Update on SSM and its redefinition of marriage

[Meadowchik]

The fundamental problem with the concept of nonsexual fidelity is that for the vast majority of sexual partners, sexual fidelity, too, is very important to the well-being and stability of whatever children they create together.

[provoman]

On January 1, 2016 at 1:19 PM, 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.

 

Saw the title and didnt need to read more. 

The gospel promotes monogamy, in a heterosexual legal and lawful marriage.

The stance of the gospel wouldnt change if the article was "Southern Utah Swingers Need to come out."

 

 

[mfbukowski]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

First, I said this: "So statistics on this topic appear to vary dramatically (25% per the above article versus 70% (men) / 50-60% (women)).  I wonder which are more accurate."  

Did you catch the last bit?  Here it is again: "I wonder which (statistics) are more accurate."  I was posing a question, not making an assertion.

Second, the points being discussed here are verbatim quotes from gay rights folks and their perspectives on infidelity/promiscuity being an accepted/expected feature of same-sex "marriages."

Third, drop the victim card.  Nobody is "blasting gays" or calling them "sinners and apostates."  We are discussing what they are saying about marital (in)fidelity, and how disturbing that is.  I am sure that it is hard to face the reality of what so many of your compatriots are doing under the pretext of "marriage".  

This is not a comparison of or dispute between heterosexual and homosexual marriage, not really.  There is no reasonable comparison between, on the one hand, the expectations and requirements which the LDS Church impute into the marriage relationship (which also reflect, I think, a very common set of expectations and requirements in heterosexual marriages in society generally) and, on the other, the free-wheeling, pervasive promiscuity/infidelity that, according to your compatriots, is a natural part of same-sex relationships, including marriage.  As one fellow put it: “There’s just not that same kind of pressure to be monogamous when you’re gay.”  This appears to be the predominant attitude about same-sex "marriages" amongst your compatriots.  Am I wrong?  I surely hope so.  I have twice asked this question, and here it is again: 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?  

Surely there must be some substantial body of literature advocating fidelity within same-sex marriages and discouraging the rampant promiscuity/infidelity described in the OP's linked article?  (It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway: I can point to literally hundreds and hundreds of instances where LDS general authorities have clearly and unequivocally condemned promiscuity, extra-marital sex, etc., and advocated total fidelity within marriage.)  Can you point to such materials?  

So no, this thread needn't be about infidelity in heterosexual marriages.  Nobody on this board is suggesting that infidelity/promiscuity is just okey-dokey in traditional marriages. Your apparent implication to the contrary is absurd and pernicious. And if you were to write an article discouraging infidelity in heterosexual marriages, I'd be right there with you and encouraging you.  You see, I think you and I have the same viewpoint on fidelity in marriage, and on the norms and expectations pertaining thereto.  That some people violate these norms and expectations does not eliminate those norms/expectations (particularly in the LDS paradigm, where infidelity in marriage is considered one of the most serious transgressions).  In contrast, however, your compatriots are proposing that rampant infidelity and promiscuity in same-sex marriages *are* the norm  and expectation of those relationships. 

Fourth, the bulk of your rant is unbecoming and not worthy of a substantive response.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Agreed.

The whole notion of agitating for "marriage" with a wink and a nod while everyone seems to know that it isn't really "marriage", which is essentially what the opposition to ssm has been saying all along, strikes me as horribly disingenuous and hypocritical.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Agreed.

The whole notion of agitating for "marriage" with a wink and a nod while everyone seems to know that it isn't really "marriage", which is essentially what the opposition to ssm has been saying all along, strikes me as horribly disingenuous and hypocritical.

I think the attitudes amongst homosexuals are all over the board on this.  The article from the Atlantic that I shared indicates that and when I did a search there are a number of varying opinions.

but the prevailing view seems to be if someone wants monogamy they should do it. If someone wants and "open marriage" that's ok too. It seems a number of those in the gay communist taking about this are saying they don't want to be told what to do but they want the right to marry and than live that marriage monogamously or some other way if that is what the persons in the relationship agree to.  I think in the article I posted one minister of a church that will marry gay couple but expects a commitment of monogamy.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think the attitudes amongst homosexuals are all over the board on this.  The article from the Atlantic that I shared indicates that and when I did a search there are a number of varying opinions.

but the prevailing view seems to be if someone wants monogamy they should do it. If someone wants and "open marriage" that's ok too. It seems a number of those in the gay communist taking about this are saying they don't want to be told what to do but they want the right to marry and than live that marriage monogamously or some other way if that is what the persons in the relationship agree to.  I think in the article I posted one minister of a church that will marry gay couple but expects a commitment of monogamy.

