Behind The Movement For Ssm - Is Acceptance Inevitable?

[Vookman]

Ssm is an institution which will eventually be accepted by society and nearly totally unused by the target audience.

Average Same sex couples have eight extra-couple partners per year. Twenty-eight percent of gay men have over 1,000 sexual partners in their lifetime, with the average gay man having over 150, compared to straight men averaging 8 or fewer. Less than 5% of gay couples survive to twenty years or longer. Only 4.5% of gay couples report being exclusively coupled during their relationship, compared to 80 for heterosexual couples. Domestic violence is twice as likely in Ssm as in traditional relationships.

In other words, marriage is a rational commitment between people, and so the long term use of Ssm by the target audience will be extraordinarily small. In European countries where Ssm is permitted and has been for years, the above statistics track fairly closely. Long term coupling in Ssm occurs at less than 10% of the rate of heterosexual couples.

The problem in my mind is not Ssm, per se, it is the societal blind eye to the impact it has on children forced into such relationships. In a normal adoption situation the stability of the couple is a primary concern for evaluation of fitness, along with the suitable nurturing nature of the environment for the child. By definition, Ssm requires severing at least one biological parental relationship for the child and placing them in an environment with a high risk of long term emotional damage, including sexual attraction confusion.

I am fine with Ssm from a contractual institutional perspective, as I think it will largely be unused. It is what the impact of such an institution has on children which I feel requires the issue of children in Ssm to be addressed separately from Ssm proper.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Vookman

[california boy]

While Christ may not have explicitly discussed anything about homosexual “marriage”, He did discuss Marriage and He made His views on what constituted a God sanctioned Marriage very clear. Christ discussed Marriage exclusively in terms of male and female. Homosexual “marriage” is conspicuous by its absence from Christ’s discussion of Marriage as is any and all other possible forms of "marriage" that can be imagined up in the minds of human beings. That much is clear from the scriptures and that much has been revealed to man by God.

While homosexual “marriage” is not explicitly condemned by the scriptures, neither is any other form of "marriage", no matter how perverse or abominable. Once you open the door to the position that because Christ never explicitly discussed it, then on the basis of consistency of reason, you must allow for every other possible form and variation of marriage. I do not want to start describing all the possible forms of abomination and perversion that could be touted as a "marriage", but if you want to support and believe that Christ sanctions homosexual "marriage" on the terms of no explicit condemnation, then you must support and believe Christ sanctions every other possible form. Do you support all forms of "marriage" on the terms that you wish to justify homosexual "marriage" with?

You may want to reread my post. What I said is that the scriptures are not clear on gay marriage as you claimed they are. You have not provided anything that does show the scriptures are against gay marriage. And that was the point of my post.

How important was it to Christ to condemn homosexuals? Zip. Nada. Nothing. Did Christ forbid gay couples from marrying? Nope. You are trying to prove something using the scriptures that are just not found in the scriptures. I repeat. There is no mention of ssm in the scriptures. The condemnation of homosexuality is outside the bonds of matrimony. There has been NO revelation or word from God on SSM. Period. I hope I am clear enough this time around. If you think that God has condemned ssm in the scriptures, then simply show me where. Don't bring up irrelevant arguments. They don't support your position. And either do the scriptures.

[california boy]

The whole issue of gods perspective is a red herring. That only matters inside religion. Some religions disagree that god cares at all about homosexuality, some even claim Christ was gay.

Obviously for almost all Mormons homosexuality is a sin. So is adultery and sex of any kind out of wedlock. In fact, there is an enormous list of sins.

That is our religious right to think that way, just as it is the right o other religious groups to disagree if the choose.

This debate is about whether govt. should offer preferential treatment to homosexuals who marry in a like manner to what they currently offer heterosexuals. It is about effective govt. not god.

I think that the govt. should stop using marriage as a reason to preference citizens, This is separate to my beliefs about marriage as a religious institution.

I absolutely agree with your post. I have NO problem with the Mormon church choosing to not participate or support SSM. I have no problem with the church condemning homosexuality. It is their right to do so. But that right is not based on scripture nor revelation. It is based on policy.

I think your views on this matter is certainly a growing belief among Latter-day Saints. And I think this kind of thinking will only grow as ssm becomes the law of the land. It is a government policy not a religious policy that is being changed.

[Closet Doubter]

. . . . I wasn't claiming to know why the church leadership instructed the members to support Prop 8. You did. . . . . . have you asked the Lord why he would give this test in one place and not all places?

