When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression--LDS Church moves their Same-Sex Marriage fight to Mexico

[Daniel2]

I came across two articles today and I was struck by the contrast:

 

 

Quote

Defeated in the U.S., LDS Church takes fight against same-sex marriage to Mexico

By Jeremy Harris Wednesday, June 1st 2016

(KUTV) Officials with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have issued a declaration to church members in Mexico instructing them to oppose a new initiative that would legalize same-sex marriage in the country.

Similar to the Church's efforts in the United States, Mormon leaders said their opposition to same-sex marriage is rooted in 'religious liberty' and 'free thought'.

"We encourage members of the Church to unite our voices with those of other citizens in exercising our rights, as they are listed in the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, which establish and honor religious liberty, expression of beliefs and thoughts, both in public and private," LDS Mexican area authority Elder Benjamin DeHoyos said.

DeHoyos was speaking before a church congregation in Puebla, Mexico, weeks after Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto announced an initiative to change federal law that would expand same-sex marriage, which is already legal in some states and Mexico City.

Peña Nieto proposed amending federal law to ban marriage discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, nationality, disability, social condition, religion, gender, or sexual preference.

"The Mexican State should impede discrimination in any form and assure equal rights for everyone," Peña Nieto said at his announcement in mid-May. 

LDS leaders join their counterparts in the Roman Catholic Church who criticized Peña Nieto's proposal. Rev. Hugo Valdemar of the Catholic Archdiocese of Mexico City called the initiative a "distraction." 

The LDS Church asked local bishops of the Church's more than 2,000 Mexican congregations to read DeHoyos' remarks in the form a statement before upcoming meetings. 

"Due to the Federal Government's recent announcement of the initiative to legalize marriage between people of the same sex in the entire country, we emphasize the Church's position on this topic as it is described in 'The Family: A Proclamation to the World," the statement reads. "We reaffirm that 'The family is ordained of God', and 'marriage between a man and a woman is essential for [God's] eternal plan'." 

The statement was posted in its entirety to the LDS Church's Mexican Newsroom website. 

"With this declaration, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints joins the different reactions that this proposed law has triggered in the religious community, among others," the posting on the newsroom site reads. 

Much like the LDS Church's attempts to influence California's proposition 8 and federal same-sex marriage laws in the United States, DeHoyos encouraged members of the church to join family and religious advocacy groups who oppose same-sex marriage. 

Last year, the Mexican Supreme Court urged states to legalize same-sex marriage, but many states did not adopt the court's recommendation. Currently, same-sex couples who live in states that do not recognize gay marriage must sue to obtain a marriage license. 

Peña Nieto's proposal to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide will require a two-thirds majority vote from the Mexican congress.

 

 

"Free thought?" 

 

How is anyone's freedom to think being threatened by same-sex marriage...??

 

"Religious liberty"?
 

Ironic that the church is still beating their drum to the tune that legal recognition of same-sex marriage to be a matter of “religious liberty,” given that the denial of legal recognition of same-sex marriage refuses to equally recognize and respect those religions that recognize and sanction marriages between same-sex couples.

 

Now contrast the above tone and rhetoric with the thoughts brought up by this second article, which struck me as very applicable:

 

Quote

'When You’re Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression’

03/14/2016 01:18 pm ET | Updated Mar 14, 2016

By Chris Boeskool

…

When I moved to Nashville, I didn’t really know anyone. I got a job as a server on my second day here. And before long, I was one of the servers the management favored, which meant I got better shifts, better sections and better money.

 

About nine months after I had been there, a new guy started. We instantly disliked each other. He didn’t like my smart mouth, and I didn’t like how he walked in and immediately acted like he owned the place. He carried himself with this annoying confidence — like it was his world, and he would tolerate our being in it, as long as we stayed out of his damn way.

 

There were also rumors that this guy had spent some time in jail, and it was very clear that he was not a “DE-escalater.” He was the sort of guy who knew exactly how much he could bench, you know? And you could sense that — just below the surface — there was always this restless energy that silently dared you to say something. He was an intimidating dude.

 

So it bothered me a little bit when — only a month after he started working there - he was already getting rotated into some of the good sections. Another mouth to feed meant less money for me. He was a good server though.

 

But nothing he did got under my skin nearly as bad as this: When Chuck (we’ll call him “Chuck.” His name wasn’t Chuck, but it was definitely a name in the “Chuck” category of names. It certainly wasn’t a pushover name like “Chris”) would walk toward you, he always expected you to be the one to move out of the way. He didn’t do this when walking toward girls.

