Is Part Of The Concern Over Same Sex Marriage, The Bob Jones University Case?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I apologize if I missed something vital. My response was aimed less at Wade's argument specifically than at the idea that the legal definition of marriage holds some purity which would be tainted if expanded to include homosexual couples. An even more traditional marriage would be one in which the woman is considered an object to possess, a union driven not by love but by the desire to obtain wealth, power, and status-- but I don't see many advocating the protection of this kind of marrage. In this day and age, it would be outrageous to speak of women as being any less deserving of rights than men. Eventually-- soon!-- the same will be said of all groups.

But the deffintion can't be expanded with out destroying the meaning of the word all together. I think honeslty your other points are irrelevant. No one is talking about the worth or lack there of of women.

 

Consider the redefintion of a dog legs. We now expand that definition to include a dogs tail. Tell me how that would make any sense? Words mean things for a reason and we can't change them just because we don't like the meaning of them. I cannot think of a worse reason to redifine a word. If we redefine legs to include tails what would that mean to us in how we view things with tails and legs? Clearly those to things are very different and are not the same. Do you understand?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I do GET the point you are making, I just disagree.  Marriage to me is not defined by the genders of the participants.  It is defined by the love and commitment that they are willing to give to one another and, in a religious sense, the commitment that they will also make to God.

I had another thought. Gay advocates are always telling me how they don't care if the LDS church never accpets their marriage. But the funny thing is is that marriage is a religous cerimony at its very nature. And the fact that you and others are so willing to redefine marriage to include gays tells me this whole fight is a lot more about getting churches and the public in generally to accpet that behaviour. If it wasn't obvious before, it should be now. Sin is sin and now amount of redefining and debating is going to change that. Homosexual behaviour is not sinful because they can't get married. It is sinful because it goes against the will of God. It is an abomination of the procreative powers that God has given to us and to be use to procreate. Nothing is going to change that.

[rockpond]

But that is not a definition of marriage esp tradtional marriage. A commitment based on feelings and what they want to give is not what defines a marraige. Though those are part of it. Essentially what you are doing is taking a " I get that marriage was defined this way for years and I don't like it so I am going to change it" attitude. I am confident this is not the way things are done and seem to be a new trend with people.   

 

I don't like that fact that a dogs tail is called a tail. I don't like that definition. It would be better to define a dogs tail so we could call it a leg. Thus a dog would have 5 legs. Oh wait.... Is that really how the real world works?

 

Love and commitment are what defines marriage for me.  I married my wife because of the love I felt for her and the desire to live my life and eternity with her.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

-A lot of my "passion" is defensive. I have not had anyone accuse me of being bigoted towards adulterers, thieves, or other sinners. But if I do not toe the gay line about how there is no difference between marriage and gay relationships, I have been called all kinds of names and told that my opinion is of no import, and that I have no place in civilized society.

It is easier to just call you a bigot because now we don't have to actually engage in what you wrote. We can just dismiss it.

[rockpond]

I had another thought. Gay advocates are always telling me how they don't care if the LDS church never accpets their marriage. But the funny thing is is that marriage is a religous cerimony at its very nature. And the fact that you and others are so willing to redefine marriage to include gays tells me this whole fight is a lot more about getting churches and the public in generally to accpet that behaviour. If it wasn't obvious before, it should be now. Sin is sin and now amount of redefining and debating is going to change that. Homosexual behaviour is not sinful because they can't get married. It is sinful because it goes against the will of God. It is an abomination of the procreative powers that God has given to us and to be use to procreate. Nothing is going to change that.

 

Marriage can be a religious ceremony.  It can also be a civil ceremony.  And, as in the case of my marriage and most of the people I know it was a religious ceremony that received state recognition.

 

Our definition of sin is irrelevant when it comes to the laws of this country, the laws do not care and cannot account for what LDS doctrine might consider an "abomination".  And once we (as a nation) started letting the state license marriages and grant legal recognition/benefits, we locked ourselves on the path that guaranteed an eventual 14th amendment requirement that gay couples would eventually receive the same legal recognition for their unions (religious & civil).  You can disagree with me but it will happen.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Love and commitment are what defines marriage for me.  I married my wife because of the love I felt for her and the desire to live my life and eternity with her.

That is part of it. But you took out vows. There was an acutal cerimony performed and there was a marriage. If some one never took out vows are you going to argue that that is a marraige because you "love and are commited"? If we define marriage with what you just wrote I am literally married to my kids. I love and am commited to them too. But it is siginicantly different than the relationship I have with my wife.  Do you see that redefining words is not a good thing?