Why are people claiming that the Lord commanded us, as a test, to give hundreds of thousands of dollars in a wasteful effort to overturn SSM? Nobody on this board knows that this was a test from the Lord. You just assume this because it is the only thing that makes sense to you when you realize it was a wasted effort. There is a better chance that our leaders made a mistake and were not doing what the Lord commanded but were instead following their own emotions and prejudices.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I absolutely agree with your post. I have NO problem with the Mormon church choosing to not participate or support SSM. I have no problem with the church condemning homosexuality. It is their right to do so. But that right is not based on scripture nor revelation. It is based on policy.

I think your views on this matter is certainly a growing belief among Latter-day Saints. And I think this kind of thinking will only grow as ssm becomes the law of the land. It is a government policy not a religious policy that is being changed.

I am sorry but it. The Family Proclimation to the world is essentially scripture. Is it cannonized? Nope. Is it scripture? Yeah. It looks like your are playing a game of semantics.

[Closet Doubter]

"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.

You may be right that this was a test to see if the members know how to receive their own revelation.

The Lord through his prophet and apostles told us to do something knowing that members who know how to pray and receive their own revelation regarding what we were told would be inspired NOT to folllow what the leaders were advocating this time. Those that prayed and received confirmation that we were being misled would make the correct decision in not following the misguided counsel and those that blindly followed would lose thousands of dollars and look foolish.

[wenglund]

Let me know your thoughts as you consider the subject... I am still on the fence about the whole thing, though my tendency is to think that marriage now needs to play a larger role as a religious institution and take a back seat as a tool of govt. incentive....

The more I think about it the more I am struck by the thought that 30 to 40 years ago this would have been a relative non-issue. The suggestion of getting the government out of the business of marriage would hardly registered a blip on the public policy radar, and may well have raised the question of why try and fix what isn't broken? It is only since gay advocates have attempted to inanely shoehorn their way in and mangle the legal definition of marriage that we have any reason to consider it. As such, what we should really be asking ourselves is, why are we letting gay advocates mar or crack or break what isn't broken? The problem hasn't been governments involvement in marriage, but rather the asinine social experimenting on fundamental institutions.

...I don't think marriage as the goal is acceptable when countries that have much lower rates of marriage are showing to have less of social ills than the US; ills that would likely be the social concerns that incentivizing marriage is meant to resolve.

This is debatable, and perhaps you should start this debate on another thread where it isn't somewhat tangential.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I say abandon the marriage ship as a tool of govt. incentive and let it develop purely as an important religious covenant.

This sounds good superficially and in theory, but I think it may be problematic in practice if for no other reason than there are aspects of marriage and family the disputes over which unavoidably impact the government, such as adjudicating familial property and inheritance issues (which things are, in part, why governments began regulating marriages), not to mention that the non-religious are a growing segment of society, and if marriage is left to religion, then wouldn't that somewhat bar them from marriage?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[california boy]

I am sorry but it. The Family Proclimation to the world is essentially scripture. Is it cannonized? Nope. Is it scripture? Yeah. It looks like your are playing a game of semantics.

Sorry but it is you that is playing games not me. The Family Proclamation has NEVER been represented as being scripture. It is a proclamation of policy. It is nothing else. If it was received by revelation directly from God then the prophet and quorum would be derelict of their duty as representatives of Christ to not declare it as such. They have not. The proclamation is NOT revelation or doctrine. It is policy. No semantics on my part. If you have some proof of the proclamation being scripture/ or received by revelation, please bring it forward. If it is scripture, the church will ask members to paste it into their D&C as they have in the past when new scriptures were added. New copies of the D&C will have the proclamation included as a new section. This is the way the church has added new scripture in the past. None of that has happened as far as I am aware.

[california boy]

The more I think about it the more I am struck by the thought that 30 to 40 years ago this would have been a relative non-issue. The suggestion of getting the government out of the business of marriage would hardly registered a blip on the public policy radar, and may well have raised the question of why try and fix what isn't broken? It is only since gay advocates have attempted to inanely shoehorn their way in and mangle the legal definition of marriage that we have any reason to consider it. As such, what we should really be asking ourselves is, why are we letting gay advocates mar or crack or break what isn't broken? The problem hasn't been governments involvement in marriage, but rather the asinine social experimenting on fundamental institutions.