 

But if he and another guy (me, especially) were heading toward each other, he would head straight for the other guy — not making eye contact — and he always assumed he had the right of way. If not, you would get bumped by this stocky, solid mass of aggression who seemed to be just itching for someone to question his intended path. And really, this seemed to best describe how Chuck lived his whole life — walking straight at people, and expecting them to move. Until one day...

 

I had had enough.

 

I kept thinking, “Why am I always moving out of this guy’s way?” Just about everyone else in the world seemed to agree that if two people were walking toward each other, both people would acquiesce a little, leaning the side closest to the other person back just so.

 

What gave this guy the right to just expect that I’m going to move out of his way? And then another thought started tugging at my brain: “What if I didn’t move? What if I just kept walking too?”

 

I was done playing by his rules. And that evening, as he walked quickly toward me in the aisle of the restaurant (we both were fairly fast walkers), I walked toward him — and I didn’t move. I’m not a giant of a man, but I’m solid enough to hold my own — especially when I see a collision coming — and the impact spun him around.

 

Right there, in front of guests, he immediately said, “What the ****, dude!?”

 

I said, “You alright?”

 

He was furious, and insisting to know why I had just bumped into him.

 

I said, “Chuck, I was just walking. Why did you assume that I was going to move out of your way?”

 

He followed me around the restaurant, angrily attempting to escalate things. He ended up stopping me by another table, and when I said something along the lines of “Welcome to planet Earth,” he shoved me. Hard. And not like a shove where you put your hands on someone and then shove.

 

“Equality can feel like oppression. But it’s not. What you’re feeling is just the discomfort of losing a little bit of your privilege.”

It was the sort of shove where his hands were already moving really fast when they hit my chest, and it made a pretty loud noise. All of his bench-pressing muscles let lose on me — this person who dared question his right of way — and I was knocked about two steps back.

 

I walked away from him, and I could feel my heart beating in my ears. I thought about what I should do, if I should say something to a manager (that didn’t seem like a good idea), if I should say anything more to Chuck (that seemed like an even worse idea).

 

I decided to just try to avoid him for a bit and let him cool off. About 15 minutes later, the GM asked to talk to me. He said that a guest had seen Chuck angrily shove me, and had complained and described what happened (describing it as him “hitting” me, but it was definitely a shove).

 

I told him what happened — about him always assuming I was going to move, about me simply walking and not moving, and about the arguing and the shove that followed. It was a corporate restaurant, so he took everything very seriously. He filled out an incident report, asked me if I wanted to press charges, and told me if I wanted him gone, he was fired. I said that I didn’t want the guy to lose his job. I just wanted him to recognize that other people had every right to be there that he did.

 

And so, I recently thought about this story again after I had just read this amazing quote (a quote for which I tried very hard to find an attribution, but kept coming up “Unknown):

 

“When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.”

 

And things started making a little more sense to me. All this anger we see from people screaming “All Lives Matter” in response to black protesters at rallies. All this anger we see from people insisting that their “religious freedom” is being infringed because a gay couple wants to get married. All these people angry about immigrants, angry about Muslims, angry about “Happy Holidays,” angry about not being able to say bigoted things without being called a bigot...

 

They all basically boil down to people who have grown accustomed to walking straight at other folks, and expecting them to move.

 

So when “those people” in their path don’t move — when those people start wondering, “Why am I always moving out of this guy’s way?”; when those people start asking themselves, “What if I didn’t move? What if I just kept walking too?”; when those people start believing that they have every bit as much right to that aisle as anyone else — it can seem like their rights are being taken away.

 

Equality can feel like oppression. But it’s not. What you’re feeling is just the discomfort of losing a little bit of your privilege — the same discomfort that an only child feels when she goes to preschool and discovers that there are other kids who want to play with the same toys as she does.

 

It’s like an old man being used to having a community pool all to himself, having that pool actually opened up to everyone in the community, and then that old man yelling, “But what about MY right to swim in a pool all by myself?!”

 

And what we’re seeing politically right now is a bit of anger from both sides. On one side, we see people who are angry about “those people” being let into “our” pool.

 

They’re angry about sharing their toys with the other kids in the classroom.

 

They’re angry about being labeled a “racist,” just because they say racist things and have racist beliefs.

 

They’re angry about having to consider others who might be walking toward them, strangely exerting their right to exist.

