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

[JustaSeeker]

I rarely comment here, but I read just about everything as I work my way through understanding the ins and outs of the LDS faith and what it means to be LDS (and to that end, I appreciate everybody who posts). Jwhitlock, you weaken your argument by implying every single gay / same sex attracted / homosexual individual out there is exactly the same. Because some argue for sexual openness, you interpret that to mean every gay person argues for sexual openness. I think you can see the logical fallacy in these over-reaching statements. If you were to add quantifiers ("some", "most", etc.), your argument would hold up better under scrutiny.

I'd like to add that I've been to a Mardi Gras parade once, in New Orleans. The number of straight people engaged in sexual immorality in plain sight was staggering. Does this mean I can now say all straight people engage in sexual immorality in plain sight? Such a statement doesn't hold up, so unfortunately it's too easy to disregard everything you say. I think you could craft a more persuasive argument if you relied less on sensationalism and more on precision.

At risk of being clobbered on, as seems to happen so often on this board, I'd like to say that I don't understand your perspective on the topic. If two people wish to exercise their free agency and do what they will, how does it affect your own salvation? If my gay neighbors are promiscuous or exercise fidelity to each other, how does that affect me and my own faith? I simply don't see why some get so worked up over this topic, but it makes for fascinating reading. As a conservative one would think I'd be up in arms, but I guess I'm far more live and let live. I like to think that's the point of free agency.

Good discussion.

I see you refused to address the main point of the article, which is that sexual openness in marriage is something that SSM supporters want to normalize. Instead, you referred first to name calling, and then to a totally irrelevant rationalization that had nothing to do with the points made in the article.

It appears that such disclosure about open marriage as an aspect of SSM is something that SSM supporters don't want disclosed publicly. I can understand that. Most people who support SSM have this unrealistic image of homosexual relationships in that they think they are exactly the same as heterosexual relationships, complete with full monogamy and fidelity. Unfortunately, most of them aren't.

What I have found in my reading of gay blogs and articles is that they are looking at SSM as a way of redefining marriage so that it does not hinder them in their lifestyle. Sexual openness and periodic dalliances with partners other than their "spouse" are to be viewed as normal and acceptable in marriage.

Read the article again, and let me know when you're ready to engage the discussion without resorting to what you did in your post.

[jwhitlock]

Do you and Whit really believe that all gays support this "manifesto" you talk about or even know about it?

If I found some radical "manifesto" written by some Mormon somewhere, would you be comfortable with anti Mormons using that document to show what Mormons believe?? Or would you view this "manifesto" reference as simply being anti Mormon propaganda?

The whole basis for this thread of yours is that marriage should be witheld from those that want to be immoral in a marriage relationship. When you only target gays in your quest, it comes off as just being anti gay. Now if your thread was a discussion on how marriage across the board should be protected from those that commit adultery within a marriage, then it would be a more honest thread. Do you want to change the discussion to include all marriages or do you want to continue to only attack gay marriage?

Ah, the king of spin himself returns.

All gays? Sorry, but we aren't talking about "all gays" here. A large number of gays are either in mixed gender marriages, or don't care about SSM and just want to lead their own lifestyle, or are opposed to SSM because it's a heterosexual institution that has no business being made available to gays, or have decided that the gospel comes before weaknesses and are trying their best to live it, and so forth.

The only "anti-gay" posting that's been found here is that manufactured by you and others who want to demonize the messenger. Pointing out differences in gay vs. hetero perspectives and evaluating those perspectives in the light of what parameters SSM will offer is hardly anti-gay, though I will admit that bringing some aspects of SSM to light would probably be uncomfortable for some gays.

So are you going to engage in your usual hyped accusations, or are you actually going to respond to specifics in the discussion for once? A good place to start would be with the concept of full sexual fidelity and monogamy in marriage and whether SSM is going to effectively eliminate those as necessary aspects of a committed marriage relationship. From the articles we've posted, it looks like SSM will have the effect of making those concepts of commitment "optional".

[jwhitlock]

This is absolutely absurd. Are you honestly hoping for somebody to swallow the notion that somebody can stay inside an institution for his first, say, 16 years of life and have absorbed nothing? Are you honestly hoping for somebody to swallow the notion that no self-identifying homosexual ever saw a movie or a TV movie-of-the-week where marriage vows were made? Or where the evils of adultery were the subject or figured largely in the story line?

What a maroon.

Exactly.