This is debatable, and perhaps you should start this debate on another thread where it isn't somewhat tangential.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The more I think about it the more I am struck by the thought that 30 to 40 years ago equality for blacks would have been a relative non-issue. The suggestion of getting the government out of the business of discriminating against the black population would hardly registered a blip on the public policy radar, and may well have raised the question of why try and fix what isn't broken? Why did it take until the 1960's for blacks to gain equality in this country? Because the black population finally said, we had enough. We want to be treated equally in America.

The reason why gay marriage is happening is because they, like the black population are fighting for that their rights. The majority in this country realize that this injustice has to be fixed. Some like you advocate that inequality continue. Fortunately you and those that think like you are diminishing in size even amongst the members of the church.

[fatherofone]

Do you guys think then that same sex marriages will be done in the temple at some point, just like eventually the black men got the priesthood eventually?

[wenglund]

By far, the biggest reason why this country is moving so quickly and strongly towards the acceptance of gay marriage is because there seems to be no good argument against its acceptance.

Nonsense. There are compelling arguments, some of which have been used to pass marriage defense legislation as well as to uphold that legislation in court. Instead, the reason for the rise in favor towards SSM is because people haven't educated themselves about, or fail to fully or correctly understand those compelling arguments (as evinced by the many discussions on this board and elsewhere on the net), but have been swept up in the mindless emotions of popular culture.

Making a statement like ssm is causing or will cause less heterosexual marriages is just unfounded. While there are countries that allow ssm whose overall marriage rate is declining, there are also plenty of countries where ssm is not yet legal, yet their marriage rates are also declining.

This, in principal and "logic," is like suggesting that dieting doesn't cause a loss of weight because there are some people who diet and don't lose weight and other people who lose weight without dieting.

No one has ever shown a relationship between legalization of ssm and the decline heterosexuals choosing to marry. Most objective people have identified the change in economics as being the number one reason for the decline of heterosexual marriages. When the woman can support herself, she is less likely to jump into a marriage relationship. That statistic is consistent all over the world. Countries where women do not have economic independence consistently have a higher rate of marriage. So if you want to turn back time where more heterosexuals got married, you should be passing laws preventing women from working. Good luck with that.

Which explains why in Europe marital rates are still in decline during their lengthy economic downturn. It also explains why marital rates are in decline in the U.S. during our economic turmoil. Not!

I have yet to meet a heterosexual couple that has said, we would get married, but now that gays can marry what is the point?

I haven't either. But, then, I wouldn't necessarily expect it to happen since this is not exactly what I have argued. At best I am suggesting that SSM is a contributing factor to the decline in meaning and significance and value of marriage and thus a contributing factor in the decline of marriage.

More importantly, I did not use this causal relationship as an argument against SSM, but rather as a way of alerting and preparing people for plausible consequences of their decisions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cinepro]

Do you guys think then that same sex marriages will be done in the temple at some point, just like eventually the black men got the priesthood eventually?

Not in a million years.

Edited November 9, 2012 by cinepro

[wenglund]

The more I think about it the more I am struck by the thought that 30 to 40 years ago equality for blacks would have been a relative non-issue. The suggestion of getting the government out of the business of discriminating against the black population would hardly registered a blip on the public policy radar, and may well have raised the question of why try and fix what isn't broken? Why did it take until the 1960's for blacks to gain equality in this country? Because the black population finally said, we had enough. We want to be treated equally in America.

The reason why gay marriage is happening is because they, like the black population are fighting for that their rights. The majority in this country realize that this injustice has to be fixed. Some like you advocate that inequality continue. Fortunately you and those that think like you are diminishing in size even amongst the members of the church.

Aside from the patently inane and offensive comparison between racial discrimination and sexual orientation or redefining the legal definition of marriage, let alone the point of government involvement I was speaking to, gay people have always had the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. But, they don't want equal rights as heterosexuals. They want to invent a new right--a right to marry someone of the same sex, and right that is unavoidably unequal with the current right.

This is quite the opposite from what blacks were advocating during the civil rights movement. They wanted the same rights as whites. They wanted to eat in the same cafeterias, watch movies in the same part of the theaters, live in the same neighborhoods, ride in the same sections of the bus, attend the same schools, work at the same jobs, be able to vote the same, and influence society the same, and be elected to the same offices, etc., just the same as whites. They weren't looking for something different that they confusedly called the same or equal.