Well you know how I am about definitions- they are all we have for better or worse.  The definition of "marriage" IS marriage as it will be known forever hereafter.  This is a social concept defined by society- the words define the way people think about it.

Frankly I do not care about what people do in their bedrooms.

Marriage socially has always meant a monogamous relationship - at least as what it is "supposed" to be.  Affairs have been viewed as "improper"

So to me, pushing a program in which marriage is defined differently - deliberately pushing a new definition- as on its face NOT monogamy and ALSO not heterosexual is an act attacking what I consider to be the highest social "virtue" which has evolved for its survival value.

It is clear to me that non-monogamous "marriage" does not lead to happiness.  I have seen its effects.  Inevitably it leads to strife, jealousy, divorce and broken families and broken children.

I also think that this data alone is a full vindication of the church's policy to not subject little children who, by no fault of their own, find themselves mixed up in situations they cannot possibly understand.  This is not about religion, this is not about "right and wrong" ONLY.  It is about the very survival of the family as we know it and all that implies about the cultural implications of the dissolution of the family.

Perhaps that sounds dramatic, but I am convinced that this is the path the world is on. 

[readstoomuch]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Well you know how I am about definitions- they are all we have for better or worse.  The definition of "marriage" IS marriage as it will be known forever hereafter.  This is a social concept defined by society- the words define the way people think about it.

Frankly I do not care about what people do in their bedrooms.

Marriage socially has always meant a monogamous relationship - at least as what it is "supposed" to be.  Affairs have been viewed as "improper"

So to me, pushing a program in which marriage is defined differently - deliberately pushing a new definition- as on its face NOT monogamy and ALSO not heterosexual is an act attacking what I consider to be the highest social "virtue" which has evolved for its survival value.

It is clear to me that non-monogamous "marriage" does not lead to happiness.  I have seen its effects.  Inevitably it leads to strife, jealousy, divorce and broken families and broken children.

I also think that this data alone is a full vindication of the church's policy to not subject little children who, by no fault of their own, find themselves mixed up in situations they cannot possibly understand.  This is not about religion, this is not about "right and wrong" ONLY.  It is about the very survival of the family as we know it and all that implies about the cultural implications of the dissolution of the family.

Perhaps that sounds dramatic, but I am convinced that this is the path the world is on. 

Really well written.  Very close to describing how I feel.  

[jwhitlock]

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well you know how I am about definitions- they are all we have for better or worse.  The definition of "marriage" IS marriage as it will be known forever hereafter.  This is a social concept defined by society- the words define the way people think about it.

Frankly I do not care about what people do in their bedrooms.

Marriage socially has always meant a monogamous relationship - at least as what it is "supposed" to be.  Affairs have been viewed as "improper"

So to me, pushing a program in which marriage is defined differently - deliberately pushing a new definition- as on its face NOT monogamy and ALSO not heterosexual is an act attacking what I consider to be the highest social "virtue" which has evolved for its survival value.

It is clear to me that non-monogamous "marriage" does not lead to happiness.  I have seen its effects.  Inevitably it leads to strife, jealousy, divorce and broken families and broken children.

I also think that this data alone is a full vindication of the church's policy to not subject little children who, by no fault of their own, find themselves mixed up in situations they cannot possibly understand.  This is not about religion, this is not about "right and wrong" ONLY.  It is about the very survival of the family as we know it and all that implies about the cultural implications of the dissolution of the family.

Perhaps that sounds dramatic, but I am convinced that this is the path the world is on. 

This sums it up well. Excellent!

[Daniel2]

What I have learned from most of the comments in this thread is that many seem to consider and imply that marriage is only as strong as what other married couples are doing, especially if it contradicts what THEY believe marriage should look like.

"Marriage everywhere is under attack and being weakened because all those gay couples are sleeping around!"

That's like saying "The freedom to worship--and my resolve to live my religion--isn't as strong it used to be because there's a lot more Satan worshippers these days that are using their freedom of religion to worship Satan and doing all kinds of stuff my religion forbids doing!!"