[jwhitlock]

Certainly not. I've spoken with some of the gay young men in my ward who left the church. They absorbed plenty. Unfortunately, what they seemed to absorb is that they didn't have a place in "God's plan of happiness". They absorbed that they had to choose happiness or God. They absorbed that they were some kind of "mistake" and damaged goods. They absorbed that they didn't fit in to our faith community and they sought that inclusion elsewhere.

Yes, of course. This is absolutely what was preached in the church - far more than concepts of chastity and commitment and lifelong, fully monogamous marriage.

Not.

[wenglund]

At risk of being clobbered on, as seems to happen so often on this board, I'd like to say that I don't understand your perspective on the topic. If two people wish to exercise their free agency and do what they will, how does it affect your own salvation? If my gay neighbors are promiscuous or exercise fidelity to each other, how does that affect me and my own faith?

If we are just talking about differences among neighbors, your rhetorical question may make sense.

However, what we are talking about on this thread are matters of public policy and societal and cultural trends. We are looking at the macro effect rather than micro interactions. What my neighbor may personally do in private, is of no real concern to me. However, active public movements designed to change laws that may negatively impact my own pocket book as well as societal institutions, is of concern to me, as it would be with most any rational person not living in a bubble.

I hope that didn't "clobber" you too much. I appreciate you breaking your self-imposed silence and raising this excellent question.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 29, 2013 by wenglund

[jwhitlock]

Third, the study assumes that all the same-sex marriages would have a wedding, and that the average wedding would cost $7,400.00, and that the entire $7,400.00 would go to boosting the economy. Whereas, it should be remembered that Massachusetts had civil unions before SSM was legalized. What are the chances that those couples who were legally united under civil unions, and may likely have had a ceremony to celebrate that union, would once again get formally married to the average tune of S7,400.00, rather than pay a few bucks down at the court house, particularly if SSM is legalized in all states and thus eliminating some of the need to publicly celebrate for publicity sake and to advance the cause?

This is interesting; I seem to remember that when MA opened up SSM, the line to the courthouse was pretty long. Seems like they were mostly gay couples already in some kind of relationship who just wanted the imprint of marriage, and weren't going to have big celebrations or receptions.

In any case, the lines died down pretty quickly after the initial euphoria. As far as revenues go, which are often over-stated for political purposes, I would be surprised if after nine years they had gotten anywhere close to even the initial projection which was based on five years.

[jwhitlock]

See the various and numerous gay-friendly articles and studies I and others have cited throughout this thread. As I stated earlier, don't take may word for it. Read what homosexuals and homosexual sympathizers have to say about their own community and agenda and strategies. I am not so much giving "Wade insights" here. Rather, I am passing along what is being said by gay activists. I am getting my insights from actively reading and studying and carefully analyzing what all parties have to say. You should give it a try some time.

This needs additional emphasis. What is being quoted here, and what the discussion is centered on is coming from gay and pro-gay sources. Again, it's incredible how much volume of this stuff is out there. You can spend hours Googling it and not scratch the surface - though you can go somewhat faster if you skip the raunchier sites.

[jwhitlock]

I rarely comment here, but I read just about everything as I work my way through understanding the ins and outs of the LDS faith and what it means to be LDS (and to that end, I appreciate everybody who posts). Jwhitlock, you weaken your argument by implying every single gay / same sex attracted / homosexual individual out there is exactly the same. Because some argue for sexual openness, you interpret that to mean every gay person argues for sexual openness. I think you can see the logical fallacy in these over-reaching statements. If you were to add quantifiers ("some", "most", etc.), your argument would hold up better under scrutiny.

Would you like to point out where I implied that every single gay person is exactly the same? It certainly wasn't in my post you quoted. I was specific in qualifying my remarks to those who supported SSM.

Are you not aware that not all gays want or even support SSM? There are a large number who do not, or who don't care. There are many who are in mixed gender marriages. There are others who simply choose to be celibate.

Again, please point out where it has been inferred in any way, shape, or form that all gays are the same. If you can't, please correct your accusation.

[california boy]

So are you going to engage in your usual hyped accusations, or are you actually going to respond to specifics in the discussion for once? A good place to start would be with the concept of full sexual fidelity and monogamy in marriage and whether SSM is going to effectively eliminate those as necessary aspects of a committed marriage relationship. From the articles we've posted, it looks like SSM will have the effect of making those concepts of commitment "optional".