[california boy]

I cannot speak for others, but you asked, though I pretty much answered the question with my last post on religious freedom over on the "In the News" section. I would say that:

-I don't wander around all day thinking about gays. But this sin is having a current impact on public policy. Thus, it is the sin that society is talking about right now. 

-A lot of my "passion" is defensive. I have not had anyone accuse me of being bigoted towards adulterers, thieves, or other sinners. But if I do not toe the gay line about how there is no difference between marriage and gay relationships, I have been called all kinds of names and told that my opinion is of no import, and that I have no place in civilized society. Secular gays and their allies do not want acceptance of marriage, they want gay sexual activity and relationships embraced as normal, with real world consequences for those who disagree. 

-The brethren have commented on this issue, and asked for support of the membership. I support the leadership of the church. Since they have asked us to speak up, why should I be silent?

-I agree that Love towards our fellow man is an important principle of the gospel. However, love has never meant acceptance of sin. Christ ate with sinners and publicans, but also admonished them to sin no more. In fact, that admonishment was a demonstration of his love for them. It meant that he was concerned not only for their current happiness, but for their eternal happiness, as we should be.

-If you think that I hold myself blameless before God, think again. I have, as do we all, issues and sins that I am working out with fear and trembling before him. But none of them would require a church court, as do all serious sexual sin. So at the risk of coming across as arrogant (which I am not), in the eye of the church, sexual sins, because of their eternal effect on us in regards to the Plan of Salvation, are a bigger deal than others. if this were not the case, why is our church membership in jeopardy with some sins, and not with others?

Thank you for responding.  And I appreciate your perspective.  I do have a question or two.  Do you think that all gay couples wanting to get married think they are committing sin if they don't marry?  If they do think that gay relations are a sin, do you think that after they are married they don't think it is a sin?  And is there any reason for them to think that?

 

Maybe the more interesting part of your response for me is your admitting that you too have sins.  But you still feel the need to stop people who do not even hold the same religious beliefs from sinning.  Do you feel that way about other sins by non members or just gay sins?

 

When a non member marries, it is just for this life.  The marriage is dissolved at death.  When a gay couple legally marries in this life, that marriage is just for this life and that marriage is dissolved at death as well.  So what real eternal damage is done by a non member gay person being married in this life as opposed to just living together?  And if there is no difference in the sin, why would you or any other member care one bit if a gay couple marries rather than live together?  I understand the passion.  It is much more difficult to understand the motivation.  What eternal change do you hope to achieve?  

[california boy]

But the deffintion can't be expanded with out destroying the meaning of the word all together. I think honeslty your other points are irrelevant. No one is talking about the worth or lack there of of women.

 

Consider the redefintion of a dog legs. We now expand that definition to include a dogs tail. Tell me how that would make any sense? Words mean things for a reason and we can't change them just because we don't like the meaning of them. I cannot think of a worse reason to redifine a word. If we redefine legs to include tails what would that mean to us in how we view things with tails and legs? Clearly those to things are very different and are not the same. Do you understand?

Sorry, but this is a bunch of baloney.  Words change ALL THE TIME.  Meanings change all the time.  Your VISA gold card is not actually gold.  Two pipes married together are not really married in a formal ceremony.  Square is not always a shape.  The list is endless.  If you are fighting for definitions to never change, you need to change your language to a dead language.  Those are the only languages that never change meanings.

[rockpond]

That is part of it. But you took out vows. There was an acutal cerimony performed and there was a marriage. If some one never took out vows are you going to argue that that is a marraige because you "love and are commited"? If we define marriage with what you just wrote I am literally married to my kids. I love and am commited to them too. But it is siginicantly different than the relationship I have with my wife.  Do you see that redefining words is not a good thing?

 

You are right, I didn't explain that you need to formalize the marital commitment with vows (though in my defense, most here state that "marriage is defined as one man and one woman" also leaving out the reference to vows, I assumed we were all on the same page with respect to that).

 

How do you define marriage?  And is your definition universally understood?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Marriage can be a religious ceremony.  It can also be a civil ceremony.  And, as in the case of my marriage and most of the people I know it was a religious ceremony that received state recognition.

 

Our definition of sin is irrelevant when it comes to the laws of this country, the laws do not care and cannot account for what LDS doctrine might consider an "abomination".  And once we (as a nation) started letting the state license marriages and grant legal recognition/benefits, we locked ourselves on the path that guaranteed an eventual 14th amendment requirement that gay couples would eventually receive the same legal recognition for their unions (religious & civil).  You can disagree with me but it will happen.