In short, blacks were looking for true equality and to make their skin color a non-issue. Whereas, with SSM, gay advocates are unavoidably creating a new and unequal right and making their sexual orientation THE issue--hence the SS before the M in SSM.

For their to be an accurate comparison between discrimination against blacks in the workplace etc. and discrimination against homosexuals in marriage, then homosexuals would need to have been denied the civil right to marry someone of the opposite sex. They haven't.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 9, 2012 by wenglund

[TAO]

I have yet to meet a heterosexual couple that has said, we would get married, but now that gays can marry what is the point? Anyone who chooses not to get married because someone else is allowed to marry should not be marrying anyway. When interracial couples were allowed to legally marry, did people say "Now that interracial couples can marry, I am not going to? This whole house of cards just doesn't stand up to logic or fact.

Of course. That wasn't my point. My point was that some people are very capable of being in either scenario. They are called bisexuals, no? So, if gay mairrage is legalized, don't you reckon that there would be fewer heterosexuals mairrages as a result?

Understand; I'm not trying to say the decline in mairrage is caused by gay mairrage (though it could be; that wasn't the point of my post). I was just defending Ahab's statement that gay mairrage will cause less heterosexual ones, which, as you can see, is a decently logical conlclusion.

The bottom line is that there has been absolutely no proven relationship between ssm and couples choosing to not marry. Those that use this argument really have no supported argument at all. Hence, the further march towards equal rights for gays in this country.

The analogy would be the market. When there is competing products, both get less service.

Edited November 9, 2012 by TAO

[TAO]

While the "15" came out supporting prop 8, none have ever claimed a revelation from God. There is a big difference between a revelation from God and the brotheren agreeing on a course of action. One is doctrine, the other is policy. There are many policies that the church has undertaken that have gone by the wayside. The truth is there has never been a revelation about same sex marriage. Until there is, it is just church policy. HUGE DIFFERENCE.

Did you read the quotation that was stated earlier in the thread? An apostle said that God told them to act now. Isn't that revelation?

Edited November 9, 2012 by TAO

[TAO]

The Family Proclamation has NEVER been represented as being scripture. It is a proclamation of policy. It is nothing else. If it was received by revelation directly from God then the prophet and quorum would be derelict of their duty as representatives of Christ to not declare it as such. They have not.

Here's an article on it. This was the critical statment by President Packer:

Aside from these comments, President Packer has also commented directly on "that great document," known as the family proclamation.8 He clearly stated that "the Lord has spoken to His servants, and they have framed "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." After quoting a few paragraphs from its contents, he stated that "these lines taken from "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," to me have taken on the stature of scripture."9 Based on these comments it is apparent that President Packer believes the proclamation to be an inspired document. The extent of revelation received in connection with the formulation of the revelation hasn't been detailed, but the degree with which the proclamation has been extolled by General Authorities provides some assurance regarding its importance.

[Duncan]

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2011/05/rethinking-the-proclamation/

some good discussion on the Proclamation

[Ahab]

I have prayed on pondered on the subject extensively and repeatedly received experiences that show prop 8 was not appropriate, FOR ME.

We can only ever receive revelation for ourselves, not the church. It is entirely possible that the churches involvement in prop 8 was an inspired decision and that my decision to be against prop 8 is also inspired. I see no conflict. The prophet/s (15 as you like to say) receive revelation for guiding the institution. They don't receive specific revelation for each and every specific member of the church.

As a result, I support the churches right and decision to involve themselves the way they did. I also have a clear conscience that I am just peachy with god as i voice opposition to their involvement. Can we both be inspired by revelation from God. Yes!!!

No!!! If any two people have conflicting answers they believe are from God, on the same issue and in the same circumstances, then the fact that the answers conflict with each other show that one person has received revelation from God and the other person hasn't, although the one who hasn't may believe he actually has. To think otherwise would be to think God flip flops depending on who he's answering, but God doesn't flip flop like some other people. In different circumstances and on other issues he can give different answers, but none of his answers ever conflict with his answers on certain issues under those same circumstances. Edited November 9, 2012 by Ahab

[Bikeemikey]

No!!! If any two people have conflicting answers they believe are from God, on the same issue and in the same circumstances, then the fact that the answers conflict with each other show that one person has received revelation from God and the other person hasn't, although the one who hasn't may believe he actually has. To think otherwise would be to think God flip flops depending on who he's answering, but God doesn't flip flop like some other people. In different circumstances and on other issues he can give different answers, but none of his answers ever conflict with his answers on certain issues under those same circumstances.

