Homosexual Marriage Adoption And Its Probable Effect On Marriages Generally

[USU78]

http://utahpoliticohub.com/responding-to-questions-about-gay-marriage-advocates-coming-out-of-the-closet/

 

These are all gay activists and proponents of same sex unions making the case that gay marriage undermines marriage. As Professor George puts it,

“Again, these are not our words, but those of leading supporters of same-sex civil marriage. If you believe in permanence and exclusivity but would redefine civil marriage, take note.”

In short, after a thorough reading of the evidence, and despite an often angry debate, conservatives and progressives agree on one thing with regards to same-sex civil unions: It undermines traditional marriage.

 

Please keep it civil as we can.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I like your avatar. That's all I got on the subject.

[Scott Lloyd]

It amounts to what I've said before: the quickest way to undermine traditional marriage is to define it out of existence.

 

Up to now, the rate of promiscuity in the gay community has been extremely high. Perhaps that is to some degree attributable to the heretofore illegitimacy of homosexual relations.

 

It will be interesting now to see if and to what extent the redefinition of marriage changes that.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[EllenMaksoud]

http://utahpoliticohub.com/responding-to-questions-about-gay-marriage-advocates-coming-out-of-the-closet/

 

 

 

 

Please keep it civil as we can.

Well, there is no evidence that the children of adoptive gays or lesbians make their children gay or lesbian. And, I do not think this is happening in statistically significant numbers. I think the best thing that heterosexual couples can do is concentrate on being good parents and not to focus on the real or imagined sins of others.

 

This is difficult because no one can agree upon where the line is between minding out own business and interfering in the lives of others to the extent that we think we are God's little helpers. In frustration, I left the fundamentalist church and became Muslim because of their hateful, condemning ways. Some would argue that I jumped out of the frying pan into the fire perhaps.

[omni]

The biggest threat to marriage is indifference or believing it no longer necessary.  There is a segment of the population that believes marriage as it currently stands (in much of the world) as being inherently discriminatory or old fashion because of its exclusion of same sex couples.  As marriage gradually loses its appeal in much of the world, shouldn't we be supporting a movement that is fighting to increase the number of marriages and maintain its importance as the basis of human society?

[Scott Lloyd]

The biggest threat to marriage is indifference or believing it no longer necessary.  There is a segment of the population that believes marriage as it currently stands (in much of the world) as being inherently discriminatory or old fashion because of its exclusion of same sex couples.  As marriage gradually loses its appeal in much of the world, shouldn't we be supporting a movement that is fighting to increase the number of marriages and maintain its importance as the basis of human society?

But USU's link suggests that said movement may be having the opposite effect.

[omni]

But USU's link suggests that said movement may be having the opposite effect.

 

I think you could easily find several times that many quotes from SSM supporters claiming it will strengthen marriage.

[Kenngo1969]

I think you could easily find several times that many quotes from SSM supporters claiming it will strengthen marriage.

Probably, but that's what makes the fact that even some gays and lesbians admit that gay marriage will redefine marriage out of existence so significant.

Edited May 31, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Raharu]

Traditional marriage defined by tyrannical authority needs to be undermined. The Aaronic Priesthood manual used today still discourages interracial marriage for crying out loud. The manual emphasizes this with a quote from the former Church President, Spencer W. Kimball, who said, "We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally..."  This guide to traditional marriage, which encourages a racial divide, is found at the Church's own website. Why is this still being taught? Traditions are not automatically good things. That is why the Book of Mormon spends a good deal discounting tradition. We must undermine tradition went its root is hate, fear, and discrimination.

[jkwilliams]

A good friend and fellow former missionary who served in Bolivia recently celebrated his tenth wedding anniversary with his husband, and they are very happy together. I'm glad he was able to travel to Massachusetts to get married, and I celebrate their commitment to each other. That anyone thinks his marriage undermines anyone else's marriage is beyond my ability to comprehend.

[eddie]

Traditional marriage defined by tyrannical authority needs to be undermined. The Aaronic Priesthood manual used today still discourages interracial marriage for crying out loud. The manual emphasizes this with a quote from the former Church President, Spencer W. Kimball, who said, "We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally..." This guide to traditional marriage, which encourages a racial divide, is found at the Church's own website. Why is this still being taught? Traditions are not automatically good things. That is why the Book of Mormon spends a good deal discounting tradition. We must undermine tradition went its root is hate, fear, and discrimination.