Sorry we are talking about the definition of marriage and how it was defined for years. What people chose to do on there own is not my business. But they have no right to tell me how to define a word or how poeple should define a word that has been defined a certain way for years.

 

And you completely missed my point. Completely.  I can only assume at this point after Wade's dealings with you that you just simply did not read what I wrote. You might have skimmed it or read the first sentance. But you did not read what I wrote. I was speaking to 2 types of people. You and gay advocates. Most of the LDS stuff is directed to you specifically. The non LDS stuff was directed to the gay advocates. You didnt even engage my comments. Oh well.

Edited January 23, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Sorry, but this is a bunch of baloney.  Words change ALL THE TIME.  Meanings change all the time.  Your VISA gold card is not actually gold.  Two pipes married together are not really married in a formal ceremony.  Square is not always a shape.  The list is endless.  If you are fighting for definitions to never change, you need to change your language to a dead language.  Those are the only languages that never change meanings.

Cool so legs and tails are the same thing? Yeah but if your redefined a square to include trianlges that is totally different thing. And you have not even begun to address that aspect. Of course meanings of words change. But you don't take words that have meanings to them and assign new meanings to them esp for the heck of it or because you fell like it. That is what I am talking about. I thought that much would be obvious.  Guess not.

Edited January 23, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[california boy]

That is part of it. But you took out vows. There was an acutal cerimony performed and there was a marriage. If some one never took out vows are you going to argue that that is a marraige because you "love and are commited"? If we define marriage with what you just wrote I am literally married to my kids. I love and am commited to them too. But it is siginicantly different than the relationship I have with my wife.  Do you see that redefining words is not a good thing?

Actually you can be married without ever having a ceremony or taking a single vow.  Sign the papers and you are married.  Heck you can just live together long enough and you are considered married under common law. 40% of all marriages are civil marriages.  And civil marriages are rising while church weddings are falling.  So how do you view almost half of the marriages in this country?  Since they are not religious marriages, do they not count as a real marriage?

[rockpond]

Sorry we are talking about the definition of marriage and how it was defined for years. What people chose to do on there own is not my business. But they have no right to tell me how to define a word or how poeple should define a word that has been defined a certain way for years.

 

And you completely missed my point. Completely.  I can only assume at this point after Wade's dealings with you that you just simply did not read what I wrote. You might have skimmed it or read the first sentance. But you did not read what I wrote. I was speaking to 2 types of people. You and gay advocates. Most of the LDS stuff is directed to you specifically. The non LDS stuff was directed to the gay advocates. You didnt even engage my comments. Oh well.

 

I am most certainly engaging with you.  And I am reading what you wrote.  But if you continue to address me this way, I'll gladly stop.  Your choice.  When someone's written comments are not understood on these threads, it's not productive to only blame the reader.

 

I am not telling you how to define a word.  You may use the word marriage how you wish.  And seek after the type of marriage you wish.

 

If you want to convince me that marriage has a strict universally understood definition, than provide the reference.

[Stone holm]

I am most certainly engaging with you.  And I am reading what you wrote.  But if you continue to address me this way, I'll gladly stop.  Your choice.  When someone's written comments are not understood on these threads, it's not productive to only blame the reader.

 

I am not telling you how to define a word.  You may use the word marriage how you wish.  And seek after the type of marriage you wish.

 

If you want to convince me that marriage has a strict universally understood definition, than provide the reference.

Legislatures change definitions all the time there was once a Canadian statute that defined a locust to include bison or vice versa. This whole definition argument is without any legal merit or substance.

[california boy]

Cool so legs and tails are the same thing? Yeah but if your redefined a square to include trianlges that is totally different thing. And you have not even begun to address that aspect. Of course meanings of words change. But you don't take words that have meanings to them and assign new meanings to them esp for the heck of it or because you fell like it. That is what I am talking about. I thought that much would be obvious.  Guess not.

LOL.  Why did you use the word "Cool".  For centuries cool refered to the temperature.  Were you telling us that the legs and tail were frozen?  Look up the word marriage in the dictionary.  It already includes same sex couples because people understand that it is possible for two gay people to be married.  Did that change your marriage?  Do you now not know what kind of relationship to call what you and your wife have?  Maybe if you could explain what kind of confusion has materialized since 1/3 of the country now has gay marriage I would better understand your point.  

