S.S.M. And L.U.N.C.

[Calm]

No fault divorce applies only in cases where both parties agree to it.

I thought that was the whole point of no fault divorce, that both parties did not have to agree to it in order for them to get a divorce....thus one partner could not by refusing hold the other partner to a marriage they desired to be out of.

[Thinking]

SSM is an attempt to finally redefine marriage so that total fidelity and monogamy is deemed unnecessary.

Please explain how SSM makes total fidelity (faithfulness to your spouse) and monogamy (one spouse) unnecessary.

[Calm]

Please explain how SSM makes total fidelity (faithfulness to your spouse) and monogamy (one spouse) unnecessary.

I believe the expectation is that the culture that currently goes along with homosexual behaviour will continue to be part of homosexual relationships even if the label of the relationship is changed. Thus if homosexual relationships are currently statistically nonmonogamous or lacking in sexual fidelity, they will continue to be that way.

I think there is evidence with heterosexual behaviour that this is consistent with human behaviour. Marriages with partners who participated in premarital sex, even with each other, are less likely to survive as a marriage. One does not change overnight just because one has been married.

[california boy]

"A 2010 study from England entitled, 'Gay Monogamy: I Love You But I Can't Have Sex With Only You', found that none of the gay couples in the study defined monogamy as sexual exclusivity. In fact, they all engaged in sex with outside partners, even though they professed to be in a monogamous relationship."(see HERE)

Compare this to 2-4% among heterosexual couples. (See HERE)

It is not even close.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If what you are saying is true, that 2-4% straight couples have open marriages, then wouldn't 100% of every gay person have to first marry and then all have an open relationship to have the same impact on society as this 2-4% of the straight couples? All statistics seem to agree that the gay percentage of the population is around 3-5%. You have also stated that less than 10% of the gay population even chooses to marry. So that would mean that only .3% of the total population who are gay and married assuming they ALL want an open marriage. Now you also have to assume that this ,3% of the population would be enough to convince straight couples that an open marriage would be something they would want to participate in as well. I just love slippery slope arguments. They are so accurate in predicting the future.

Wade, I know that you are completely obsessed with gay marriage and you seem to have the compelling need to start endless threads about this subject, but perhaps the fact that you are not married at all completely distorts how you think a marriage operates. I seriously doubt that many guys that want to marry are going to be able to go to their perspective wives and say, "all the gays get to have an open relationship, so I want one as well. Will you marry me?"

[pmccombs1]

Sound interesting?

You might enjoy Robin Phillips' blog. He's not much of an admirer of Mormonism, but the guy is extremely well-read and has a lot of intelligent arguments regarding the SSM debate. Perhaps you are already familiar with his writings?

[jwhitlock]

I thought that was the whole point of no fault divorce, that both parties did not have to agree to it in order for them to get a divorce....thus one partner could not by refusing hold the other partner to a marriage they desired to be out of.

You're correct, I misspoke on that. No fault provides a way for either party to get out of a marriage without having to prove wrongdoing.

However, no fault doesn't replace the ability to claim wrongdoing (such as adultery) as the basis for divorce. A spouse can still do so, and there are legal advantages to doing so if wrongdoing can be proven (alimony, increased asset allocation, etc.). My original point was that if sexual fidelity is not considered part of the commitment when it comes to SSM, that same legal precedent has a good chance of flowing over to all marriage contracts by default - which would eliminate legal recourse for wrongdoing as a basis for divorce when it comes to adultery.

[USU78]

No fault divorce applies only in cases where both parties agree to it.

Not the case. It is precisely the "nofault" aspect of modern divorce law that allows one party to the marriage contract to nullify it over the objections of the other party.

Never fear, though . . . in Utah the judge usually asks what "irreconcilable differences" means to the Petitioner. Usually out of the hearing of the other side . . . either in person or via affidavit that isn't usually shared.

[jwhitlock]

Please explain how SSM makes total fidelity (faithfulness to your spouse) and monogamy (one spouse) unnecessary.

Per the articles I've provided, SSM presupposes that sexual fidelity in marriage is optional, and hence unnecessary. As Wade has noted, SSM introduces what is basically a redefinition of what commitment in marriage really means. If sexual fidelity is optional, it can be considered unnecessary.

The concept that sexual fidelity in marriage is optional is contrary to the principles of the restored gospel. SSM, since it embraces the concept that sexual fidelity is optional, is contrary to the principles of the restored gospel.