Newsflash: Mormons only make up less than 1% of the worlds' population.  The VAST majority of others don't live their lives as you do, whether that comes to drinking alcohol, coffee, and tea, shopping on Sunday, swearing, having pre-marital (and extra-marital) sexual affairs, or any other aspect of LDS life.  Do ANY of those things weaken your resolve to live in, but not of, the world?  In my experience, the opposition they see in the world just strengthens most Latter-day Saints' convictions and resolve to live according to the precepts of your Faith.  The value of YOUR religion shouldn't be contingent on other peoples' religious choices--why should marriage be ANY different?

As long as gay couples aren't having sex in public places and in front of your own eyes, why should the fact that other people don't live up to your commandments affect you in ANY way, unless your testimony depends on keeping track of what's popular or not??  The LDS church I grew up in FREQUENTLY taught about the evils of following along the peer-pressure path of, "... but everyone else is doing it...."  That admonition far pre-dated gay couples' constitutional right to legally commit to an individual of their choice.

From my perspective, I believe that, like religion, marriage--especially our own marriage--is as strong as we make it, regardless of how others exercise their agency within their own lives.  Instead of all the preoccupation, hand-wringing, and pearl-clutching over what others are doing, I believe in taking responsibility for my own choices, regardless of the fact that others are exercising their God-given agency and state-sanctioned freedom to worship or marry how, where, or to whom they may. 

And that includes my personal resolve to commit to my husband and remain monogamous, regardless of what "a bunch of those other gay married couples" are doing. 

Get over it.  Stop blaming others.  Make your own commitments and stop obsessing over what others are doing.

EDIT:  BTW, yes, polygamy will eventually happen within the United States.  And before anyone tries to say, "BUT, YOU told us that gay marriage wouldn't lead to polygamy," check your facts--I've always been an ardent supporter of legalized polygamy within the U.S.--after all, my great-great grandparents were polygamists, and my grandmother was born in the Mormon Mexican Polygamist colonies because my ancestors were forced to flee the U.S. when Utah was unjustly forced to disavow polygamy in order to attain statehood.  So, even though I entirely respect the LDS church's autonomy to either continue to abstain from polygamy, or to eventually re-instate it, it is because of the mistreatment by my polygamist LDS ancestors that I support the legalization of polygamy--not because of my support of marriage equality for same-sex couples.

BUT--when the time comes that the U.S. does allow polygamy, in whatever form it eventually does, the same principles I've described above will still apply to your LDS marriages--get over it.  Don't blame polygamists.  Continue making your own commitments (even if the church remains committed to monogamous marriage) and stop obsessing over what others are doing.  Just because others are practicing polygamy doesn't mean your church has to go back to it. Period.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Marriage socially has always meant a monogamous relationship - at least as what it is "supposed" to be. 

The irony that this is being written by a Latter-day Saint on an LDS message board is rich. 

And the statement is entirely false.  Do you not know your own Faith's history....? Let alone the history of plural marriage across numerous cultures throughout antiquity?

Edited January 5, 2016 by Daniel2

[smac97]

CB,

> What I have learned from most of the comments in this thread is that many seem to consider and imply that marriage is only as strong as what other married couples are doing, especially if it contradicts what THEY believe marriage should look like.

> "Marriage everywhere is under attack and being weakened because all those gay couples are sleeping around!"

==Nice little caricature.  With no basis in reality.

==Meanwhile, the comments in this thread have illustrated that, by many accounts, "around half of gay relationships are open," which rate is "considerably higher than for heterosexual and lesbian couples."  

==The comments have also illustrated that "up to 82 percent of gay couples had sex with other people."

==The comments have also illustrated that an apparently common perception amongst same-sex couples is that "there’s just not that same kind of pressure to be monogamous when you’re gay."

==The comments have also illustrated that "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," a "charge" which appears to be substantially justified.

> That's like saying "My freedom to worship as I see fit isn't as strong as it used to be because there's a lot more Satan worshippers these days that are using their freedom of religion to worship Satan!!"