There are no "same circumstances". To be the same circumstance they would have to be the same person... as it is not possible for two people to be one person your whole argument falls to bits.

Try showing a definitive definition of "same circumstance" and I will see you at the other end of the rabbit hole in wonderland... you just can't do it with out opening a pandora's boax of problems.

If revelation is fundamentally personal, and God takes into account the needs and interests of the individual and their path and growth then what you are saying makes no sense.

If revelation only reveals preexisting facts about the universe with no recognition of personal context and growth then perhaps you are right.

I believe in a personal God who provides personal revelation...

Edited November 9, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[sethpayne]

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.

I understand your PoV but could not disagree more. If you look at Church history you see plenty of examples where top leaders received "competing" inspiration. The key is they came together (mostly) and either found common ground or didn't move forward.

By stating that God is constrained to give the "same answer" to every individual when they ask the same question, aren't we denying God's omnipotence and omniscience? Isn't it possible that God would direct one individual one way and another individual another way to serve His divine purposes?

It is my personal belief that God *may* send His Children in different directions from time to time. It forces us to learn compassion and charity.

[Closet Doubter]

Do you guys think then that same sex marriages will be done in the temple at some point, just like eventually the black men got the priesthood eventually?

Absolutely NOT. This was one of the fear lies that was being propogated during the runup to the Prop 8 election, that if prop 8 didn't pass we would eventually be required to perform SSM weddings in the temple. The government can't required us to allow smokers to be married in the temple, they can't require us to wed mormons to non-mormons in the temple, and they won't be able to compel us to wed same sex couples in the temple. Accepting same sex marriage is closer to recognizing that a smoker is probably still a very good person.

[Nathair/|\]

I understand your PoV but could not disagree more. If you look at Church history you see plenty of examples where top leaders received "competing" inspiration. The key is they came together (mostly) and either found common ground or didn't move forward.

By stating that God is constrained to give the "same answer" to every individual when they ask the same question, aren't we denying God's omnipotence and omniscience? Isn't it possible that God would direct one individual one way and another individual another way to serve His divine purposes?

It is my personal belief that God *may* send His Children in different directions from time to time. It forces us to learn compassion and charity.

Dr. Peterson quotes a passage from the Quran that I love very much to the effect that God gave us different paths so we would compete to the best at doing good works.

[Walden]

No!!! If any two people have conflicting answers they believe are from God, on the same issue and in the same circumstances, then the fact that the answers conflict with each other show that one person has received revelation from God and the other person hasn't, although the one who hasn't may believe he actually has. To think otherwise would be to think God flip flops depending on who he's answering, but God doesn't flip flop like some other people. In different circumstances and on other issues he can give different answers, but none of his answers ever conflict with his answers on certain issues under those same circumstances.

Then what is the purpose of "personal revelation" at all? If one cannot rely on "personal revelation", as is evidenced when you state that "one person has received revelation from God and the other person hasn't, although the one who hasn't may believe he actually has", then what purpose does personal revelation serve, if it cannot be relied upon (in your example, the person truly believes that they have received personal revealtion, when in fact they haven't).

Why would apostles ask members to seek personal revelation if that revelation may conflict with the views and statements and even beliefs of the apostles themselves, who receive revelation for the entire church? What then is the purpose if one must already know that their personal revelation must align with the revelation received by the apostles, or it is false revelation? Why not just do/believe/act, etc exactly as the apostles command, and just skip the seeking of personal revelation, since that revelation must align with their revelation in order to be considered genuine?

[Duncan]

Then what is the purpose of "personal revelation" at all? If one cannot rely on "personal revelation", as is evidenced when you state that "one person has received revelation from God and the other person hasn't, although the one who hasn't may believe he actually has", then what purpose does personal revelation serve, if it cannot be relied upon (in your example, the person truly believes that they have received personal revealtion, when in fact they haven't).

Why would apostles ask members to seek personal revelation if that revelation may conflict with the views and statements and even beliefs of the apostles themselves, who receive revelation for the entire church? What then is the purpose if one must already know that their personal revelation must align with the revelation received by the apostles, or it is false revelation? Why not just do/believe/act, etc exactly as the apostles command, and just skip the seeking of personal revelation, since that revelation must align with their revelation in order to be considered genuine?

I brought this up to my stake president, Bishop and the Mission President in regards to missionary work and I didn't receive an answer i.e I wish I knew too!