So you are asserting that if gays are allowed to marry then monogamy in straight marriage will become optional? And you want some kind of response from me? I think you will have to find a response from a straight man and ask him if gays are allowed to marry will he plan on committing adultery. I guess I am the least qualified to tell you how a straight man will react if gays are allowed to marry.

[jwhitlock]

So you are asserting that if gays are allowed to marry then monogamy in straight marriage will become optional? And you want some kind of response from me? I think you will have to find a response from a straight man and ask him if gays are allowed to marry will he plan on committing adultery. I guess I am the least qualified to tell you how a straight man will react if gays are allowed to marry.

This is the kind of over-simplification you engage in; it leaves out quite a bit so you can make it seem like I'm saying something I really didn't say. Would you like to try responding to the points I made previously as to why this is possible, without misrepresenting what I have "asserted"?

[rockpond]

Yes, of course. This is absolutely what was preached in the church - far more than concepts of chastity and commitment and lifelong, fully monogamous marriage.

Not.

"Not" is correct. That is not what I said.

Our church does a fantastic job of teaching not only chastity and the importance of marital fidelity but it (we) effectively teach the great value in those principles.

But, my experience with gay youth I've worked with, is that those teachings get overpowered by the feeling that they don't have a place in the "plan". They leave the church feeling that, if it's true, then chastity and marital fidelity are meaningless to them because the only love and companionship available to them is sinful.

I can only speak to the Mormon experience but I suspect the experience of gay youth is similar in other churches.

[jwhitlock]

"Not" is correct. That is not what I said.

Our church does a fantastic job of teaching not only chastity and the importance of marital fidelity but it (we) effectively teach the great value in those principles.

But, my experience with gay youth I've worked with, is that those teachings get overpowered by the feeling that they don't have a place in the "plan". They leave the church feeling that, if it's true, then chastity and marital fidelity are meaningless to them because the only love and companionship available to them is sinful.

I can only speak to the Mormon experience but I suspect the experience of gay youth is similar in other churches.

Here's a quote from your post #56:

I wonder where homosexuals might have been expected to learn about our understanding of marital fidelity. Church would have been a great place but we didn't really welcome them there. So it doesn't surprise me if they have developed different moral systems than us.

"Might have been expected to learn about our understanding of marital fidelity." But they didn't, and so they developed different moral systems. You certainly do quite a bit of backpedaling in your posts.

Wade and I have been accused in this thread of generalizing about all gays, and yet here you are generalizing that the only love and companionship "available" to them is sinful. That really is kind of a slap in the face of all those with SSA who are successful in mixed gender messages - something that you and other gay supporters go to great lengths to downplay and marginalize.

So back to the point of all this. It's rather difficult to demand that the church and its members accept SSM when the very definition of SSM includes the fact that full sexual fidelity, monogamy, and commitment in marriage are optional. Perhaps you can explain how that is compatible with the principles of the restored gospel. If you can't, then perhaps you can explain how weakening commitment in the most binding relationship we have in society will somehow be good for society, Or if you can't do that, then perhaps you can supply what I've been asking for in this thread, namely, some kind of reference or link from a gay-centered site espousing the virtues of full sexual fidelity and monogamy for life in marriage. If you happen to find one, then please make sure that they are explicit in embracing those principles, and that they're just not loosely misusing the word "monogamy".

[wenglund]

This needs additional emphasis. What is being quoted here, and what the discussion is centered on is coming from gay and pro-gay sources. Again, it's incredible how much volume of this stuff is out there. You can spend hours Googling it and not scratch the surface - though you can go somewhat faster if you skip the raunchier sites.

Ironically, there was a time when concerted effort was made to cloak much of the stuff we are reading or to down play it and keep it among homosexuals, but with the social advancements that gay activists have made, they no longer feel a need to run stealth, but can openly declare their intentions. On the one hand, the new honesty is refreshing, but on the other hand, the intents are disturbing to those of us who value traditional families.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 30, 2013 by wenglund

[USU78]

Do you disagree with what CB has said that (generally speaking) churches teach that it is a grave sin for a man to have sex with one man or to have sex with multiple men?

Yes. So what? You previously made the statement that Churches weren't teaching such thing. I'm gratified that he agrees with me. The [very little] hay he makes of that true statement is where we disagree. Sex outside marriage is wrong. Marriage is between a man and a woman. These aren't hard concepts and most three-year-olds get them (I've been talking to my 3 and 3-1/2 year old granddaughters recently, as well as my 26-year-old mentally handicapped son -- all 3 get this. CB doesn't. Go figure.)