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Actually you can be married without ever having a ceremony or taking a single vow.  Sign the papers and you are married.  Heck you can just live together long enough and you are considered married under common law. 40% of all marriages are civil marriages.  And civil marriages are rising while church weddings are falling.  So how do you view almost half of the marriages in this country?  Since they are not religious marriages, do they not count as a real marriage?

Ugh. I know all this. I am talking about a historical view of what a marriage is. Good giref. I am not sure this is even beneficial.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am most certainly engaging with you.  And I am reading what you wrote.  But if you continue to address me this way, I'll gladly stop.  Your choice.  When someone's written comments are not understood on these threads, it's not productive to only blame the reader.

 

I am not telling you how to define a word.  You may use the word marriage how you wish.  And seek after the type of marriage you wish.

 

If you want to convince me that marriage has a strict universally understood definition, than provide the reference.

Ok the bible. Were in it has it ever refrenced a man and a man as a marriage? Remember we are speaking of traditional marriage. Not the mondern day mangled version.  

Edited January 23, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

LOL.  Why did you use the word "Cool".  For centuries cool refered to the temperature.  Were you telling us that the legs and tail were frozen?  Look up the word marriage in the dictionary.  It already includes same sex couples because people understand that it is possible for two gay people to be married.  Did that change your marriage?  Do you now not know what kind of relationship to call what you and your wife have?  Maybe if you could explain what kind of confusion has materialized since 1/3 of the country now has gay marriage I would better understand your point.  

It is now safe to completely ignore you. You clearly are not even trying.

[Stone holm]

Ok the bible. Were in it has it ever refrenced a man and a man as a marriage? Remember we are speaking of traditional marriage. Not the mondern day mangled version.

Thought we were discussing the Constitution not the Bible, the Bible is not useable as a legal argument in the United States. There are theocracies in the world like Iran, but America is not one of them. Rock pond, to my knowledge has never argued that SSM is appropriate for Mormons, he has simply argued that. It is not appropriate for us to impose our religious beliefs on others. That is a position that I agree with, and Mormons of all American believers should have been able to grasp that simple concept.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am most certainly engaging with you.  And I am reading what you wrote.  But if you continue to address me this way, I'll gladly stop.  Your choice.  When someone's written comments are not understood on these threads, it's not productive to only blame the reader.

 

I am not telling you how to define a word.  You may use the word marriage how you wish.  And seek after the type of marriage you wish.

 

If you want to convince me that marriage has a strict universally understood definition, than provide the reference.

Lets restart our efforts here.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/why-marriage-matters-consequences-of-redefining-marriage

Redefining marriage would further distance marriage from the needs of children and deny the importance of mothers and fathers. It would deny, as a matter of policy, the ideal that children need a mother and a father.

Redefining marriage would diminish the social pressures and incentives for husbands to remain with their wives and their biological children and for men and women to marry before having children. The concern is not so much that a handful of gay or lesbian couples would be raising children but that it would be very difficult for the law to send a message that fathers matter when it has redefined marriage to make fathers optional.

In recent decades, marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view that marriage is more about adults’ desires than children’s needs. This view reduces marriage primarily to emotional bonds or legal privileges. Redefining marriage represents the culmination of this revisionism and would leave emotional intensity as the only thing that sets marriage apart from other bonds.

However, if marriage were just intense emotional regard, marital norms would make no sense as a principled matter. There is no reason of principle that requires an emotional union to be permanent. Or limited to two persons. Or sexual, much less sexually exclusive (as opposed to “open”). Or inherently oriented to family life and shaped by its demands.

In other words, if sexual complementarity is optional for marriage, then almost every other norm that sets marriage apart is optional.[10]

Redefining marriage marginalizes those with traditional views and leads to the erosion of religious liberty. The law and culture will seek to eradicate such views through economic, social, and legal pressure. If marriage is redefined, believing what virtually every human society once believed about marriage—that it is a union of a man and woman ordered to procreation and family life—would be seen increasingly as a malicious prejudice to be driven to the margins of culture. The consequences for religious believers are becoming apparent.[11]

For example, after Massachusetts redefined marriage to include same-sex relationships, Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to discontinue its adoption services rather than place children with same-sex couples against its principles. Massachusetts public schools began teaching grade-school students about same-sex marriage, defending their decision because they are “committed to teaching about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same-sex marriage is legal.” A Massachusetts appellate court ruled that parents have no right to exempt their children from these classes.[12]

In fact, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty reports that “over 350 separate state anti-discrimination provisions would likely be triggered by recognition of same-sex marriage.”[13]

You will notice that there are foot notes provided for refrence so they are not just making stuff up.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Thought we were discussing the Constitution not the Bible, the Bible is not useable as a legal argument in the United States. There are theocracies in the world like Iran, but America is not one of them. Rock pond, to my knowledge has never argued that SSM is appropriate for Mormons, he has simply argued that. It is not appropriate for us to impose our religious beliefs on others. That is a position that I agree with, and Mormons of all American believers should have been able to grasp that simple concept.

