Update on SSM and its redefinition of marriage

[jwhitlock]

Here's an update on the impact SSM is having on redefining marriage.

If you agree that open, monogamish marriages are wonderful, then you'll applaud this.

However, it is another indication why SSM is fundamentally inconsistent with the restored gospel of Jesus Christ and why SSM will never be acceptable in the church.

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, jwhitlock said:

Here's an update on the impact SSM is having on redefining marriage.

If you agree that open, monogamish marriages are wonderful, then you'll applaud this.

However, it is another indication why SSM is fundamentally inconsistent with the restored gospel of Jesus Christ and why SSM will never be acceptable in the church.

Incredible information- thanks.

I have always suspected this. 

[Calm]

Quote

As James writes, “some experts say that boundary-challenging gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage—one that might point the way for the survival of the institution.”

It is interesting that some see nonsexual fidelity as contributing to the survival of marriage when many others (and that includes myself to some extent if there is no parallel commitment in these other sexual relationships as there would be in polygamy) would say that such behaviour signals the end of marriage.

It comes across as 'well, the relationship lasts longer if it's open and we call that relationship marriage, therefore marriage will be stronger' without examining whether or not the relationship should really be defined as marriage in the first place if it has that expectation attached to it.

 

Edited January 1, 2016 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

Anyone doubting that polygamy will be eventually legalized isn't paying attention.

First SSM, then more acceptance of "open" relationships.  How can anyone think polygamy won't be legal in the near future?

 

[jwhitlock]

Quote

Gays might be “saving” marriage, but for far too long, the burdens of the marriage equality movement—which highlighted the universality of love—made many feel like they couldn’t be honest about what makes same-sex relationships unique.

One of the inconsistencies of SSM that has always troubled me is the emphasis on "love" or "committed loving couples" in the context that total fidelity is not necessary - or even desirable.

Quote

Like many gay couples, they were initially monogamous, although with “infrequent and informal” exceptions.

Along with the term "monogamous", the SSM freight train seems to have given new definitions to "love" and "commitment" as part of its agenda. 

[jwhitlock]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Anyone doubting that polygamy will be eventually legalized isn't paying attention.

First SSM, then more acceptance of "open" relationships.  How can anyone think polygamy won't be legal in the near future?

And it won't be your grandfather's polygamy, either.

[Mystery Meat]

Now I am sure there are quite a few SS couples who live a monogamous lifestyle, but the more interaction I have with them and the more I learn I think they are the exception, not the rule. The numbers tossed around in this article, at least for the men, would seem to bear that out. 

[smac97]

From the linked article in the OP:

Quote

 

Gay Open Marriages Need To Come Out of the Closet
2015 was the year of marriage equality—and now it’s time to celebrate the openness at the heart of many same-sex partnerships.

...

What makes these newly married couples unique is more than their gender. Surveys indicate that a high percentage of same-sex relationships—particularly among queer men—are non-monogamous, and often even after marriage.

Over the past decade and a half, studies from San Francisco State University and Alliant International University have found that around half of gay relationships are open. This rate is considerably higher than for heterosexual and lesbian couples...

...

Conservative estimates suggest that less than 1 percent of all married couples are in an open relationship, but other approximations are much higher. Back in 1983, the authors of American Couples, Phillip Blumstein and Pepper Schwartz, found that around 15 percent of committed partners—whether homo or heterosexual—had agreements that allowed for some degree of flexibility.

In a 2013 column for Slate, Hanna Rosin called non-monogamy the gay community’s “dirty little secret,” citing a study from the ’80s, which showed that up to 82 percent of gay couples had sex with other people. That number sounds about right to me, but here’s the thing: It’s not dirty and it’s hardly a secret...

...

Monogamish couples are a constant presence on apps like Grindr and Scruff, which allow gay men to connect with other men to chat or hook up.

...

I spoke to one couple that hasn’t let marriage get in the way of their Scruff account. Eric, 34, and Martin, 33, walked down the aisle last October after dating for five years. Like many gay couples, they were initially monogamous, although with “infrequent and informal” exceptions. “Think post-bar bathhouse outings,” Eric explained. But after creating a profile together on Scruff a few years ago, the couple agreed on a set of boundaries. “We only sleep with people together, we have to both communicate with the person to some extent before we meet up, and the guy has to very clearly be attracted to both of us,” Eric said.