I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion based on what CB has said.

Think about it. I'm sure it'll come to you.

I'm also not sure why you seem to feel a need or justification to talk in such absolutes: "nobody wants it". I'm sure that there are some who want it and some who don't.

D@mned few take advantage of it; therefore, nearly all don't want it, other than in the abstract. That's the point, which I'm sure you already got.

[rockpond]

Yes. So what? You previously made the statement that Churches weren't teaching such thing. I'm gratified that he agrees with me. The [very little] hay he makes of that true statement is where we disagree. Sex outside marriage is wrong. Marriage is between a man and a woman. These aren't hard concepts and most three-year-olds get them (I've been talking to my 3 and 3-1/2 year old granddaughters recently, as well as my 26-year-old mentally handicapped son -- all 3 get this. CB doesn't. Go figure.)

Think about it. I'm sure it'll come to you.

D@mned few take advantage of it; therefore, nearly all don't want it, other than in the abstract. That's the point, which I'm sure you already got.

Only a dozen states have SSM and most have recognized it just within the past year or two. It is still not recognized at the federal level. It seems too soon to just what percentage of gay couples will take advantage of legal marriage when it is fully available to them.

[california boy]

This is the kind of over-simplification you engage in; it leaves out quite a bit so you can make it seem like I'm saying something I really didn't say. Would you like to try responding to the points I made previously as to why this is possible, without misrepresenting what I have "asserted"?

You are the one asserting that if gay marriage is allowed, then straight men are going to want infidelity in their marriage well. You are asserting this is because there are some (or maybe all) gay marriages have open relationships. Are you making that assertion or not? What am I leaving out. Are you now backing away from that position?

Edited May 30, 2013 by california boy

[california boy]

Yes. So what? You previously made the statement that Churches weren't teaching such thing. I'm gratified that he agrees with me. The [very little] hay he makes of that true statement is where we disagree. Sex outside marriage is wrong. Marriage is between a man and a woman. These aren't hard concepts and most three-year-olds get them (I've been talking to my 3 and 3-1/2 year old granddaughters recently, as well as my 26-year-old mentally handicapped son -- all 3 get this. CB doesn't. Go figure.)

I completely agree that the church teaches sex outside of marriage is morally wrong. I also agree that the church teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman. These aren't hard concepts for me to understand either. But that is not the issue here. We are talking about government recognition of gay marriage, not religious beliefs. The government does not issue marriage licenses based on personal worthiness. It is not a church. Most 3 year olds should probably get that concept as well.

[EllenMaksoud]

SSM stands for Same-Sex Marriage and

LUNC stands for Law of Unintended Negative Consequences.

Throughout the course of public debate about legalizing SSM, it has not been uncommon for supporters to query about what harm may come to heterosexual marriages and society were homosexuals allowed to legally marry? Typically, this question was asked rhetorically because the supporters presupposed there to be no harm. This thread will challenge that presupposition.

Granted, at this point, most minds don't appear to be all that open to change, particularly not in the direction away from pop culture and towards preserving traditional marriage. So, the point of this thread isn't so much to change minds (it my be too late for that), but to prepare us for what may lay ahead if the trend continues and the U.S. ends up legalizing SSM.

I propose to look at the unintended negative consequences of SSM to society on at least two levels: 1) direct and near-term, and 2) indirect and longterm. The direct/near-term consequences will include added financial, administrative, and adjudicative burdens potentially piled onto the government and society from day one. And, the indirect/long-term consequences will include potential legislative and adjudicative trends growing out of SSM, and the plausible impact of SSM on the fundamental institution of society (the family), and thus on religion and society at large.

Sound interesting?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I believe that these sorts of things will continue to escalate until there is violence and lots of it. I know people whose mind will never change and they will die defending their beliefs. Maybe this will be the cause of the eventual collapse of the USA? I stand before Heavenly Father knowing that I will not be part of it.

Edited May 30, 2013 by EllenMaksoud

[Calm]

You are the one asserting that if gay marriage is allowed, then straight men are going to want infidelity in their marriage well. You are asserting this is because there are some (or maybe all) gay marriages have open relationships. Are you making that assertion or not? What am I leaving out. Are you now backing away from that position?