Seriously SH. Rockpond asked for a universally understood definition of marriage. So I brought the bible up as my refernce for that. Your comments are completely irrelevant.  

[california boy]

Ugh. I know all this. I am talking about a historical view of what a marriage is. Good giref. I am not sure this is even beneficial.

 

You are right.  It is probably not beneficial.  Over the years addressing this issue, I have found that many hold different views.  They are all valid to those that hold that view.  But in terms of effecting the country, only those views that can be held up in a court of law are the only ones that really matter.  And probably the only ones worth speculating about.  I seriously doubt that the Supreme Court case is going to hinge on whether it is ok to modify the definition of a word, so arguing it's importance is, as you say, probably not benificial.  If you feel that the passage or failure of gay marriage hinges on "mangling" (thank you Wade, you have another admirer) the definition of marriage, then, I will bow out and just say "good luck with that."

[rockpond]

Ugh. I know all this. I am talking about a historical view of what a marriage is. Good giref. I am not sure this is even beneficial.

 

Historically marriage has included a vast number of things that are not part of our current culture.  Does that mean that the church's current definition of marriage has mangled the term?

[rockpond]

Ok the bible. Were in it has it ever refrenced a man and a man as a marriage? Remember we are speaking of traditional marriage. Not the mondern day mangled version.  

 

The Bible is not a universally accepted standard.  And even the Bible has examples of marriages that do not fit our current definition.

[wenglund]

As promised, I will now explain how changing the definition of words like "marriage," can change the social meaningfulness of those words.

 

Since people are so close and committed to their respective positions on mangling the definition of marriage, and likely cant see things different no matter what, let me instead use a different word to illustrate the point.  There are a number of words in the English language to which cultures attach unusual meaningfulness. In our modern culture, one of these words is "courage." This word is heavily imbued with social meaningfulness, and it bestows upon the recipient no small measure of notoriety and honor, and tends to instill within the observer a strong sense of marvel and appreciation.

 

However, were the definition of "courage" to be legally and diametrically changed to include poltroons and milquetoasts, then logically the word would lose much of its social meaningfulness.

 

As explained in my blog: All the extensive and passionate advocacy for same-sex marriage has given the impression that marriage is a highly valued and cherished institution by the Left and gays, and that they wish it to be elevated in stature, rather than degraded. (See HERE)

However, when the definition of a word is diluted and bastardize, it is reasonable to expect that its value and meaningfulness to society and in the law would be diluted as well.

This is certainly true for the word "marriage" following the public and court debates and legalization of "same-sex marriage." (See HERE and HERE)

Not only was the definition diluted by including relationships that had previously been implicitly excluded (the more inclusive the definition the less prized the word), but its value and meaningfulness was unavoidably diminished and further tainted by linking it to behaviors that were once considered morally reprehensible, criminal in many states, and "are scientifically and objectively proven to be destructive." (See HERE and HERE)

And, as indicated in previous posts, the word "marriage" wasn't the only casualty of legalized gay marriage. Other words, like "committed" and "fidelity" and "monogamy" have also somewhat fallen prey

By legalizing same-sex marriage and altering other marital and moral terms, the fundamental institution of society has subsequently lost some of its appeal and virtue and moral impetus. Dennis Prager wisely asks: "why do we so rashly overturn an institution that has served our society so well for thousands of years?" (See HERE)

 

There is also this: is it any wonder, then, that many consider traditional marriage and families to be in crisis (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), and that marital and birth rates are in decline. (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)--including same-sex marriage rates where it is legal (see HERE and HERE).

Granted, marital and birth rates were, in some instances, in decline prior to legalization of same-sex marriage, though the decline has been exacerbated in those instances (see previous links and HERE), and may in some ways have been as much a symptom or byproduct of other threats as it was, or is, a threat, itself.