It has nothing to do with hate, this is from a source outside of the church. Interracial marriages are much more likely to end in divorce than those of the same race. Just as marrying outside of the temple increases the chance of divorce, marrying someone of your culture increases those chances. It isn't forbidden, just discouraged. Edited May 31, 2014 by eddie

[jkwilliams]

It has nothing to do with hate,this is from a source outside of the church. Interracial marriages are much more likely to end in divorce than those of the same race.

http://newobserveronline.com/interracial-marriages-in-the-us-facts-and-figures-and-why-white-people-must-have-more-babies/

Research has established beyond any doubt that interracial couples have a higher divorce rate than those who marry within their race. The famous 2008 study by Jenifer L. Bratter and Rosalind B. King (’’But Will It Last?’’: Marital Instability Among Interracial and Same-Race Couples” Family Relations, 57 (April 2008), 160–171) found that according “to the adjusted models predicting divorce as of their 10th year of marriage, interracial marriages that are most vulnerable involve White females and non-White males (with the exception of White females/Hispanic White males) relative to White/White couples. Conversely, White men/ non-White women couples show either very little or no differences in divorce rates; or, as in the case of White men and Black women, are substantially less likely than White/White couples to divorce by their 10th year.”

 

Oh, boy. How does citing a white-supremacist web site that warns of "the coming racial apocalypse" help your cause at all? Yikes.

Edited May 31, 2014 by jkwilliams

[eddie]

Oh, boy. How does citing a white-supremacist web site that warns of "the coming racial apocalypse" help your cause at all? Yikes.

Okay, you don't like the source, here is the same information from wikipedia. The US Census bureau also has the same conclusions.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_United_States#Marital_instability_among_interracial_and_same-race_couples

Look I have no issue with interracial marriage, many of my extended family have spouses of different ethnicities. Statistically, it simply has been shown to be less stable, hence the church which places great emphasis on stable homes discourages it.

Edit: I didn't realize what the website was in the original source, I thought it was a news organization. In any event, the reasoning still stands. I have deleted the link because of the source.

Edited May 31, 2014 by eddie

[jkwilliams]

Okay, you don't like the source, here is the same information from wikipedia. The US Census bureau also has the same conclusions.

Look I have no issue with interracial marriage, many of my extended family have spouses of different ethnicities. Statistically, it simply has been shown to be less stable, hence the church which places great emphasis on stable homes discourages it.

Argue the information instead of attacking the source.

 

You cited an article whose main point was that white people needed to have more babies to combat a racial apocalypse. I don't see how I could ignore the source. BTW, I just finished reading the study cited. My response is that the statistics cited are from small samples and may not reflect current trends at all (most of the data is pretty old, from the 1980s).  

[eddie]

You cited an article whose main point was that white people needed to have more babies to combat a racial apocalypse. I don't see how I could ignore the source. BTW, I just finished reading the study cited. My response is that the statistics cited are from small samples and may not reflect current trends at all (most of the data is pretty old, from the 1980s).

Yes, I acknowledge the mistake, I was mainly just looking for the study, which was legitimate and not intended to be used in that manner. I am on a phone so the mobile version doesn't always show everything regarding the website.

Edited May 31, 2014 by eddie

[california boy]

The legal rights of marriage have always been defined by the State.  This is what the gay marriage movement is about above all else.  It is this issue that the judges are confirming that all Americans are entitled to the legal recognition and rights that marriage brings.  

 

How that marriage is defined has always been decided by the two individual people entering that marriage.  Just because your neighbor thinks his marriage is a throw away marriage and ends in divorce has never effected a couple who value their marriage and work hard to strengthen it.  The very fact that temple divorce is significantly less than other marriages tells us that statistically Mormons define marriage differently than someone who marries at city hall.  Yet both are granted a marriage license.  

 

Society in the past has also viewed Mormon marriage as weakening the institution of marriage by outlawing polygamy.  The idea of a married man and woman allowing multiple sex partners not legally married simply because of a religious ceremony was certainly going to bring down the institution of marriage.  Just like this article, how things are phrased tries to sway public opinion to accomplish an agenda.  In church history, that agenda was to stir up hatred towards Mormons and force them by threat of violence to not be a part of "their" society.