There are plenty of straight men and women that already demonstrate they want infidelity in their marriage by actively participating in it.***** I assume that what Wade and others are suggesting is that if infidelity in marriage becomes more socially acceptable (in the case being discussed through the widening of the tradition of marriage to include those whose culture sees the tradition of fidelity in marriage as unnecessary), that those straight men and women of the next generation who would have resisted the temptation to commit adultery will no longer feel the need to do so because it is no longer seen as a temptation to be resisted, but as normal, accepted behaviour within the tradition of what marriage then would mean in the social community.

An analogy might be an ethnic practice that is picked up by those outside the ethnic population---does the practice by outsiders potentially change the meaning for the ethnic group? I would say that there is good evidence supporting this in my observations of how various religious individuals now view practices that were once unique to their religious or ethnic group that are now engaged in by others wanting to expand their own experience of life. There are many who view their practices in the same way as before, there are others who view the practice as no longer identifying them or giving special meaning to their own lives and end up no longer engaging in the full religious practice (Christmas is the easiest example to point to where many Christians in my experience just treat it as one more reason to get presents and do not address the sacred elements of the holy day except in very limited ways, I've seen some who treat others of their group who wear traditional clothing as provincials or catering to tourists and who have completely given up the wearing of anything that was once unique to their heritage or who see participation in traditional festivals as something that is performed for tourists to make money nowadays...one really mundane example would be the Calgary Stampede where I have heard long term locals state that they never go to the Stampede--even make an effort to leave town--because the Stampede has been ruined by the tourists...thus demonstrating in a small way that attitudes of a group can be changed when the boundaries of who is included in that group are changed, in more significant way this was attempted by forced integration of schools in hopes that attitudes towards blacks would become more positive overtime by including them in the same social community of the school).

*****Just for an FYI, data on the rate of infidelity from wiki (feel free to find more accurate info out there, I am attempting to go to bed in a few minutes so am taking the easy way out):

According to the New York Times, the most consistent data on infidelity comes from the University of Chicago's General Social Survey (GSS). Large-scale interviews conducted since 1972 by the GSS of people in monogamous relationships reveals that the number of men admitting to extra marital affairs is 12 percent and for women, 7 percent.[1] Results, however, can be variable depending on the year data is gathered, and also based on the age groups surveyed. For example, one study conducted by the University of Washington, Seattle found slightly, or significantly higher rates of infidelity for populations under 35, or older than 60. In that study which involved 19,065 people during a 15 year period, rates of infidelity among men were found to have risen from 20 to 28%, and rates for women, 5% to 15%.[2] In more recent nationwide surveys, several researchers found that that about twice as many men as women reported having an extramarital affair (Wiederman, 1997).[3] A survey conducted by Choi, Catania, and Dolcini in 1990 found 2.2% of married participants reported having more than one partner during the past year. In general, national surveys conducted in the early 1990s reported that between 15-25% of married Americans reported having extramarital affairs.[4] Treas and Giesen (2000) found that the likelihood of sexual infidelity was higher for those who had stronger sexual interests, more permissive sexual values, lower subjective satisfaction with their partner, weaker network ties to their partner and greater sexual opportunities.[5] Studies suggest around 30–40% of unmarried relationships and 18–20% of marriages are marked by at least one incident of sexual infidelity. Men are more likely than women to have a sexual affair, regardless of whether or not they are in a married or unmarried relationship.[6]

http://en.wikipedia....elity#Incidence Edited May 30, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

One more comment before the light goes off...again...if it is believed that by including gays in marriage that there is a chance that their practice of fidelity will increase, why is it not just as logical to expect by including gays in marriage, that the response might be that overall there will be a decrease in fidelity. If exposure to those who practice fidelity will increase fidelity among those who don't currently, will not the same be true of exposure of those who practice fidelity to those who do not?

The question then would be which would have the greatest influence longterm to sway the balance to or from fidelity in marriage. I don't think one can assume that numbers or tradition is/are the only variables to be of significant influence. There are many attitude changes that have started with small numbers or have gone dramatically against tradition that have grown to influence larger numbers due to persistence or better use of public opinion or many other reasons.

Edited May 30, 2013 by calmoriah

[california boy]

There are plenty of straight men and women that already demonstrate they want infidelity in their marriage by actively participating in it.***** I assume that what Wade and others are suggesting is that if infidelity in marriage becomes more socially acceptable (in the case being discussed through the widening of the tradition of marriage to include those whose culture sees the tradition of fidelity in marriage as unnecessary), that those straight men and women of the next generation who would have resisted the temptation to commit adultery will no longer feel the need to do so because it is no longer seen as a temptation to be resisted, but as normal, accepted behaviour within the tradition of what marriage then would mean in the social community.