Like nearly everyone I spoke to, the pair had few gay friends that were in monogamous relationships, and Martin believes it’s because there are fewer rules and expectations around gay relationships. “I think we don’t have heteronormative templates that we have to subscribe to,” Martin said. “There’s just not that same kind of pressure to be monogamous when you’re gay.”

...

Gays might be “saving” marriage, but for far too long, the burdens of the marriage equality movement—which highlighted the universality of love—made many feel like they couldn’t be honest about what makes same-sex relationships unique. In a 2013 piece for Gawker, Steven Thrasher wrote, “Gay-rights groups are often nervous about sociologists or reporters looking too closely at what really happens in the bedrooms of gay relationships, out of fear that anti-gay activists will bludgeon them with a charge of sexual promiscuity, as a reason to deny them equal rights.”

 

To sum up even a bit further:

• "Surveys indicate that a high percentage of same-sex relationships—particularly among queer men—are non-monogamous, and often even after marriage."
• "Around half of gay relationships are open.  This rate is considerably higher than for heterosexual and lesbian couples."
• "Up to 82 percent of gay couples had sex with other people."
• "That number sounds about right to me, but here’s the thing: It’s not dirty and it’s hardly a secret."
• "I spoke to one couple that hasn’t let marriage get in the way ... Like many gay couples, they were initially monogamous ... The pair had few gay friends that were in monogamous relationships ..."
• “'There’s just not that same kind of pressure to be monogamous when you’re gay.'”
• "The burdens of the marriage equality movement ... made many feel like they couldn’t be honest about what makes same-sex relationships unique."
• “'Gay-rights groups are often nervous about sociologists or reporters looking too closely at what really happens in the bedrooms of gay relationships, out of fear that anti-gay activists will bludgeon them with a charge of sexual promiscuity..."

Now take a look at this article from today's Salt Lake Tribune:

Quote

 

Gay couple on Bravo’s new season of ‘Newlyweds’ includes ex-Utahn, ex-Mormon
By SCOTT D | Pierce The Salt Lake Tribune

Television » Couple say Bravo reality series will show that their marriage is no different from others.

 

So gay "marriages" (male ones, anyway) are, according to the Trib article, "no different from others" and yet, according to the article in the OP, have "considerably higher" rates of infidelity/promiscuity (being "open") than heterosexual marriages ("up to 82% of them"!)?

I'm having a hard time buying what the Trib is trying to sell (that same-sex marriages are "no different" from heterosexual ones).  The astonishing rates of infidelity/promiscuity referenced in the OP's linked article shows that.

I have a friend who supports same-sex marriage because this friend believes the institution will "tame" (my friend's word) homosexuals, that is, reduce or eliminate the normative high levels of promiscuity that are - by even the reckoning of the radical gay rights folks - characteristic of the vast majority of same-sex relationships.  

I think the problem is that, as the OP article put it, if there is "a charge of sexual promiscuity" to be asserted against people in same-sex relationships, that charge is systemically valid.  

Not only that, the notion that same-sex marriage might have an ameliorating effect on this rampant promiscuity appears to be mostly wishful thinking.  

What's worse, it's not merely wishful thinking, it's a line of reasoning that is being openly rejected by the article's author.  As he put it, "what really happens in the bedrooms of gay relationships" is flagrant, systemic, widespread infidelity/promiscuity, but this is "not dirty" nor "hardly a secret" because "there's just not that same kind of pressure to be monogamous when you're gay."  Words fail me.  What are we to make of a re-definition of marriage that is characterized this way?

Back to the Trib article:

Quote

 

Utah's struggle for legalized gay marriage is about to take center stage once again — on a cable TV reality series.

Season 3 of Bravo's "Newlyweds: The First Year" starting Sunday features husbands Brandon Liberati and Craig Ramsay. And, while the couple live in California, Liberati is a Salt Lake City native who grew up in a Mormon family.

"Utah is a huge part of my story, of our story," Liberati said. "And we talk about it in the show."

...