 

On the other side, we see people who believe that pool is for everyone.

 

We see people who realize that when our kids throw a fit in preschool, we teach them about how sharing is the right thing to do.

 

We see people who understand being careful with their language as a way of being respectful to others.

 

We see people who are attempting to stand in solidarity with the ones who are claiming their right to exist — the ones who are rightfully angry about having to always move out of the way, people who are asking themselves the question, “What if I just keep walking?”

 

Which kind of person are you?

 

I should mention that “Chuck” and I eventually became friends, proving that people who see the world very differently can get along when they are open to change, and when they are willing to try to see the world though another person’s eyes. There is hope.

 

Edited June 2, 2016 by Daniel2

[stemelbow]

I liked the second article, hadn't read it yet.  It reminded me of a bully I had back in my school days.  We eventually became friends too.

It's so weird to see the fight against gay marriage and the defense of the fight as, "protecting marriage".  It's like reason has gone out the window and that's probably why all conversation is stuck at the surface of the question. 

[Daniel2]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I liked the second article, hadn't read it yet.  It reminded me of a bully I had back in my school days.  We eventually became friends too.

My favorite part of the second article was the optimism expressed in that last paragraph.

It DOES give hope for the future when we see examples that lions can, indeed, lay down with lambs and we CAN learn to live with one another, despite our differences and past disagreements.

[TheSkepticChristian]

27 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Ironic that the church is still beating their drum to the tune that legal recognition of same-sex marriage to be a matter of “religious liberty,” given that the denial of legal recognition of same-sex marriage refuses to equally recognize and respect those religions that recognize and sanction marriages between same-sex couples.

 

Exactly, our church stated, "Churches, religious organizations and individuals face increasing restrictions as they participate in the public square, express their beliefs or serve in society"  

If our church doesn't want legal recognition of SSM, then why not take the Rand Paul position? 

Rand Paul: Government Should Get Out of the Marriage Business Altogether

but I guess most Mormons are so anti-libertarian when it comes to social issues. 

Edited June 2, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[DJBrown]

An old adage claims that a "rising tide lifts all boats."  The meaning of this is usually applied to economics and can be summed up by the concept that an improving economy effects all people positively.  

I would argue that a falling tide lowers all boats.  Or, the disintegration of a society's moral values negatively impacts all people in that society.  The impact that is most immediate and lasting is seen in the youth.  As adults increasingly view same-sex marriage or any conceivable sexual arrangement as morally acceptable, it is inevitable that the youth's sexual mores change as well.  

The argument made by advocates of same-sex marriage that legalizing marriage between two men or two women will in no way effect my marriage or my children is extremely short-sighted and obtuse.  My children are faced with the ubiquitous insistence that it is morally acceptable for two men to be married or for two women to be married.  There is no reason to believe that the majority of children who face this campaign do not to some degree adopt such a moral (or amoral) view over time.   So society's acceptance and embrace of amorality affects my family and all families.  To argue otherwise is just misguided.  

Not everything is possible.  We cannot have complete freedom to do whatever we want and at the same time have no negative consequences from the behavior of other people.  It just doesn't work.

[Daniel2]

49 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Exactly, our church stated, "Churches, religious organizations and individuals face increasing restrictions as they participate in the public square, express their beliefs or serve in society"  

If our church doesn't want legal recognition of SSM, then why not take the Rand Paul position? 

Rand Paul: Government Should Get Out of the Marriage Business Altogether

but I guess most Mormons are so anti-libertarian when it comes to social issues. 

From my perspective, the suggestion to "get out of the marriage business" is a politically expedient tactic, but entirely unrealistic to the point of being logistically impossible.

Marriage as a civil construct is entirely too central and foundational to government in the realm of protecting the civil and legal rights of individuals, spouses, children, and families.  It is the touchstone that governs how law applies a HUGE expanse of law, from inheritance to health care to employment to family and medical leave to custody to insurance, etc. etc. etc.  It is virtually impossible to unwind government from the legal definition of civil marriage.

Additionally, attempting to cease civil recognition of marriage would violate numerous court rulings (at all levels, from the most basic all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States) that have concluded that marriage is an inherent civil right which can't be removed by government.

For many politicians in Rand Paul's position, though, it's an easy out to suggest "getting out of the marriage business altogether," it's a punt... or allows them to dodge a bullet... (pick your metaphor! lol)... because it a) allows having to endorse or refuse to endorse same-sex marriage--a once-political-hot-potato, and b) is recommending a course of action said politicians know will NEVER happen.  Therefore, it's understandably a win/win for them in the game of politics.

