revelation from God on an issue, though. God doesn't contradict himself when giving revelation, to anyone, so the fact that all of us do not agree on this issue is an indication that not all of us have received revelation from God on this issue.

Has God told you how to get more revelation from him when you want to know what he thinks on any issue? If he has then you can ask him about this issue and find out what he has to say about it. Just don't be surprised if we all don't take your word for what you say is revelation from God.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Ahab

[RobertAC]

. . . most honest opponents of SSM (and I have a number in my family) no longer claim causation. Rather, they view both the decline in heterosexual marriage and the movement for SSM as symptoms of the same malady. Kind of like saying "the reason it is snowing is not because the leaves fell off the trees; rather both the snow and the leaves falling off are due to the change in temperature".

In other words, marriage is yet another victim of global warming.

Just kidding! LOL!!!!

[TAO]

I would have thought the Lord to be more politically savvy.

The Lord is more politically savy than all of us; he place it on a whole 'nother level.

[TAO]

When do we get the bit of good reasoning?

That was good reasoning. Allowing SSM (causing a growth in SSM) will ultimately cause less traditional mairrages (because some people can do either, and there would be less of them choosing traditional mairrage).