An analogy might be an ethnic practice that is picked up by those outside the ethnic population---does the practice by outsiders potentially change the meaning for the ethnic group? I would say that there is good evidence supporting this in my observations of how various religious individuals now view practices that were once unique to their religious or ethnic group that are now engaged in by others wanting to expand their own experience of life. There are many who view their practices in the same way as before, there are others who view the practice as no longer identifying them or giving special meaning to their own lives and end up no longer engaging in the full religious practice (Christmas is the easiest example to point to where many Christians in my experience just treat it as one more reason to get presents and do not address the sacred elements of the holy day except in very limited ways, I've seen some who treat others of their group who wear traditional clothing as provincials or catering to tourists and who have completely given up the wearing of anything that was once unique to their heritage or who see participation in traditional festivals as something that is performed for tourists to make money nowadays...one really mundane example would be the Calgary Stampede where I have heard long term locals state that they never go to the Stampede--even make an effort to leave town--because the Stampede has been ruined by the tourists...thus demonstrating in a small way that attitudes of a group can be changed when the boundaries of who is included in that group are changed, in more significant way this was attempted by forced integration of schools in hopes that attitudes towards blacks would become more positive overtime by including them in the same social community of the school).

*****Just for an FYI, data on the rate of infidelity from wiki (feel free to find more accurate info out there, I am attempting to go to bed in a few minutes so am taking the easy way out): http://en.wikipedia....elity#Incidence

Thanks for your thoughtful post. It has much more substance to it than simply saying "If we allow gay marriage then more men are going commit adultery. I would like however use what you have given me to make a point. Wade and Whit are quick to assume that gay marriage is the thing that will cause increased infidelity. But let's just look at the numbers for a moment. The gay population is routinely given somewhere between 3 and 5%. According to Wade, typically only 10% of the gay population chooses to get married when given the opportunity. That would only be .3% of the population even if every single gay married couple choose to not practice fidelity. However according to your numbers somewhere between 25% and 40% of the total population already does not practice fidelity. So you have Wade and Whit making a case against gay marriage because .3% of the population may make infidelity more acceptable. Don't you think that it is highly more likely that the 40% of the population currently not practicing fidelity is much more likely to change public opinion than the .3% of the gay population?? Since the highest percentage of the population that is not committed to fidelity are those that are not married, doesn't it make more sense to encourage marriage rather than deny it?

This is just another example of trying to blame straight immorality on the gay population. And the way to "fix" the immorality of straight couples is to deny gays the right to marry. It is a silly argument and certainly no reason to discriminate against the gay population of America.

[Calm]

I wrote a tremendously long and profound post that by the end of it I wasn't sure what I was saying, had said or even wanted to say....so I saved it to textedit and will look at it when the drugs have worn off to see if it had anything in it besides demonstrating that I could have competed with Charles D-ickens for wordiness champion....except one small point I wrote at the beginning:

And the way to "fix" the immorality of straight couples is to deny gays the right to marry.

If this was the actual argument, I would agree that it was ridiculous. And perhaps some see it that way, that by taking this great moral stand against the encroachments of the immortality that is labeled gay marriage, they will be able to resuscitate traditional marriage to a healthier state with just this one valiant effort. But the way I see it is that most view marriage not in a terminal state, but definitely tottering due to the way all culture is currently approaching it, mainly straight marrieds, but also unmarrieds, straights and homosexuals, certain groups of men, certain groups of women, a huge group of youth just beginning to wonder is this something I want to hassle with? will it be worth it?...all have demands on marriage, all wanting "it" to jump through hoops for them a certain way in order for them to invest in it, to commit to it...marriage has to prove its worth to them before they are going to risk it seeing as how unstable it currently is. If it is forced to carry more weight when it is not ready for it...if it is forced to change its balancing supports while not in a stable position...no matter what weight, no matter what the support that is intended to be added...the shock of unprepared for change will bring marriage to its knees and it certainly won't be jumping through hoops performing miracles of equality or understanding or or financial stability or commitment for anyone, and perhaps it will never pull itself up again, but only eventually laid down and give up the ghost.