Edited June 2, 2016 by Daniel2

[TheSkepticChristian]

9 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

From my perspective, the suggestion to "get out of the marriage business" is a politically expedient tactic, but entirely unrealistic to the point of being logistically impossible.

Marriage as a civil construct is entirely too central and foundational to government in the realm of protecting the civil and legal rights of individuals, spouses, children, and families. 

I agree, but it is the only possible way for our church to be fair about it's position. I am not saying it will work or that it can happen. 

PS I am a Bernie Sanders supporter 

Edited June 2, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, DJBrown said:

An old adage claims that a "rising tide lifts all boats."  The meaning of this is usually applied to economics and can be summed up by the concept that an improving economy effects all people positively.  

I would argue that a falling tide lowers all boats.  Or, the disintegration of a society's moral values negatively impacts all people in that society.  The impact that is most immediate and lasting is seen in the youth.  As adults increasingly view same-sex marriage or any conceivable sexual arrangement as morally acceptable, it is inevitable that the youth's sexual mores change as well.  

The argument made by advocates of same-sex marriage that legalizing marriage between two men or two women will in no way effect my marriage or my children is extremely short-sighted and obtuse.  My children are faced with the ubiquitous insistence that it is morally acceptable for two men to be married or for two women to be married.  There is no reason to believe that the majority of children who face this campaign do not to some degree adopt such a moral (or amoral) view over time.   So society's acceptance and embrace of amorality affects my family and all families.  To argue otherwise is just misguided.  

Not everything is possible.  We cannot have complete freedom to do whatever we want and at the same time have no negative consequences from the behavior of other people.  It just doesn't work.

In which case, granting marriage rights for gay couples can only lift the boats of straight couples. Encouraging greater stability and equality for gay families can only make things better for the rest of us. 

[Daniel2]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

In which case, granting marriage rights for gay couples can only lift the boats of straight couples. Encouraging greater stability and equality for gay families can only make things better for the rest of us. 

You took the words right outta my mouth, Gray...

Just as marriage recognition for interracial couples raised the tide for all marriages, recognition of civil marriage for same-sex couples increases stability for greater numbers of families and children.

That being said, I can understand how those that wish to continue to promote their beliefs in the perceived inferiority of same-sex relationships and maintain control of waning anti-gay social norms feel as if the tide is turning and they are left in increasingly shallow waters.

Perspective makes all the difference in whether the glass (or harbor) is half-full or half-empty.

[DJBrown]

And yet studies have shown that a very high percentage of same sex marriages and relationships are "open."  Meaning that the individuals in that relationship or marriage allow the other to have sexual relationships with people outside that marriage.  The percentage is very high- a majority.

And we hear from some of the "thinkers" in the same-sex marriage campaign that the true motive and end-game is to not just to change the definition of marriage, but move beyond marriage entirely.  Many in that movement see marriage as very primitive and enslaving.  They want society to move to a place where marriage does not exist.  

If you believe this is "lifting marriage," I have a bridge to sell you.

Every single same-sex marriage that involves children requires that those children be abandoned- either by his or her biological mother or father.  It is all about the adults and almost entirely ignores the interests of the children.  It is a broken argument to claim same-sex marriage stabilizes or strengthens the children involved.

[HappyJackWagon]

19 minutes ago, DJBrown said:

1-And yet studies have shown that a very high percentage of same sex marriages and relationships are "open."  Meaning that the individuals in that relationship or marriage allow the other to have sexual relationships with people outside that marriage.  The percentage is very high- a majority.

And we hear from some of the "thinkers" in the same-sex marriage campaign that the true motive and end-game is to not just to change the definition of marriage, but move beyond marriage entirely.  Many in that movement see marriage as very primitive and enslaving.  They want society to move to a place where marriage does not exist.  

2- If you believe this is "lifting marriage," I have a bridge to sell you.

3- Every single same-sex marriage that involves children requires that those children be abandoned- either by his or her biological mother or father.  It is all about the adults and almost entirely ignores the interests of the children.  It is a broken argument to claim same-sex marriage stabilizes or strengthens the children involved.

1- CFR- I'd like to see these studies that state SSM are usually open relationships? SSM hasn't been around all that long so I'm curious what kinds of studies have occurred and how the numbers may be shifting the longer SSM is an accepted societal practice.