==CB, you seem like a pretty stand-up guy.  So for the life of me I cannot figure out how or why you expect us to ignore published statements from your compatriots, as follows:

•  "The real question that should be debated is not whether gay marriage should be allowed, but rather, is marriage really something we need anymore?"
• "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.”
• "And after all, we are advocating the destruction of the centrality of marriage and the nuclear family unit... ."
• "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."
• "Wouldn't marriage's death as a state institution, including for straight people, be the best solution?"
• "Marriage is the proverbial burning building.  Instead of pounding on the door to be let in... queers should be stoking the flames!"
• "We must aim at the abolition of the family, so that the sexist, male supremacist system can no longer be nurtured there."
• "... 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."
• "Rather than being transformed by the institution of marriage, gay men — some of whom have raised the concept of the ‘open relationship’ to an art form — could simply transform the institution itself, making it more sexually open, even influencing their heterosexual counterparts.’’

==So please explain.  We are listening to your compatriots who are making public declarations about marriage being an "archaic institution" that they want to "radically alter," that it may be something we don't even "need anymore," that they are "advocating the destruction of the centrality of marriage and the nuclear family unit," that they want to "abolish" any distinctions between marital and non-marital relationships," that the "death" of marriage would be "the best solution" for "straight people," that "queers should be stoking the flames" destroying marriage, that their "aim" is the "abolition of the family," that they have been "lying" about what they are going to do with marriage once same-sex marriage became a reality, that marriage "should (not) exist," and that they are hoping to export the infidelity/promiscuity inherent in "open" gay marriages to "their heterosexual counterparts."

==We're reading these things, and you are accusing us of paranoia when we say that marriage is "under attack."  We feel this way because your compatriots are openly telling as much.  So what gives?

> From my perspective, I believe that, like religion, marriage--especially our own marriage--is as strong as we make it, regardless of how others exercise their agency within their own lives.  Instead of all the preoccupation, hand-wringing, and pearl-clutching over what others are doing, I believe in taking responsibility for my own choices, regardless of the fact that others are worshiping or marrying how, where, or to whom they may. 

==This all sounds very nice.  But this is not an either/or situation.  Latter-day Saints can both work to maintain and improve their own marriages and express concern about your compatriots openly plotting to destroy marriage as an institution.

> And that includes my personal resolve to commit to my husband and remain monogamous, regardless of what "a bunch of those other gay married couples" are doing. 

> Stop blaming others.  Make your own commitments and stop obsessing over what others are doing.  Get over it.

==Right.  Don't pay attention to the threats your compatriots have made against the institution of marriage?  Not gonna happen.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited January 5, 2016 by smac97

[jwhitlock]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

"Marriage everywhere is under attack and being weakened because all those gay couples are sleeping around!"

False.

MFB was perfectly correct about full monogamy and fidelity being a basic principle of marriage. While less-than-ethical straight individuals have been ignoring this principle for years, it has still been a basic principle and expectation of marriage.

Legalizing SSM has been the action that has dismissed that principle as an expectation. That's what this thread is about, and not your ill-informed caricature.

 

Edited January 5, 2016 by jwhitlock
Wrong poster quoted.

[jwhitlock]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

The irony that this is being written by a Latter-day Saint on an LDS message board is rich. 

And the statement is entirely false.  Do you not know your own Faith's history....? Let alone the history of plural marriage across numerous cultures throughout antiquity?

We're talking about full monogamy within marriage. That includes plural marriage.

SSM makes full monogamy optional and not expected (or desired, by many) within marriage.

This isn't a difficult difference to understand.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, jwhitlock said:

We're talking about full monogamy within marriage. That includes plural marriage.

SSM makes full monogamy optional and not expected (or desired, by many) within marriage.

This isn't a difficult difference to understand.

So you would not suggest that SSM was creating a new standard if they had multiple partners as long as they were married to all of them?

Just to be clear.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Calm

[jwhitlock]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

So you would not suggest that SSM was creating a new standard if they had multiple partners as long as they were married to all of them?

Just to be clear.

We'd be talking about a group marriage, then. Not polygamy.

And keeping the article in the OP in mind, I really doubt that those involved in such a group marriage would still be fully monogamous.

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, jwhitlock said:

We'd be talking about a group marriage, then. Not polygamy.

And keeping the article in the OP in mind, I really doubt that those involved in such a group marriage would still be fully monogamous.