For those that believe such expectations are overly dramatic....I would suggest looking at smaller and larger societies and how they have engaged change being imposed their traditional ways both from inside and outside influences and what have been successful and what have not....and especially look at those societies that no longer exist, that should exist and we should look and see is there anything here we can learn about what to do and what not to do in our efforts to try and change our society for the better, to make it healthier and not weaker.

If marriage is important enough to fight for, it is important enough to take time over and be careful and gentle with. We as subsets of society could take the path of rape or just seduction or even blackmail and extortion toward the traditional societal concept of marriage and place so many strong, demanding needs and insistent persuasions upon it that our society just may set it adrift of use to no one or one could be considerate and court and persuade and ask for the parents' permission and even go to counseling with it before taking that step of commitment that will change both your lives (your actual life, its conceptual life) permanently. I am sure you get the analogy. Whether it makes sense to anyone but me, I haven't a clue and I do think the medication is finally doing what it is supposed to do, so "good night in the morning"...hopefully you won't see me for several hours.

Edited May 30, 2013 by calmoriah

[stemelbow]

So allowing people who are in open relationships in marriage is harmful. Can we then please, in starting somewhere, stop marriages of all those who insist on having an open marriage whether gay or straight?

The argument appears to be that allowing gays to marry will lessen the meaning of marriage in the long term because more gay people see relationships as open percentage-wise, of course that is without considering that they have continued on without the promotion of marriage in their relationships. Yet we all know there is currently a great deal of infidelity in many a heterosexual union. If it is argued that the infidelity is what ruins the concept of marriage then it's not gay people that are ruining it currently.

[wenglund]

Only a dozen states have SSM and most have recognized it just within the past year or two. It is still not recognized at the federal level. It seems too soon to just what percentage of gay couples will take advantage of legal marriage when it is fully available to them.

Looks like I need to repost this, though I cant guarantee that it will reach minds that are in deep denial:

"[Among] marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, and reciprocal-beneficiary relationships…the most recent U.S. Census data reveal that, in the last 15 years, only 150,000 same-sex couples have elected to take advantage of them – equivalent to around one in five of the self-identified same-sex couples in the United States….in the first four years when gay marriage was an option in trailblazing Massachusetts, there were an average of only about 3,000 per year, and that number included many who came from out of state.

"This dearth of early adopters is not peculiar to America. Research conducted in 2004 by Gunnar Anderson, a professor of demography at Sweden’s Stockholm University…looked at legal partnerships in both Norway and Sweden and found that in Norway, which legalized civil unions in 1993, only 1,300 homosexual couples registered in the first eight years, compared with 190,000 heterosexual marriages; in Sweden, between initial passage in 1995 and a review in 2002, 1,526 legal partnerships were registered, compared with 280,000 heterosexual marriages. In the Netherlands, gay marriage is actually declining in popularity: 2,500 gay couples married in 2001 – the year it was legalized – and that number dropped to 1,800 in 2002, 1,200 in 2004, and 1,100 in 2005. In 2009, the last year for which figures are available, less than 2 percent of marriages in the Netherlands were between same-sex couples." (see HERE)

It is time to face the fact that only a small proportion of the homosexual population opt to enter into legally recognized relationships even when it is fully available to them nationwide. Of that small portion, most likely enter into those legal relationships in order to take advantage of the governmental benefits and privileges, and not because they hold legal relationships like marriage in high regard or because they view things like marriage in the traditional sense of sexual monogamy and fidelity. As demonstrated, most homosexual couples view sexual openness in relationships to be preferred to fidelity.

I realize that it may be hard for certain well-intended supporters of SSM to accept the reality that the SSM push has been a ruse, and that the well intended souls have been played like a fiddle, and the LUNC reality of it is that marriage and traditional family have been diminished. Not only has the definition of "marriage" been fundamentally mangled, but the social meaning of marriage (sexual monogamy) has been distorted as well (I plan to explicate this further as the thread progresses). It can't be a pleasant thought to learn that what you thought you were accomplishing in your support of SSM, actually ended up doing the opposite, and you have unwittingly been party to degrading the divinely instituted, fundamental institution of society. I feel for you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Wade and Whit are quick to assume that gay marriage is the thing that will cause increased infidelity.

No, we don't assume that. What we assume is that legalizing SSM will FURTHER erode marriage and increase infidelity ALL THE MORE. SSM is but one of a number of pop cultural fronts waring against the foundational institution of society. (I will explicate this in more detail as the thread progresses)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-