[jwhitlock]

Not the case. It is precisely the "nofault" aspect of modern divorce law that allows one party to the marriage contract to nullify it over the objections of the other party.

Never fear, though . . . in Utah the judge usually asks what "irreconcilable differences" means to the Petitioner. Usually out of the hearing of the other side . . . either in person or via affidavit that isn't usually shared.

Correct - see my post above yours for a further explanation.

[USU78]

Correct - see my post above yours for a further explanation.

Thankee kindly, jw. That's what I get for posting before I read the whole thread.

[jwhitlock]

I believe the expectation is that the culture that currently goes along with homosexual behaviour will continue to be part of homosexual relationships even if the label of the relationship is changed. Thus if homosexual relationships are currently statistically nonmonogamous or lacking in sexual fidelity, they will continue to be that way.

I think there is evidence with heterosexual behaviour that this is consistent with human behaviour. Marriages with partners who participated in premarital sex, even with each other, are less likely to survive as a marriage. One does not change overnight just because one has been married.

One of the difficulties I've found in researching monogamy in gay relationships is how loosely the word "monogamous" is used by those in such relationships. In the NY Times article I linked to, there was a study referenced concerning monogamy in gay relationships that indicated 58% (IIRC) of the respondents considered themselves as monogamous. The rest were either in open or "monogamish" relationships. However, in other blogs and articles I've read where gays discuss what monogamy really means, it becomes clear that in gay relationships, at least, the term does not include total sexual fidelity. It appears to be rather difficult to find a gay couple with a long term, truly monogamous (in all aspects) relationship if any sort. While I will not go so far as to say they don't exist, from what I see, such relationships appear to be rare.

You make an interesting point when you say that change (ie, full mongamy) does not simply come as a result of getting married. That's very true.

[rockpond]

Interesting thread.

I like that Wade dismissed a CBO study with just a couple paragraphs of his "logic". Well done.

I've also learned that there are some gays who don't view sexual fidelity the same as some heterosexuals.

Personally, it doesn't surprise me that sexual attitudes among homosexuals are different than those among heterosexuals. I still don't see it as a reason to deny legal marriage to those who DO want a committed, monogamous, long-term relationship.

And, I see no better way to encourage monogamy among the gay population than to give them full access to marriage.

But, by all means, continue the discussion of SSM and LUNC. I'll try not to interfere. Just remember that there is also a LUPC.

Good day.

[wenglund]

If what you are saying is true, that 2-4% straight couples have open marriages, then wouldn't 100% of every gay person have to first marry and then all have an open relationship to have the same impact on society as this 2-4% of the straight couples?

No. Why? Because the 2-4% of straight couples aren't parading their relationships all over the media and pop culture and legally attempting to change the definition of marriage. They aren't the subject of numerous threads.

All statistics seem to agree that the gay percentage of the population is around 3-5%. You have also stated that less than 10% of the gay population even chooses to marry. So that would mean that only .3% of the total population who are gay and married assuming they ALL want an open marriage. Now you also have to assume that this ,3% of the population would be enough to convince straight couples that an open marriage would be something they would want to participate in as well. I just love slippery slope arguments. They are so accurate in predicting the future.

As much as you claim to love so-called slippery slope arguments (even those that aren't), you clearly failed to grasp my point. This isn't about a 1 to 1 relationship and how individual couples may change the meaning of "marriage," but rather how active public movements may change the culture and thus the meaning of marriage. Wake up!

Also, this isn't just about either/or, but the cumulative effect. Things are bad enough for marriage and the family as it is with alternative thinking heterosexuals that it doesn't make sense to infuse even more radically thinking homosexuals into the marriage mix, not to mention there overt efforts to fundamentally changing the legal definition of marriage.

Wade, I know that you are completely obsessed with gay marriage and you seem to have the compelling need to start endless threads about this subject, but perhaps the fact that you are not married at all completely distorts how you think a marriage operates.

My supposed motives for starting these threads are beside the point. Please try and stay on topic, even if what is being said completely undermines your position.

I seriously doubt that many guys that want to marry are going to be able to go to their perspective wives and say, "all the gays get to have an open relationship, so I want one as well. Will you marry me?"