 

The fear of the religious right is not really about how gay marriage will effect their marriage.  It is used as a wedge issue to try and undermine homosexual relationships.  It is no secret that the religous right views gay sex as a sin, and they like the idea of denying gay couples the rights of marriage.  If those who believe gay sex is a sin can force those couples to only shack up together, in their minds, it helps them legitimize their position.  It can also help them legitimize other discriminations against gay couples.  Certainly those states who currently have gay marriage, also have stronger laws against discriminating against gay couples.  It is all related.  The day I hear Scott Lloyd or USU78 and others that have made it their mission on this board to try and undermine gay marriage announce that they have decided to end their marriage because gays are now allowed to marry, is the day I will believe their rhetoric. I personally don't see that happening any time soon.

[The Nehor]

How that marriage is defined has always been decided by the two individual people entering that marriage.  Just because your neighbor thinks his marriage is a throw away marriage and ends in divorce has never effected a couple who value their marriage and work hard to strengthen it.  The very fact that temple divorce is significantly less than other marriages tells us that statistically Mormons define marriage differently than someone who marries at city hall.  Yet both are granted a marriage license.  

 

No, this has almost never been the case. The idea of individuals defining the limits of their own marriage is a recent phenomenon. Society defined what marriage meant and you conformed or had serious social problems up to and including getting killed.

[frank_jessop]

No, this has almost never been the case. The idea of individuals defining the limits of their own marriage is a recent phenomenon. Society defined what marriage meant and you conformed or had serious social problems up to and including getting killed.

Is having a sexual relationship with a person who is not ones spouse a "recent phenomenon? People have always defined bounds/limits of their own marriage.

[thatjimguy]

The biggest threat to marriage is indifference or believing it no longer necessary.  There is a segment of the population that believes marriage as it currently stands (in much of the world) as being inherently discriminatory or old fashion because of its exclusion of same sex couples.  As marriage gradually loses its appeal in much of the world, shouldn't we be supporting a movement that is fighting to increase the number of marriages and maintain its importance as the basis of human society?

 

I feel the main problem is that the reason for marrige comes from religion in the first place. If someone thinks religion is a bowl of hooey, they are going to think the same thing about marriage. \

 

Take relgion away and what do you have? A contract to live together, gain the ability to file taxes combined, and for the wife to get half of everything you have when you split up. I can see why people dont think it's nessasary and would want to avoid it.

[thesometimesaint]

From a secular point of view marriage is the community's acceptance of legal sexual congress.

[california boy]

I feel the main problem is that the reason for marrige comes from religion in the first place. If someone thinks religion is a bowl of hooey, they are going to think the same thing about marriage. \

 

Take relgion away and what do you have? A contract to live together, gain the ability to file taxes combined, and for the wife to get half of everything you have when you split up. I can see why people dont think it's nessasary and would want to avoid it.

I completely agree with you.  It is one of the problems I feel is created when religion is so against gay marriage.  The very act of telling gays it is not important for you to marry is problematic.  And the message young people are getting loud and clear is that often repeated religious stance that marriage is a religious ceremony and has been since Adam and Eve.  They use the Bible to try and justify their position.  

[Storm Rider]

Traditional marriage defined by tyrannical authority needs to be undermined. The Aaronic Priesthood manual used today still discourages interracial marriage for crying out loud. The manual emphasizes this with a quote from the former Church President, Spencer W. Kimball, who said, "We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally..."  This guide to traditional marriage, which encourages a racial divide, is found at the Church's own website. Why is this still being taught? Traditions are not automatically good things. That is why the Book of Mormon spends a good deal discounting tradition. We must undermine tradition went its root is hate, fear, and discrimination.

 

My, make assumptions much?  Go back and read the quotes in context.  DID YOU SEE A SINGLE WORD THAT PROMOTED EXCLUSIVITY?  FEAR? HATE?  ETC.  It is the type of utter drivel that makes the conversation so bloody difficult.  

 

The teaching is to promote harmony between two people and that is all.  The more different the backgrounds - cultural, racial, etc. the more potentially difficult times the couple will experience as well as the children.  This just is so frustrating it makes me want to spit tacks.  

 

Really?!?  

Edited June 1, 2014 by Storm Rider

[bcuzbcuz]

Okay, you don't like the source, here is the same information from wikipedia. The US Census bureau also has the same conclusions.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_United_States#Marital_instability_among_interracial_and_same-race_couples

Look I have no issue with interracial marriage, many of my extended family have spouses of different ethnicities. Statistically, it simply has been shown to be less stable, hence the church which places great emphasis on stable homes discourages it.