And, while divorce among heterosexuals has somewhat diminished (it went from 4.0 per 1,000 in 2000, to 3.6 in 2010--see HERE), "A 2004 study of registered partnerships in Sweden reported that gay male couples were 50 percent more likely to divorce than were heterosexual couples. Lesbian couples were nearly three times more likely to divorce than were heterosexual couples." (See HERE) "The pattern is evident in the Netherlands as well as Norway and Sweden, where Mundy notes that the risk of breakups for female partnerships more than doubles that found in male unions. The actual study she cites estimates that in Sweden 30 percent of female marriages are likely to end in divorce within six years of formation, compared with 20 percent for male marriages and 13 percent for heterosexual ones." (HERE)

Furthermore, same-sex marriage isn't the only threat to traditional marriage. Economics and other popular cultural issues like the sexual revolution, the "hook-up" generation, radical feminism, narcissism, no-fault divorce, etc. are in some respect greater threats. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE) And, there are not a few heterosexuals who have been against marriage. (See HERE and HERE and HERE)

Nevertheless, as indicated, same-sex marriage is corrosive to traditional marriage--not so much on an individual basis, but cumulatively at the cultural level (see HERE). It is one of many straws pilled onto the cultural camel's back in relation to traditional marriage.

If you thought correctly that traditional marriage was crumbling under its own heterosexual problems (like with the disturbing levels of cheating and divorce and domestic violence and the growing trend towards "open marriages" among heterosexuals--see HERE), imagine how much more the institution of marriage in general will suffer now that a demographic (homosexuals) is being added to the mix, who have a significantly greater penchant for infidelity, short-term relationships, domestic violence, sexual openness, divorce, and mental illness, than heterosexual (see HERE), and who have altered the meaning of words like "marriage" and "fidelity" and monogamy" to accommodate sexual infidelity. (See previous posts).

In other words, good and decent liberals have naively supposed that their support for same-sex marriage would ultimately strengthen the fundamental structure of society, but in reality they have unwittingly assented to the destruction of the traditional family--and for the life of them, they can't see it.

For example, a writer for the Atlantic Magazine said: "But what if the critics are correct, just not in the way they suppose? What if same-sex marriage does change marriage, but primarily for the better?...But the larger change might be this: by providing a new model of how two people can live together equitably, same-sex marriage could help haul matrimony more fully into the 21st century. Although marriage is in many ways fairer and more pleasurable for both men and women than it once was, it hasn’t entirely thrown off old notions and habits...Same-sex spouses, who cannot divide their labor based on preexisting gender norms, must approach marriage differently than their heterosexual peers. From sex to fighting, from child-rearing to chores, they must hammer out every last detail of domestic life without falling back on assumptions about who will do what. In this regard, they provide an example that can be enlightening to all couples. Critics warn of an institution rendered 'genderless.' But if a genderless marriage is a marriage in which the wife is not automatically expected to be responsible for school forms and child care and dinner preparation and birthday parties and midnight feedings and holiday shopping, I think it’s fair to say that many heterosexual women would cry 'Bring it on!'” (See HERE)

Be that as it may, the decline and potential collapse of traditional marriage and family through same-sex marriage and other cultural trends, isn't entirely accidental, but was set as a goal well in advance by homosexual advocates and others, and strategically planned and executed since then. For example, various gay manifestos and agendas have called for the elimination or radical altering of the traditional family (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), lesbian feminist and others have "regarded the institution as oppressive" and in need of change or elimination (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), and certain prominent figures in the gay movement have admitted to being against "marriage"--gay or otherwise (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)--which may account for why so few homosexuals choose to legally marry where permitted (see above), though some homosexuals support the idea of civil unions rather than marriage (see HERE and HERE). And, there are those homosexuals who see marriage as conflicting with sexual liberties (see HERE), or who regret the focus on gay marriage (see HERE and HERE and HERE), and who even intimate that same-sex marriage was designed to destroy or radically alter traditional marriage (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), if not also to legitimize homosexual behaviors (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE).

"The truth is that the gay experience, dressed in the language of heterosexual normalcy, bears little resemblance to traditional marriage relationships. For some researchers, that’s exactly the point. They believe that gay relationships herald a long-overdue deconstruction of the meaning of “marriage,” for gays and straights alike, away from the notion of sexual exclusivity and towards emotional bonding and 'open; sexual coupling, or tripling, or whatever..."(See HERE, see also below).

Not surprisingly, the rancor on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate has soured people on marriage altogether. (see HERE)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
 

Edited January 24, 2014 by wenglund