I seriously doubt that as well. But, that is not what is being suggested. Feel free to post something that isn't tangential and filled with straw.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

You might enjoy Robin Phillips' blog. He's not much of an admirer of Mormonism, but the guy is extremely well-read and has a lot of intelligent arguments regarding the SSM debate. Perhaps you are already familiar with his writings?

Sorry, the name doesn't ring a bell. Maybe I will check out his blog when I get the time.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Lest anyone think that I am alone in challenging (not to be confused with "dismissing") the 2004 CBO analysis, so does the Williams Institute, a favorite go-to organization for SSM activists. (see HERE)

In addition to the rational argument I presented, the reason certain SSM activists may wish to challenge or down-play the 2004 CBO analysis is because it is rather difficult to logically argue that same-sex couples are being denied federal benefits if it turns out that same-sex couples, on balance, would end up paying more into the federal system than they would receiving in benefits through legalizing SSM.

But, if some SSM supporters here wish to argue in favor of the CBO analysis, I would be pleased to hear it, particularly since it would work to my favor.

Also, it doesn't surprise me that those who may be in favor of fundamentally altering the legal definition of "marriage" wouldn't blink an eye, or be the least bit concerned, at the suggestion of fundamentally changing the societal definition of "monogomy" and "fidelity."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[go_utes01]

Personally, it doesn't surprise me that sexual attitudes among homosexuals are different than those among heterosexuals. I still don't see it as a reason to deny legal marriage to those who DO want a committed, monogamous, long-term relationship.

Unless I misunderstood many of the posts in this thread, in this thread people are arguing that many people who want to engage in SSM are not looking for a monogamous relationship though. That seems to be a major point of those arguing against legalizing SSM. Are you advocating monogamy as a legal requirement for marriage - either SS or OS varieties? Thanks.

[rockpond]

Unless I misunderstood many of the posts in this thread, in this thread people are arguing that many people who want to engage in SSM are not looking for a monogamous relationship though. That seems to be a major point of those arguing against legalizing SSM. Are you advocating monogamy as a legal requirement for marriage - either SS or OS varieties? Thanks.

I'm not sure that the data presented in this thread has shown that "many" people who want to engage in SSM are not looking for monogamy. Certainly some are. But, I suppose "many" is a fairly loose term.

There are also some people who wish to engage in OSM who are also not interested in monogamy.

Personally, I advocate for monogamy as a part of marriage. I think that's a critical piece. But I don't know how we make it a legal requirement. Couples (both straight & gay) participate in various types of open relationships. Morally, I have problems with that and certainly don't advocate for it.

[jwhitlock]

I'm not sure that the data presented in this thread has shown that "many" people who want to engage in SSM are not looking for monogamy. Certainly some are. But, I suppose "many" is a fairly loose term.

There is a significant amount of evidence out there that full fidelity and monogamy are to be optional when it comes to SSM. It's not only "many", but a significant majority who want full monogamy to be optional. From the articles we've quoted, they also feel that marriage in general is in need of an overhaul, and "openness" is just the ticket. Google it and read up on it. It's a clear trend.

On the other hand, if you feel that SSM will promote full sexual fidelity and monogamy on a long term basis (and we're not talking about serial monogamy here), and that most gays who want SSM also want those traits in marriage, you should be able to find some articles or references to make that point. Feel free to submit them on this thread. However, please also be aware that just because such a reference mentions monogamy, don't think that they're necessarily talking about full monogamy. It appears clear that most gays are adamant that full fidelity is NOT to be part of the definition of monogamy, as they use the word. Anything you link to should be specific about full sexual fidelity and monogamy with the goal of being that way with one partner for life.

It will be interesting to see what you find.

[wenglund]

Depending on the study, If 50% or 70% or even 100% of homosexual respondents doesn't qualify as "many" in the minds of certain people, then perhaps the word "many" has also been redefined in their minds, along with words like "marriage" and "monogamy" and "fidelity," to mean something fundamentally different than what it traditionally has meant. Par for the course.

Be that as it may, according to the previously cited studies, most homosexual understand the word "monogamy" to refer strictly to emotional attachments, and not to sexual behavior. In their minds, they can have multiple sexual partners, but as long as they are emotionally attached to one person, they consider themselves monogamous.

Not only do they think differently about this than most heterosexuals, but as the linked articles indicate, they also believe that their view of "monogamy" is superior and preferred to the traditional view. They believe that their relationships are stronger and last longer because of their idiosyncratic view of "monogamy." So convinced are they, that they propose to evangelize heterosexuals using SSM as the means to accomplish that objective.