"One of the main reasons we did this was for marriage equality," Liberati said. "To actually show people who had fear about the [Supreme Court] decision [legalizing gay marriage] that we're actually no different than any other married couple."

 

I have no interest in delving into this couple's married life.  But if the linked article in the OP is any indicator of systemic trends in same-sex "marriages", I am rather skeptical that such relationships are "actually no different than any other married couple."

Quote

 

Like other couples, Liberati and Ramsay argue at times. Like other couples, they struggle to start a family.

"We have to create our families. And it's done in such a loving way," Ramsay said. "Hopefully, it's going to resonate — especially with people in Salt Lake City — that we have really strong family values."

 

"Really strong family values" will, to most Mormons, include sexual fidelity within marriage.  According to the linked article in the OP, such fidelity is very much the exception to the rule of rampant promiscuity/infidelity in same-sex relationships.

Quote

 

The other three couples aren't representing anything other than themselves. Liberati and Ramsay are aware they will, unavoidably, be symbols for gay marriage, although Ramsay, in particular, resists the idea that they are role models, pointing to some advice he once got from Rosie O'Donnell.

"She said, 'You can't be a role model. All you can be is yourself. And if it's relatable to others, it's up to others to put you into that category,' " he said.

"With that said, I do feel like we have a huge responsibility to our community in how we portray ourselves and change people's attitudes toward our marriage — toward gay marriage," Liberati said.

 

To be frank, the article in the OP will, to me, ultimately be far more illuminating, and damning, about same-sex "marriages" than this TV series.  The OP article is more persuasive because I think it's more indicative of what is really happening in same-sex "marriages", and the out-and-proud nature of the infidelity/promiscuity that seems to infect the vast majority of such relationships.  As one fellow aptly put it: “'There’s just not that same kind of pressure to be monogamous when you’re gay.'”

Quote

 

And the recent controversy over LDS Church policy that Mormons who enter into same-sex unions will be considered apostates and their children will be barred from blessing and baptism rituals without the permission of the faith's highest leaders is something that troubles the couple.

"My family is directly affected," Liberati said. "And even if it doesn't directly affect me because I'm no longer participating in the church, it affects the way friends and family that are still active as Latter-day Saints treat us."

But Ramsay said he's encouraged by what he's experienced in Utah on recent trips.

"We have lots of family and friends — Brandon's family, that is — that are still Mormon. And we find tremendous support from them," he said "There's definitely a shift happening within the Mormon church by such people, because they want change. They don't want to have to be in the closet where they can't openly support us."

The couple are hoping their time on "Newlyweds" will help contribute to that understanding.

"I would love for people to walk away with their own opinion of marriage through watching us, and not adopting something that somebody else is forcing on them or making them believe," Liberati said. "Honestly, people will see there is no difference between us and those other couples. We are just like you. Our marriage is just like yours."

 

I bear no ill will for these men.  I hope they find as much happiness as they can.  And I hope that their marriage really is "just like" the normative heterosexual marriages.  But if it is, it will be - according to the OP's article - an anomaly.  An exception to the rule.  Because the "norm" for same-sex "relationships" - including marriages - appears to involve rampant infidelity and promiscuity.  So while this couple's relationship may be "just like" the relationship between me and my wife, the vast majority of their fellows cannot make the same claim, or anything like it.  And as long as such rampant infidelity and promiscuity exist in same-sex relationships (and based on the tone and content of the article in the OP, I think this state of affairs - pun intended - is not going anywhere), I think the advocates of such relationships will have a hard time persuading me of the legitimacy and/or viability of those relationships.

Thanks,

-Smac

EDIT TO ADD: Here's a sincere question: Can anyone point me to published books/articles by the folks on the pro-gay-marriage side of the argument in which sexual fidelity to one's legally-and-lawfully-wedded-same-sex spouse is encouraged?  The article in the OP makes it sound like the gay rights folks hold such a notion in contempt.

Edited January 2, 2016 by smac97

[jwhitlock]

Information that this has been a strong tendency in SSM has been around for years. This 2010 NY Times article talks about the same proclivity as the article in the OP.

What was particularly disturbing about this article was the NY Times portraying a hetero couple who had embraced this SSM concept of being monogamish. And one of the spouses in this couple was - wait for it - LDS.

