Homosexual Marriage Adoption And Its Probable Effect On Marriages Generally

[Raharu]

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?!?  

 

You are imagining things. I use words like, encourage and emphasize, not exclusivity. I end my post by summarizing that a tradition which encourages racial divides is based on fear and hate. This could only be untrue if you feel racism is a good and just thing.

 

The way you make up what I said instead of reading it "is the type of utter drivel that makes the conversation so bloody difficult."

[eddie]

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.

People gather statistics on just about everything. I deleted the source because it was not appropriate, nor mainstream. However, the study cited in the article was legitimate.

As has been shown, not many condemn interracial marriages, but that doesn't change the fact that they have a higher rate of divorce than people of similar backgrounds that marry. It has nothing to do with rascim, it has to do with giving every individual the best chance of success.

Not sure why that is controversial.

Edited June 1, 2014 by eddie

[Calm]

Traditional marriage defined by tyrannical authority needs to be undermined. The Aaronic Priesthood manual used today....

That manual was retired two years ago, though it is still available online as a resource. See here for current curriculum:

https://www.lds.org/manual/aaronic-priesthood?lang=eng

Edited June 1, 2014 by calmoriah

[Raharu]

Sorry for thinking the manuals found at the Church's website and at my local meeting house were current. Maybe the Church won't print anything against gay marriage for the next two years. Then we can consider the Church's current stance on gay marriage obsolete too.

[rpn]

 

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.

 

The aaronic priesthood manual of which you speak was replaced by the new Youth curriculum in 2013.   So it shouldn't be being used anywhere.  

 

And having lived in an interracial marriage that lasted only a year, I can tell you that it is waaaay hard to bridge cultural divides whatever aspect of a persons heritage or experiences causes that  divide.

[jkwilliams]

The aaronic priesthood manual of which you speak was replaced by the new Youth curriculum in 2013.   So it shouldn't be being used anywhere.  

 

And having lived in an interracial marriage that lasted only a year, I can tell you that it is waaaay hard to bridge cultural divides whatever aspect of a persons heritage or experiences causes that  divide.

Race != culture.

My wife has a nephew who is African American. He was raised by white, LDS parents in Utah, attended BYU, and served a mission. Does anyone think that the color of his skin would be a huge problem if he married a white LDS girl from Utah?

[Calm]

Sorry for thinking the manuals found at the Church's website and at my local meeting house were current.

Just pointing out there has been some change. I personally think it is a good thing and should be celebrated.

As a former librarian I can testify with sure knowledge that ward libraries are often stocked full of obsolete material. We dumped the filmstrips a few years back, but there are pictures that are likely 50 years old and probably haven't been used for at least 30 and a few books I didn't have the heart to throw away on child rearing practices, farming advice and poetry from the turn of the century....not the last one, but the one before.

Edited June 2, 2014 by calmoriah

[Daniel2]

Fascinating, thought-provoking, and saddening thread.

FWIW, I just took the attached photo of a framed poster hanging in my kids' LDS Ward's Primary room in Provo, Utah.

I wonder if there will be a similar disconnect between church manuals, culture, and the photos hanging on ward Primary room walls in 20-30 years....

Edited June 2, 2014 by Daniel2

[Stone holm]

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.

CFR

[GingerRed]

 

 

........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.

 

 

It seems to me, same sex couples would have harder time with divorce, since there's no 'wife' in the male marriage, just husband and husband. Same with two females, two 'wives' . If they split up , who gets the kids? In hetero relationships, the mother is mostly granted custody. But in SSM, where's theres no mother, then who gets picked to be the better father? With two women, who gets to be the better mom? One would have to prove the other an un-fit parent or something, if they BOTH want all the kids.  Sounds like a big mess to figure that out. I would feel real sorry for children involved in that situation. Its hard enough to have to choose mom over dad  ( like myself) , but how do you choose one dad or mom over the other?