So the only reason you don't have a problem with plural marriage is because it is only one man having multiple female sexual partners and all of the women are sexually exclusive?

[jwhitlock]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

So the only reason you don't have a problem with plural marriage is because it is only one man having multiple female sexual partners and all of the women are sexually exclusive?

Actually, I don't have a problem with plural marriage when the Lord commands it. Otherwise, I do.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, jwhitlock said:

Actually, I don't have a problem with plural marriage when the Lord commands it. Otherwise, I do.

So if God commanded a group marriage such as you describe in the post above my post, you would be okay with it?

Edited January 5, 2016 by Calm

[jwhitlock]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

So if God commanded a group marriage such as you describe in the post above my post, you would be okay with it?

If God commands it, then it's valid.

However, it's a moot point. I'm not aware of any precedent where God has commanded such a thing, though there have been attempts (usually based in self-justification) to claim He has done so. Just like attempts to "prove" God is ok with SSM.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

CB,

> What I have learned from most of the comments in this thread is that many seem to consider and imply that marriage is only as strong as what other married couples are doing, especially if it contradicts what THEY believe marriage should look like.

> "Marriage everywhere is under attack and being weakened because all those gay couples are sleeping around!"

==Nice little caricature.  With no basis in reality.

==Meanwhile, the comments in this thread have illustrated that, by many accounts, "around half of gay relationships are open," which rate is "considerably higher than for heterosexual and lesbian couples."  

==The comments have also illustrated that "up to 82 percent of gay couples had sex with other people."

==The comments have also illustrated that an apparently common perception amongst same-sex couples is that "there’s just not that same kind of pressure to be monogamous when you’re gay."

==The comments have also illustrated that "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," a "charge" which appears to be substantially justified.

> That's like saying "My freedom to worship as I see fit isn't as strong as it used to be because there's a lot more Satan worshippers these days that are using their freedom of religion to worship Satan!!"

==CB, you seem like a pretty stand-up guy.  So for the life of me I cannot figure out how or why you expect us to ignore published statements from your compatriots, as follows:

•  "The real question that should be debated is not whether gay marriage should be allowed, but rather, is marriage really something we need anymore?"
• "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.”
• "And after all, we are advocating the destruction of the centrality of marriage and the nuclear family unit... ."
• "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."
• "Wouldn't marriage's death as a state institution, including for straight people, be the best solution?"
• "Marriage is the proverbial burning building.  Instead of pounding on the door to be let in... queers should be stoking the flames!"
• "We must aim at the abolition of the family, so that the sexist, male supremacist system can no longer be nurtured there."
• "... 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."
• "Rather than being transformed by the institution of marriage, gay men — some of whom have raised the concept of the ‘open relationship’ to an art form — could simply transform the institution itself, making it more sexually open, even influencing their heterosexual counterparts.’’

==So please explain.  We are listening to your compatriots who are making public declarations about marriage being an "archaic institution" that they want to "radically alter," that it may be something we don't even "need anymore," that they are "advocating the destruction of the centrality of marriage and the nuclear family unit," that they want to "abolish" any distinctions between marital and non-marital relationships," that the "death" of marriage would be "the best solution" for "straight people," that "queers should be stoking the flames" destroying marriage, that their "aim" is the "abolition of the family," that they have been "lying" about what they are going to do with marriage once same-sex marriage became a reality, that marriage "should (not) exist," and that they are hoping to export the infidelity/promiscuity inherent in "open" gay marriages to "their heterosexual counterparts."

==We're reading these things, and you are accusing us of paranoia when we say that marriage is "under attack."  We feel this way because your compatriots are openly telling as much.  So what gives?

> From my perspective, I believe that, like religion, marriage--especially our own marriage--is as strong as we make it, regardless of how others exercise their agency within their own lives.  Instead of all the preoccupation, hand-wringing, and pearl-clutching over what others are doing, I believe in taking responsibility for my own choices, regardless of the fact that others are worshiping or marrying how, where, or to whom they may. 

==This all sounds very nice.  But this is not an either/or situation.  Latter-day Saints can both work to maintain and improve their own marriages and express concern about your compatriots openly plotting to destroy marriage as an institution.

> And that includes my personal resolve to commit to my husband and remain monogamous, regardless of what "a bunch of those other gay married couples" are doing. 