2- CFR- can I see a copy of the deed to said bridge

3- Bombastic statements like this are a part of the problem. First, EVERY SSM with children means children have been abandoned? Is it possible that some SSM couples have children from previous relationship (divorce where they share custody), have adopted legally to give the child a better life, or maybe even had artificial insemination? Your claim that EVERY child has been abandoned is patently false. Second, it is a cruel thing to claim that SSM ignores the interest of the children

 

Edited June 2, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[california boy]

38 minutes ago, DJBrown said:

An old adage claims that a "rising tide lifts all boats."  The meaning of this is usually applied to economics and can be summed up by the concept that an improving economy effects all people positively.  

I would argue that a falling tide lowers all boats.  Or, the disintegration of a society's moral values negatively impacts all people in that society.  The impact that is most immediate and lasting is seen in the youth.  As adults increasingly view same-sex marriage or any conceivable sexual arrangement as morally acceptable, it is inevitable that the youth's sexual mores change as well.  

The argument made by advocates of same-sex marriage that legalizing marriage between two men or two women will in no way effect my marriage or my children is extremely short-sighted and obtuse.  My children are faced with the ubiquitous insistence that it is morally acceptable for two men to be married or for two women to be married.  There is no reason to believe that the majority of children who face this campaign do not to some degree adopt such a moral (or amoral) view over time.   So society's acceptance and embrace of amorality affects my family and all families.  To argue otherwise is just misguided.  

Not everything is possible.  We cannot have complete freedom to do whatever we want and at the same time have no negative consequences from the behavior of other people.  It just doesn't work.

I think there are a couple of fundamental problems with your point of view. Every study that I have seen concludes that families do better when they are in a committed relationship.  That includes studies on gay families. To deny gay couples their civil right to marry forces their relationship into a  shack up option. How is that better for the children?

what you are seeing in the youth today is a view on marriage without the prejudice that you grew up with. They realize that many in the church are wrong to hold such values. It comes from a place of prejudice . Quite honestly they simply do not believe that a committed relationship is more sinful. Not because it is a commonly held belief but because it makes no sense to them. They have friends that are gay. They deserve their shot at a happy and fulfilling life just like everyone else, not because it is a widely held belief but because it is right 

Contrast that with other widely held beliefs. Do the youth of the church think drinking is ok even though it too is a widely held belief?

[california boy]

Great OP Daniel. It certainly gives us something to think about where these attitudes come from.. I find myself iirmly standing my ground on this issue. Many here really don't like that   But I think it is the right thing to do. And like the story, some that have pushed back the hardest have become friends. Well at least we have learned to respect each other's views  

[DJBrown]

Happy Jack Wagon,

"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, but it’s difficult to say by how much exactly, due to the widespread lack of substantive research on the subject. (After all, SFSU’s Gay Couples Study was back in 2010.)"

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/01/gay-open-marriages-need-to-come-out-of-the-closet.html

 

"Is it possible for two gay men to be in a long-term relationship and remain monogamous?

The short answer? Of course it is. But for the frustrated but hopeful “monogay,” it often seems nearly impossible to find a homo couple who have surpassed the five-year mark without opening up their relationship in one way or another. Naturally, each couple is different, complete with a brow-furrowing set of rules that they have constructed over the years. Whether its “playing” as a couple only or allowing for out-of-town flings or no-kissing-allowed or sexual-position-specific extracurricular hookups, one thing is for certain: Monogamy it is not."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tyler-curry/how-do-gays-crack-the-monogamy-code_b_3478177.html

 

"It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting 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. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago."

Gay activist, Masha Gessen.

Just google open gay marriages.  It doesn't take long to confirm what I am saying.

Wait 5 years.  Then consider how common open marriages are portrayed in movies and on TV.  This movement is already gaining momentum.  

 

 

[Gray]

50 minutes ago, DJBrown said:

And yet studies have shown that a very high percentage of same sex marriages and relationships are "open."  Meaning that the individuals in that relationship or marriage allow the other to have sexual relationships with people outside that marriage.  The percentage is very high- a majority.

If true, all the more reason for marriage rights for this group. Years and years without access to legal marriage and rejection by conservative religious groups surely has not helped to encourage normalized monogamous gay relationships. 

[Gray]

56 minutes ago, DJBrown said:

Every single same-sex marriage that involves children requires that those children be abandoned- either by his or her biological mother or father.  It is all about the adults and almost entirely ignores the interests of the children.  It is a broken argument to claim same-sex marriage stabilizes or strengthens the children involved.