 

 

Red

[Stone holm]

It seems to me, same sex couples would have harder time with divorce, since there's no 'wife' in the male marriage, just husband and husband. Same with two females, two 'wives' . If they split up , who gets the kids? In hetero relationships, the mother is mostly granted custody. But in SSM, where's theres no mother, then who gets picked to be the better father? With two women, who gets to be the better mom? One would have to prove the other an un-fit parent or something, if they BOTH want all the kids.  Sounds like a big mess to figure that out. I would feel real sorry for children involved in that situation. Its hard enough to have to choose mom over dad  ( like myself) , but how do you choose one dad or mom over the other?

 

 

Red

The automatic assignment of custody according to gender has been severely eroded and may well disappear completely .

[frank_jessop]

The aaronic priesthood manual of which you speak was replaced by the new Youth curriculum in 2013. So it shouldn't be being used anywhere.  

I believe the older manuals are listed as "obsolete". But what prohibits a teacher from quoting any particular section of an obsolete manual which is still maintained online by the Church?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

I think we should just ignore these stats. I mean what do facts even mean anymore when you have an agenda.

[jkwilliams]

I think we should just ignore these stats. I mean what do facts even mean anymore when you have an agenda.

 

I don't ignore these statistics, but from an earlier discussion with Wade, I looked into them, and what Vookman is reporting is not an accurate description of what the statistics show. To take one example, the study in the Netherlands he cites specifically excluded people who were in a relationship or even desired to be in one. It's quite difficult to conclude anything about gay relationships when your study excludes people in gay relationships. The study in Sweden, on the other hand, showed that marriage rates were higher for gay and lesbian couples than they were for heterosexual couples, which would seem to show the opposite of what Vookman is claiming.

[wenglund]

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.

 

Your capacity to comprehend may be limited by the tiny scope of your perspective. Try looking beyond individual rare exceptions to general social trends, 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jkwilliams]

Your capacity to comprehend may be limited by the tiny scope of your perspective. Try looking beyond individual rare exceptions to general social trends, 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I have a lot of gay friends and a few gay family members. Most of them are in long-term relationships, and some have gotten married. Rare or not, I still see no reason to believe that anyone's marriage undermines anyone else's. I'm happy for my friends, gay or straight, who are committed to each other such that they have taken marital vows. What's not to celebrate? If nothing else, I'd rather make it less rare than more so. Is there some reason you think they should be discouraged from taking such vows and committing to each other?

[wenglund]

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

 

Isn't adultery now a legal sexual congress in most states? What about promiscuity?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I have a lot of gay friends and a few gay family members. Most of them are in long-term relationships, and some have gotten married. Rare or not, I still see no reason to believe that anyone's marriage undermines anyone else's. 

 

Again, it is difficult to grasp the macro by looking anecdotally at a relatively small sample of the micro.

 

However, the seemingly elusive concept may easily be comprehended in the logical relational principle that by diluting the meaning of a word, such as "marriage," it logically dilutes the meaningfulness of the word.

 

This is explained in a Harvard journal article on "What is Marriage?". I also address the point HERE.

 

I'm happy for my friends, gay or straight, who are committed to each other such that they have taken marital vows. What's not to celebrate? If nothing else, I'd rather make it less rare than more so. Is there some reason you think they should be discouraged from taking such vows and committing to each other?

 

Looking merely at the sexual aspect of the gay relationship, which is the only aspect that is of concern to the Church, we are talking about a perversion and denigration of the procreative act, and a sin, which we consider as harmful to the soul. To our LDS view, then, which evidently differs from yours, our inclination is to discourage rather than celebrate the perversion, sin, and harm. 

 

And, looking simply at the sexual aspect of gay relationships from the perspective of the secular state, which is the only aspect of state interest that warrants state action in marriages (see the Harvard article above), there is nothing there to celebrate either (particularly if by diluting the meaning of "marriage" it socially dilutes the meaningfulness of marriage), though from a health perspective (AIDS, STDs, gay bowel disease, etc.), there is ample cause not to celebrate, but to discourage.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[USU78]

Fascinating, thought-provoking, and saddening thread.