This isn't a recent phenomena where a couple of egg-head gay activist suddenly supposed they had a good thing going and that they would not only fundamentally change the definition of marriage to include homosexuals, but they would alter the fundamental purpose of marriage as well.

No, this end game was telegraphed back in the 70's and 80's (see HERE--particularly the section on "Compulsive Monogamy" and HERE)

The sad thing is, good and decent people have been duped into assuming that homosexuals envy heterosexual marriage, and wish to be married just like heterosexuals, and this is why they seek for SSM, and that it would be better for one and all to give them SSM. Whereas the truth is that most homosexuals loath the traditional family structure, and they have long and carefully sought to destroy it.

In other words, good and decent people have naively supposed that their support forSSM will ultimately strengthen the fundamental structure of society, but in reality they have unwittingly accented to the destruction of the traditional family--and for the life of them, they can't see it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jwhitlock]

Taking this one step further, there is at least one gay activist who admits that the purpose of SSM is to "destroy marriage." (See HERE)

Thanks for this link. I'd known that the more radical LGBT activists had this as part of their agenda, but hadn't run across any direct quotes in a while.

So, don't take it from me. The folks on your side are pretty clear about how SSM is intended to affect traditional marriage--

One of the points made in the articles is that gay SSM proponents tend to keep their desire to redefine marriage in general - to include openness - out of the discussion of SSM. They do realize that most Americans who support SSM do so because they don't know that it is intended to be very different from the marriage commitments they are familiar with. I think if more people were aware of redefinition of marriage (and the gutting of it) that SSM will bring, they would be more hesitant to think that SSM is "ok".

The implications of the changes SSM will probably bring if it becomes the law of the land are staggering. Diluting the concept of commitment in marriage tears at the very fabric of society and relationships in general, pushing us to a more self-centered way of thinking. Not a good thing.

[jwhitlock]

No, this end game was telegraphed back in the 70's and 80's (see HERE--particularly the section on "Compulsive Monogamy" and HERE)

Pretty sobering stuff. For instance, the demand to repeal all laws related to age of sexual consent.

As an aside, I see that you're being demonized on this thread for bringing this up. That's straight out of their playbook for implementing their agenda.

[rockpond]

There is a significant amount of evidence out there that full fidelity and monogamy are to be optional when it comes to SSM. It's not only "many", but a significant majority who want full monogamy to be optional. From the articles we've quoted, they also feel that marriage in general is in need of an overhaul, and "openness" is just the ticket. Google it and read up on it. It's a clear trend.

On the other hand, if you feel that SSM will promote full sexual fidelity and monogamy on a long term basis (and we're not talking about serial monogamy here), and that most gays who want SSM also want those traits in marriage, you should be able to find some articles or references to make that point. Feel free to submit them on this thread. However, please also be aware that just because such a reference mentions monogamy, don't think that they're necessarily talking about full monogamy. It appears clear that most gays are adamant that full fidelity is NOT to be part of the definition of monogamy, as they use the word. Anything you link to should be specific about full sexual fidelity and monogamy with the goal of being that way with one partner for life.

It will be interesting to see what you find.

CFR that a significant majority of those wanting SSM want full monogamy to be optional.

And CFR that "most gays are adamant that full fidelity is NOT to be part of the definition of monogamy".

[jwhitlock]

CFR that a significant majority of those wanting SSM want full monogamy to be optional.

And CFR that "most gays are adamant that full fidelity is NOT to be part of the definition of monogamy".

The articles have been provided. They clearly support what I have said, whether you want to accept it or not.

[rockpond]

The articles have been provided. They clearly support what I have said, whether you want to accept it or not.

The articles provided show stats for homosexuals but they do not identify data for homosexuals desiring to enter marriages.

[wenglund]

The articles have been provided. They clearly support what I have said, whether you want to accept it or not.

Be forewarned that rockpond has a habit of tossing out CFRs, often for things that weren't said, and on the rare occasion where he gets it right, and even though the evidence will be shown over and over and over again to him every which way from Sunday with all the dots connected multiple times, he will invariably deny that the evidence has been presented. It's his way of making a pretense at having a serious and open discussion, while really being disingenuously dismissive. So, learn from my repeated mistake and don't get stuck in his tar pit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-