> Stop blaming others.  Make your own commitments and stop obsessing over what others are doing.  Get over it.

==Right.  Don't pay attention to the threats your compatriots have made against the institution of marriage?  Not gonna happen.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I think you confused what Daniel wrote with what I was addressing.  Most of your quotes are from Daniel's post.  I do however agree with what he wrote.  I would be happy to address your comments in a general way.

1.  What some gay activist say does not represent what all gays say or believe.  Do you have any statistics of the number of gays that agree with any of those statements?  Certainly all the Charlie Sheen says about marriage does not represent what all straight people believe about marriage.  I am not asking you to ignore any statements that anyone makes.  I am only asking that you don't assume that all gays feel the same way.  Would you agree with that?

2.  I am not trying to deny that a higher percentage of gay couples may not be monogamous.  We don't really know what the percentage difference between gay couples and straight couples, since some studies report that 70% of straight men have sex outside of their marriage.  Whatever that number actually is is perhaps not that important.  Certainly what is not disputed is that straight couples have sex outside of their marriages and have long before gay marriage became legal.  Would you agree with that?

3. I do agree with Daniel.  What others do whether they are straight or gay should not have any effect in how the church or members of the church view marriage covenants.  Would you agree with that?

 

And finally, my main point that I have tried to make in this thread is that not everything gays do are why the definition of marriage is changing.  Using gay marriage as some kind of scape goat for the direction marriage seems to be headed is unfair and wrong.  Straight couples are living more together then they have ever had.  More children are being born out of wedlock then ever before.  Couples are increasingly forgoing marriage and forgoing having children.  The idea that marriage is the institution where children should be raised is increasingly becoming optional.  More and more married couples are having sex outside of their marriage covenants.  Divorce have increased considerably.  NONE of these trends is a result of gay marriage.  Starting threads on a regular basis blaming gay marriage as the decline of marriage is WRONG and an excuse just to attack gays.  If posters want to have a thread about the downfall of marriage, then have it.  But don't continually blame it on "the gays" or what some gay activists say or believe.  

Less than .01% of the population is in a gay marriage.  They are hardly responsible for the changing definition of marriage.  Other changes in moral behavior by the majority of straight people are redefining marriage in a much more impactful way.  All of these changes in the definition of marriage have been going on a lot longer than the legalization of gay marriage.  Wouid you agree with that?  

[Mystery Meat]

5 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

What I have learned from most of the comments in this thread is that many seem to consider and imply that marriage is only as strong as what other married couples are doing, especially if it contradicts what THEY believe marriage should look like.

"Marriage everywhere is under attack and being weakened because all those gay couples are sleeping around!"

That's like saying "The freedom to worship--and my resolve to live my religion--isn't as strong it used to be because there's a lot more Satan worshippers these days that are using their freedom of religion to worship Satan and doing all kinds of stuff my religion forbids doing!!"

Newsflash: Mormons only make up less than 1% of the worlds' population.  The VAST majority of others don't live their lives as you do, whether that comes to drinking alcohol, coffee, and tea, shopping on Sunday, swearing, having pre-marital (and extra-marital) sexual affairs, or any other aspect of LDS life.  Do ANY of those things weaken your resolve to live in, but not of, the world?  In my experience, the opposition they see in the world just strengthens most Latter-day Saints' convictions and resolve to live according to the precepts of your Faith.  The value of YOUR religion shouldn't be contingent on other peoples' religious choices--why should marriage be ANY different?

As long as gay couples aren't having sex in public places and in front of your own eyes, why should the fact that other people don't live up to your commandments affect you in ANY way, unless your testimony depends on keeping track of what's popular or not??  The LDS church I grew up in FREQUENTLY taught about the evils of following along the peer-pressure path of, "... but everyone else is doing it...."  That admonition far pre-dated gay couples' constitutional right to legally commit to an individual of their choice.

From my perspective, I believe that, like religion, marriage--especially our own marriage--is as strong as we make it, regardless of how others exercise their agency within their own lives.  Instead of all the preoccupation, hand-wringing, and pearl-clutching over what others are doing, I believe in taking responsibility for my own choices, regardless of the fact that others are exercising their God-given agency and state-sanctioned freedom to worship or marry how, where, or to whom they may. 

And that includes my personal resolve to commit to my husband and remain monogamous, regardless of what "a bunch of those other gay married couples" are doing. 