Here's a quote from the article that struck me:

Quote

As the trial phase of the constitutional battle to overturn the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage concludes in federal court, gay nuptials are portrayed by opponents as an effort to rewrite the traditional rules of matrimony. Quietly, outside of the news media and courtroom spotlight, many gay couples are doing just that, according to groundbreaking new research.

 

[The Nehor]

I thought this was commonly known.

[salgare]

hehe, in some circles

[Hamba Tuhan]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I thought this was commonly known.

Only by people who actually read and think instead of being led blindly by all the feel-good propaganda about 'marriage equality' and 'love wins'.

Quote

Death of marriage = "progress"
1. "Opting out of marriage altogether will provide a quicker path to progress, as only the death of marriage can bring about the dawn of equality for all."
-- Dr. Meagan Tyler,
Lecturer in Sociology at Victoria University

Who needs marriage anymore
2. "The real question that should be debated is not whether gay marriage should be allowed, but rather, is marriage really something we need anymore?"
-- David Vakalis

Redefine the institution
3.  "A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. [Legalizing "same-sex marriage"] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture.”
-- Michelangelo Signorile,
OUT magazine, December/January 1994

We are advocating destruction
4.  "And after all, we are advocating the destruction of the centrality of marriage and the nuclear family unit... ."
-- Ryan Conrad

Next step: Abolish
5.  "But perhaps the next step isn’t to, once again, expand the otherwise narrow definition of marriage but to altogether abolish the false distinction between married families and other equally valid but unrecognized partnerships."
-- Sally Kohn,
Prop 8: Let’s Get Rid of Marriage Instead!

The death of marriage
6.  "Wouldn't marriage's death as a state institution, including for straight people, be the best solution? ...Scrap the civil register; make no distinction in the state's eyes between married and unmarried citizens."
-- Alex Gabriel, 
Politics.co.uk

Stoke the flames
7.  "Marriage is the proverbial burning building.  Instead of pounding on the door to be let in... queers should be stoking the flames!"
-- National Conference on Organized Resistance

Marriage erodes "freedom"
8.  "Marriage should not be a goal; it should be a choice. One choice available out of many recognized as valid by society. But it isn’t. Not yet. Right now, as far as society is concerned, you are married or you are not yet married. And as that notion becomes further codified our freedom to make other choices steadily erodes."
-- David McGee

A moral revolution
9.  "The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."
-- Paul Varnell,
Chicago Free Press

Abolish the family
10.  "We must aim at the abolition of the family, so that the sexist, male supremacist system can no longer be nurtured there."
-- Gay Liberation Front: Manifesto,
London, 1971, revised 1978

Transform society
11. “Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. ... We must keep our eyes on the goal ... of radically reordering society’s views of reality." [source]
-- Paula Ettelbrick
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

Marriage should not exist
12. "... fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there—because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist."
-- Masha Gessen, journalist
During a pannel discussion at the Sydney Writers Festival

(link)

 

Edited January 2, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I thought this was commonly known.

Not as much as you would think in my experience, including those who were actively against legalization (not saying I go around pointing to studies that show sexual fidelity isn't generally considered part of the marriage commitment in many gay marriages and perhaps those that don't seem to know it to me just do not see sexual fidelity as part of marriage, but from the way legalization of gay marriage is discussed, faithfulness in sexual behaviour seems to be assumed by most in our discussions).

The writer would seem to think that it is not that well known and he appears to be quite involved in the discussion, so it seems his opinion about awareness would likely be well supported.

Edited January 2, 2016 by Calm

[jwhitlock]

38 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Only by people who actually read and think instead of being lead blindly by all feel-good propaganda about 'marriage equality' and 'love wins'.

Thanks for posting those. 

[The Nehor]

39 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Only by people who actually read and think instead of being lead blindly by all feel-good propaganda about 'marriage equality' and 'love wins'.

 

No, I think it is more likely to be because I know and am friends with gay people.