I suggest you locate all the adoptive parents in your ward and inform them that their family can only exist because their child was abandoned at some point, and therefore their family is in some way inferior to your own. Let us know how they react. 

[Storm Rider]

Interesting POV that you share here.  It is often unheard and for good reason - the public is supposed to remain blind to the gay lifestyle except in the extremely limited perspective of - it is all about love, fairy rainbows, and unicorns and really, really thick rose colored glasses.  You have violated the rule of hiding the weeny - that is not a pun.

Get back on message - two humans, desperately in love and big, bad Mormon Church and Catholics are trying to block their full blooming relationship of blissful love. 

[Gray]

I wonder if marriage opponents believe that keeping gay marriage illegal would have somehow reduced the number of gay relationships in the US? I'm struggling to understand the logic of opposing gay marriage on any moral grounds. 

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

If true, all the more reason for marriage rights for this group. Years and years without access to legal marriage and rejection by conservative religious groups surely has not helped to encourage normalized monogamous gay relationships. 

To think a society that has made gay people feel like their only recourse is to live in hiding, in many cases, is now wanting to hold gay people totally responsible for not abiding by societal norms?  Oh please.  Time to show love and support for each other rather than fear and suspicion. 

[Gray]

Just now, stemelbow said:

To think a society that has made gay people feel like their only recourse is to live in hiding, in many cases, is now wanting to hold gay people totally responsible for not abiding by societal norms?  Oh please.  Time to show love and support for each other rather than fear and suspicion. 

It is rather hypocritical, isn't it. 

If the concern is truly that gay people aren't monogamous enough, why the opposition to marriage rights for gay people? 

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

If true, all the more reason for marriage rights for this group. Years and years without access to legal marriage and rejection by conservative religious groups surely has not helped to encourage normalized monogamous gay relationships. 

I think this is such an important point. I find it hard to condemn people for not following the conventions of an institution like marriage when they are only recently allowed to participate. For most of history gay individuals had to stay hidden and therefore it's understandable that they kept their relationships hidden. Promiscuous relationships were common. That doesn't change overnight. If the studies are correct I would expect to see monogamy increase within SSM as it becomes acceptable as a lifestyle both in the gay community and society at large.

In my mind promoting committed relationships is far superior than promoting promiscuous relationships. Marriage generally does that.

[DJBrown]

I don't think there is anything that would convince you otherwise.  It is not enough that a high percentage of same-sex relationships are open.  And it doesn't seem to matter that there is a significant element in that campaign that wants to destroy marriage altogether.  

Ultimately, it is about standing up for truth as defined by the restored gospel.  If homosexuality is sinful and wrong to God, what could we or anybody possibly benefit from advocating for it?  I suppose if a person does not believe that God sees it as a sin, there is no argument to make (other than the benefit of the kids).

[bluebell]

43 minutes ago, Gray said:

I wonder if marriage opponents believe that keeping gay marriage illegal would have somehow reduced the number of gay relationships in the US? I'm struggling to understand the logic of opposing gay marriage on any moral grounds. 

I would guess that it has more to do with the idea that what becomes normal in society soon becomes morally acceptable.  If you believe that something is immoral but is starting to be seen as moral by society, working to keep the government from legitimizing it is logical. 

[JLHPROF]

36 minutes ago, Gray said:

It is rather hypocritical, isn't it.

If the concern is truly that gay people aren't monogamous enough, why the opposition to marriage rights for gay people?

Monogamous or polygamous is irrelevant and not really a concern to those who believe the SS relationship is wrong and sinful by nature.  Not even an issue of what God has said or not said, but by its very nature.
 

[T-Shirt]

59 minutes ago, Gray said:

If true, all the more reason for marriage rights for this group. Years and years without access to legal marriage and rejection by conservative religious groups surely has not helped to encourage normalized monogamous gay relationships. 

I remember in the 70's, when the practice of couples living together became more prominent and out in the open, the argument that was often used by the proponents of living together, against the more conservative, religious view, was that they didn't need a piece of paper to show their commitment and faithfulness to each other.  Now you are flipping the argument upside down by claiming that gay people need to have a piece of paper in order to show their commitment and faithfulness to each other.

While I disagree with the practice of living together, I agree that a piece of paper is not necessary to prove commitment and faithfulness, and, frankly, your argument does not do much for the character of gay people.