Get over it.  Stop blaming others.  Make your own commitments and stop obsessing over what others are doing.

EDIT:  BTW, yes, polygamy will eventually happen within the United States.  And before anyone tries to say, "BUT, YOU told us that gay marriage wouldn't lead to polygamy," check your facts--I've always been an ardent supporter of legalized polygamy within the U.S.--after all, my great-great grandparents were polygamists, and my grandmother was born in the Mormon Mexican Polygamist colonies because my ancestors were forced to flee the U.S. when Utah was unjustly forced to disavow polygamy in order to attain statehood.  So, even though I entirely respect the LDS church's autonomy to either continue to abstain from polygamy, or to eventually re-instate it, it is because of the mistreatment by my polygamist LDS ancestors that I support the legalization of polygamy--not because of my support of marriage equality for same-sex couples.

BUT--when the time comes that the U.S. does allow polygamy, in whatever form it eventually does, the same principles I've described above will still apply to your LDS marriages--get over it.  Don't blame polygamists.  Continue making your own commitments (even if the church remains committed to monogamous marriage) and stop obsessing over what others are doing.  Just because others are practicing polygamy doesn't mean your church has to go back to it. Period.

I think you misunderstand. While I think SSM weakens marriage generally, it cannot do anything to weaken individual marriages without the individual husband and wife consent. Additionally, there are plenty of influences outside of SSM that are weakening marriages generally like pornography, infidelity, swinging, divorce and deviance. Sadly, I have know of of couples who are active LDS who swing, or husbands who watch their wives have sex with other men. It makes me sick to even type that. So no, SSM is not going to destroy any marriages on it own. 

But I don't think that has ever been the claim and I think it is dishonest to mischaracterize the points people are making. There is such a thing as creep. When an action becomes more and more acceptable to a society its influence begins to creep and spread. Porn is a good one. Sexual promiscuity and the rejection of monogamy are others that are taking hold; neither of which can be blamed exclusively on SSM. But with this out and active advocacy for monogomish relationships by homosexuals (both in the article and gays I know in real life) to a degree that is unprecedented it has serious potential to creep. This is especially true with how beloved gays and lesbians are right now by society at large. 

So no, we won't ignore it. While it may not affect our personal marriages, undoubtedly it will affect others. It will make that much harder for us to raise families and teach children righteous principals without the creep affecting how they think and what their friends are doing and believing. Ignoring it would be irresponsible. 

I am glad you are committed to monogamy. But every single gay person I know in real life practice monogomish relationships (and I know quite a few). So your reassurances do very little to provide any sort of comfort.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

The irony that this is being written by a Latter-day Saint on an LDS message board is rich. 

And the statement is entirely false.  Do you not know your own Faith's history....? Let alone the history of plural marriage across numerous cultures throughout antiquity?

Did you read the OP at all?  This thread is about ssm and "open marriage" not polygamy.   I understand you are tying to dodge the real questions here, but it will not work with me. 

The REAL irony here is that the words do not even exist to describe what SSM is doing to marriage.  

"Monogamous" is not the right word- on that you are right.  

The problem is that there is no word to describe a marriage that is not a marriage- without using the two contradictory words "open" and "marriage" to describe - what?  A relationship?  What kind of relationship?  A friendship?  We already have a word for that - "friendship".

Matthew 19:5
"And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh"

Even polygamous marriage was always between people who agreed to be exclusive sexually within the CONTRACT of marriage.  In a sense they were "monogamous" within those in the marriage even in polygamous marriages.  Yes technically that is not the right word, but what IS the word that describes a contract that is not a contract?

What is marriage if not an agreement to be exclusive within the marriage?  Why would anyone enter into a "marriage" with anyone you found you wanted to have sex with?

Marriage is "closed" by definition.

[california boy]

SMAC, you seem like a pretty stand-up guy.  So for the life of me I cannot figure out how or why you expect us to ignore published statements from your compatriots, as follows: 

WHY CHEATING IS GOOD FOR YOUR RELATIONSHIP

Quote

Studies have revealed that over 65% of women in a monogamous relationship have cheated on their partners, will another 27% claim they’ve thought about it or would like to at some point. It’s hard to argue with statistics like that.