Edit: I didn't realize what the website was in the original source, I thought it was a news organization. In any event, the reasoning still stands. I have deleted the link because of the source.

I'm glad you deleted the original quote and source because its whole premise is absurd. It bases its conclusions as if race was something that could be defined with a measuring tape, or colour photos. Race, as it is defined in the article and, unfortunately, by many people where I live in Europe, and probably still in the US (don't really know since I left the States in 1969) is defined by skin colour. If you look white, you are white, if you look black, you're not white, is absurdity to the nth degree.

How people can gather statistics that define divorce rates according to skin colour is not only absurd, it's ridiculous. It is, by very definition, racist. And should anyone misinterpret my meaning, I mean racism by everything bad that has come about because of it, such as slavery and national socialism.

[bcuzbcuz]

My, make assumptions much?  Go back and read the quotes in context.  DID YOU SEE A SINGLE WORD THAT PROMOTED EXCLUSIVITY?  FEAR? HATE?  ETC.  It is the type of utter drivel that makes the conversation so bloody difficult.  

 

The teaching is to promote harmony between two people and that is all.  The more different the backgrounds - cultural, racial, etc. the more potentially difficult times the couple will experience as well as the children.  This just is so frustrating it makes me want to spit tacks.  

 

Really?!?

"The more different the backgrounds, -cultural, racial, etc, the more potentiallly difficult times the couple will experience."

Am I right to assume that those are your words? You're not quoting someone else,, are you? Do you actually believe your words?

Would I be right to interpret your thoughts that the more similar a couple are, the better chances they have at achieving harmony in their relationship?

Then why do men marry women? If are any two groups of people that have more different backgrounds than men do to women, I'd like to hear it. Very little of what happens in a man's world has any correlation to what a woman has in her life experience. John Gray, although he missed a lot of issues in his works, nevertheless had it right in his title, "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus".

The two of them should never marry. Men should never marry women. It's doomed to failure. They have only the alphabet common, their words, although they sound the same, mean entirely different things.

[Vookman]

I have written on the subject of gay Marriage at my blog here and here.  For me, gay marriage is a yawner.  The children subjected to gay marriage is really all that matters.

 

Due to the incredibly high levels of promiscuity in gay relationships, even in countries seen as liberal and accepting of gays, the rate of marriage is minuscule.  Sweden and the Netherlands have less than 2% of cohabitating gays actually seek out marriage, and gay marriage has been available for more than a decade.  One practical side effect is the difficulty doing research on long-term gay relationships with custody of children.  In the USA there are only about 11,500 gay and lesbian couples with children who have been together for 12 years or more.  Yet in a survey of 100 of those couples, it was discovered that 30% of the teens were struggling from identifying their sexual orientation.  This compared to only 10% who come from non-gay parenting relationships.

 

91% of the 98% of the population which is heterosexual will marry by age 50.  After 20 years, 62% of the couples are still married. Compared to 5% of gay couples also after 20 years.  43% of gay men report having 500+ partners, 28% report having 1,000+, with the average of all gay men over 100.   Heterosexuals typically have 6 or less in their lifetime.  Married heterosexual couples survey that approximately 80% are truly monogamous.  Gay couples report 4.5% are monogamous, and that the average gay partner has 6 extramarital partners per year.

 

So while there are some excellent gay and lesbian couples who are devoted to each other, that is the exception.

 

My analysis concludes that out of the 2% of the population who currently reports themselves as homosexual, and since only about 5% of the gay population will take advantage of gay marriage, that means only 1/10 of 1% of the population will be in a gay marriage.  Out of that, 1 person in 14,000, or .00714% of the US population will be homosexuals in a relationship lasting 7 years or more.

 

So gay marriage is pretty unimportant as a social issue to me.  The damage to the religious understanding of marriage and the deprivation of children of gay couples to both gender parents is the issue.  Because same sex marriage advocates are wanting the same rights, which includes divorce settlements and no-fault divorce, most homosexuals will avoid the practice.  As my wife says about women wanting the priesthood, "Why would anyone want to be a man?"

 

Indeed, why would anyone who has no affinity to commit to a long term relationship want to enter the legal bindings of a contract of marriage?  Some will, but the lifestyle means the vast majority will not, with a correspondingly small impact on life in general.  Except for those kids.