[The Nehor]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not as much as you would think in my experience, including those who were actively against legalization (not saying I go around pointing to studies that show sexual fidelity isn't generally considered part of the marriage commitment in many gay marriages and perhaps those that don't seem to know it to me just do not see sexual fidelity as part of marriage, but from the way legalization of gay marriage is discussed, faithfulness in sexual behaviour seems to be assumed by most in our discussions).

The writer would seem to think that it is not that well known and he appears to be quite involved in the discussion, so it seems his opinion about awareness would likely be well supported.

I never really assumed it. I assume a lot of it is due to the "no risk of pregnancy" thing but monogamy is not the norm in most gay relationships I am aware of. Lesbian relationships have a greater tendency to involve sexual fidelity in the traditional marriage sense.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Lesbian relationships have a greater tendency to involve sexual fidelity in the traditional marriage sense.

Which would make sense given the differences between men and women's attitudes towards sexual expression and what it means (at least culturally).

[Scott Lloyd]

So to sum up then, the movement to redefine marriage has been, at its core, a movement to define marriage out of existence by making the term marriage essentially meaningless. 

It appears that what the sexual revolution has not quite been able to accomplish the gay rights movement will finish. 

And that, my friends, is why the same-sex marriage advocacy movement threatens marriage as an institution. And that is why inspired prophets and apostles have opposed it. 

[readstoomuch]

9 hours ago, jwhitlock said:

 

So if Mormons who are pro-SSM were presented with these facts/insights/rumored belief of open SSM would they change their tune?  My oldest kids argue that every one should be able to settle down with a committed partner.  So, this is even more disconcerting and even more anger provoking than watching state supreme courts overturn public votes against SSM.  

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So to sum up then, the movement to redefine marriage has been, at its core, a movement to define marriage out of existence by making the term marriage essentially meaningless. 

It appears that what the sexual revolution has not quite been able to accomplish the gay rights movement will finish. 

And that, my friends, is why the same-sex marriage advocacy movement threatens marriage as an institution. And that is why inspired prophets and apostles have opposed it. 

No, that was not the actual goal of most of the people involved. It will not render marriage meaningless. It will be the heterosexual couples who are following their example who will kick the necessity of sexual fidelity out of marriage. Dangerous but not what you are saying.

You should also be capable of ascribing motives to apostles and prophets. It should be God who defines the reasons for doing what he does and not a news article masquerading as revelation.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, readstoomuch said:

So if Mormons who are pro-SSM were presented with these facts/insights/rumored belief of open SSM would they change their tune?  My oldest kids argue that every one should be able to settle down with a committed partner.  So, this is even more disconcerting and even more anger provoking than watching state supreme courts overturn public votes against SSM.  

I had no idea most people were ignorant of this. It is not as if the common sexually libertine nature of male homosexuals within relationships was a huge secret.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, readstoomuch said:

So if Mormons who are pro-SSM were presented with these facts/insights/rumored belief of open SSM would they change their tune?

Being exposed to the agenda behind same-sex 'marriage' doesn't seem to change most people's tunes. For evidence, just consider The Nehor's posts above.

Edited January 2, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[strappinglad]

I hate to say it , but hetero couples have been doing a good job of kicking fidelity out of marriage for many years/decades. If 50% of marriages end in divorce and a substantial slice of those are because of infidelity, it is unfair to blame the whole mess on SSM and the 'new ' views of marriage. They are simply adding another hair dryer to those already aimed at a melting ice cream cone. 

[rockpond]

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Anyone doubting that polygamy will be eventually legalized isn't paying attention.

First SSM, then more acceptance of "open" relationships.  How can anyone think polygamy won't be legal in the near future?

 

So that will be a good thing for the Church, right?

[rockpond]

19 hours ago, jwhitlock said:

Here's an update on the impact SSM is having on redefining marriage.

If you agree that open, monogamish marriages are wonderful, then you'll applaud this.

However, it is another indication why SSM is fundamentally inconsistent with the restored gospel of Jesus Christ and why SSM will never be acceptable in the church.

It should surprise no one that those who were not given a place within the vast majority of our Judeo-Christian faith traditions do not share our same moral values.

I presume the Church will continue to be a great force within the world for teaching the value of commitment and fidelity.  It would be great if we could have the same influence within the gay marriage population, but that would require accepting some things that we aren't willing to accept right now.