 

Then this link is really going to make you weep:  http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/09/bait-and-switch-how-same-sex-marriage-ends-marriage-and-family-autonomy/

 

The hard push for marriage equality was never about marriage. Neither was it about equality. It’s a convenient vehicle to abolish civil marriage, whether to rid the world of paternalism, evade responsibility for children, “privatize” relationships, or whatever. Abolishing marriage strips the family of its autonomy by placing it much more directly under the regulating control of the state.

 

Once the state no longer has to recognize the marriage relationship and its presumption of privilege and privacy, we all become atomized individuals in the eyes of the state, officially strangers to one another. We lose the space – the buffer zone – that the institution of the natural, organic family previously gave us and that forced the state to keep its distance.

[jkwilliams]

 

Then this link is really going to make you weep:  http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/09/bait-and-switch-how-same-sex-marriage-ends-marriage-and-family-autonomy/

 

No offense, but that site is about as objective as UTLM. Would you rely on Sandra Tanner to tell you what Mormonism is about?

[wenglund]

No offense, but that site is about as objective as UTLM. Would you rely on Sandra Tanner to tell you what Mormonism is about?

 

No offense either. However, I have seen some undeserved comparisons used as lazy and unwarranted dismissals, and this ranks right up there with some of the worst.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jkwilliams]

No offense either. However, I have seen some undeserved comparisons used as lazy and unwarranted dismissals, and this ranks right up there with some of the worst.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to respond to in that article. It's a polemic full of cherry-picked quotes with the intent to determine once and for all what the gays want: total destruct of marriage. I dismiss it for the same reason I dismiss most of the stuff over at CARM.

[USU78]

No offense, but that site is about as objective as UTLM. Would you rely on Sandra Tanner to tell you what Mormonism is about?

 

So . . . prohomosexual advocacy groups' renderings are okay, but not con?

 

Ridiculous, JK.

 

Dan'l, to whom I was responding, is a long-time poster with whom I have a long history on this site on these and similar issues.  He doesn't need any help, and speculations (or out-and-out evidence) concerning true motivations behind the so-called marriage equality movement are or ought to be fair game.  I don't expect the supporters to be any more honest than your typical Chicago Alderman.  But I don't do anything but point out the ridiculousness of their positions and arguments.  If you want to discuss the contents of the linked article, go right ahead, but this ad hominem post of yours is grossly disappointing.  You can do better.

[jkwilliams]

 

So . . . prohomosexual advocacy groups' renderings are okay, but not con?

 

Ridiculous, JK.

 

Dan'l, to whom I was responding, is a long-time poster with whom I have a long history on this site on these and similar issues.  He doesn't need any help, and speculations (or out-and-out evidence) concerning true motivations behind the so-called marriage equality movement are or ought to be fair game.  I don't expect the supporters to be any more honest than your typical Chicago Alderman.  But I don't do anything but point out the ridiculousness of their positions and arguments.  If you want to discuss the contents of the linked article, go right ahead, but this ad hominem post of yours is grossly disappointing.  You can do better.

 

I have no problem discussing motivations or listening to anti-SSM arguments, but I don't take polemical articles at face value. What your article provided was a caricature, which of course is fine as long as everyone involved knows we're talking polemics and not actual research.

[wenglund]

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to respond to in that article. It's a polemic full of cherry-picked quotes with the intent to determine once and for all what the gays want: total destruct of marriage. I dismiss it for the same reason I dismiss most of the stuff over at CARM.

 

In part, I agree with you. The vast majority of gays do not wish to destroy marriage. Judging from their action, I suspect most of them haven't given marriage much if any mind, and those who have, their thinking is more along the lines of gaining government benefits rather than in solemnizing their relationships, otherwise there would have been more solemnized relationships prior to the move to legally mimic heterosexual relationships and involve the government more in the same-sex bedrooms.

 

However, it is important to distinguish between what the vast majority of sheep may intend or be thinking (or not), and where the relatively few influential shepherds may wish to led their unwitting flocks. The article in question, and those similar to it, I read as speaking more to the later than the former.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-