 

Quote

 Ladies, it’s time to beat your man to the chase and cheat on him first! This helps you secure the dominant role in the relationship, and makes sure he’s too occupied with chasing you around and checking up on you to find someone to cheat in you with. You go girl!

 

Quote

Having multiple sexual partners ensures your exposure to many different ways to have sex, and ways to please people. There is a cornucopia of sexual knowledge out there just waiting for you to hump it. So go out there, learn new things with new people, and bring it back into the bedroom to wow your man! He’ll probably be too busy enjoying himself to wonder where you’ve picked up all these new techniques!

 

Quote

they find the idea of you sleeping with another man thrilling.

 

Is There Such a Thing as ‘Ethical Cheating’?

Quote

 

“Monogamy in the traditional sense is not working for the majority of us,” said Mr. Wade, whose current wife is his third. “It has not worked out for me. There is a growing movement of people who are able to be honest with their mate that the traditional model isn’t working.”

OpenMinded.com started in May and, Mr. Wade said, now has 150,000 users, with more than half of the members identifying as couples who are in open relationships. 

 

 

Is It Ever OK to Cheat? What About In These 6 Instances?

Quote

 

Every relationship is different, and the boundaries of how intimate you are allowed to be with others differs from couple to couple. I know my friends Jacob and Marnie, who are married, are allowed to flirt with others because they like to bring additional partners into their sexual activity. 

 

 

 

More statements about the definition of marriage by your compatriots

 

Quote

I have been in a relationship with my PARTNER for about 5 years now. Im 23, hes 30. We have NO interest in marriage, I truly believe if I got married today it would be to please society and my family. 
We love eachother, thats all I need. Im extremely happy and content. I need a GOOD reason to get married. 
To me it does seem like all for money (cause divorce rates are incredible), and hate to say this all for show. Yes some couple are all for marriage and great!! Thats fantastic, but if its not something for everyone, just get over it! 
I dont need a piece of paper, or a crowd to PROVE that I love someone!!! Just the idea of me and him together, and the CONSTANT affection is more than enough for me. We barely fight, we communicate, what more do I need??!
Im VERY HAPPY and I love him IMMENSELY!
I couldnt and I wont ask for more =)

 

Quote

 

If two people want to be together, they do not need a piece of paper stating they are in love and legally bound. If they make the mistake of marrying, they should be able to leave. My parents are divorced and in all honesty, it would have been easier if one just left without the stress of the divorce.

Oh, and I'm absolutely atheist, so religion is not really a factor in my opinion.

 

 

Quote

 

Saddly the non heterosexual couples REALLY want marrage (sorry not sure of the proper PC term there without offending someone)
But Why? Marrage really is pointless, And a HUGE waste of money that could be spent elsewhere, then you have the divorce, More money when it all could have been avoided with a simple I'll be this man, youll be this woman, if we change oh well we'll cross that bridge then.

 

 

Quote

I think two people can be faithful to each other without having the 'I can't do this i'm married' cloud over their head. Besides adam and eve weren't married to all those who are gonna come in with religion.

 

Quote

Marriage is just a proclamation that has been around for a few centuries. It was to lay claim on the woman as his property in many places just like a title on a car. 

 

 

[Calm]

Seriously, Glamour magazine? New York Times, okay.   But Glamour?

If you want to point out any of the gay activist claims that were from less credible sources, shouldn't you do that rather than try to make it appear that cheating is considered as appropriate by a number of mainstream heterosexual marriage participants and then using something like Glamour.

I would be very interested in reading your opinion of those who were cited.  Are these individuals and sources considered fringe by most in the extended LGBT community?

And forandagainst.com...random commentators or established in their community?  Apparently one of the commentators you quote likes Spock a lot in another debate.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

SMAC, you seem like a pretty stand-up guy.  So for the life of me I cannot figure out how or why you expect us to ignore published statements from your compatriots, as follows: 

WHY CHEATING IS GOOD FOR YOUR RELATIONSHIP

 

 

 

 

Is There Such a Thing as ‘Ethical Cheating’?

 

Is It Ever OK to Cheat? What About In These 6 Instances?

 

More statements about the definition of marriage by your compatriots

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?????????????????????

Compatriots?  

[mfbukowski]

Proof positive of the type of people we are dealing with here.

Edited January 5, 2016 by mfbukowski