Thank you for these insights. I agree that Gay Marriage is a smoke screen.
It is one of MANY!!!
Feminism (as noted before) is a sad fight that demasculinizes our men, husband, brothers and sons. Instead of promoting positive femininity and masculinity, feminism seems to portray one as good & the other as bad. So WRONG & blinding to our true natures. Personally I do not think feminism was meant to go this direction but to help women speak up and have a voice in a dominantly male world. But many have taken it to a level of absolutes that make men “unnecessary”. Is it any wonder we as God’s children are confused!!!
I am fortunate enough to be in a committed 26 year marriage with my husband. He and I have struggled, as any couple will. I fell into the feminism trap & did not value my husband as I should. He, thankfully, was patient with me during those periods of judgment, unkindness & attitude of “I know better”. We are stronger for our efforts to work together raising our children. We are a team & strive to make decisions together with the Lord’s help. Grateful for Marriage!!!! And am sad at times that I have to ADD between a Man and a Woman. REALLY!! It has ALWAYS been thus. But as a defender of Truth I WILL! ^_^Your statement that “The most extreme defenders say that gay marriage will destroy our culture and our economy and the future of our children. But in fact, what will have the greater adverse effect on all of these is the erosion of marriage among the other 96%” is indeed true.
This erosion has gone on for too long!! My family was seriously affected. My brothers have never married. My father divorced my mother & cohabitated with several women before finally settling down and raising my step-mom’s sons. The silver lining is that they have been in a happy COMMITTED relationship for over 26 years. Conversations and letters between us tell the story of my father’s pain at his earlier choices. The lost opportunities to “commit”, stay the course, and love even when times got hard.
Thank you for your writings and courage to share with ALL. ^_^
I agree most with Kevin JK - the most practical comment of all. He deals with facts - legal facts. You can go by whatever name you want, civil law, but if you want a social security card, you must have a 'legal name' and you must change it legally in court, same for a driver's license or any other license in this country, same for jobs and a ton of other stuff -- but you also gain all the protections that all the laws afford. Marriage and divorce are the same = all regulated by a bunch of laws -- some are restrictive, some are protective. If you want the protections of the laws, you gotta live with the restrictions. Can't have it both ways. The fun of 'belonging' to a society. Laws are and ever have been a 'two-edged sword'!!
What do men get out of marriage? Seriously, what do we get? Gays have nothing to do with it.
Hooray! What you (Richard) have written makes sense and really resonates with me. It's about time someone who understands marriage and family has seen a new and different perspective and communicated it so well. I'm going to use your ideas to frame my answers during those awkward and difficult discussions with friends. Thank you!
David,Sweden has low marriage rates because Sweden is the most feminist country in the world. It has nothing to do with the gays. Swedish men get the shaft so much due to feminism that they have learned to resent women and simply have given up on them. They are joining the MGTOW movement where men simply go their own way and do their own thing without dealing with women. Swedish women are taught that all men are rapists and the world would be better without them. They founded a feminist group called SCUM (the Society for Cutting Up Men) which advocates for eliminating men. men are 2nd class citizens there and feel that the less that they have to due with women, the better off that they are. The also feel no lyal to society so feel no reason to produce children to promote it...especially if they are male children who will face further discrimination.Marriage is becoming more and more secular in nature. It becomes more about rights and tax breaks and less about family and fidelity. SSM isn't the cause of lower marriage rates. It, like those lower rates, is simply a symptom for the secularization of marriage.
The smokescreen is that the push for gay marriage is actually the push to eliminate the meaning even the survival of the institution of marriage. It is the desire or even demand of the gay community for acceptance and even respect of the gay lifestyle. In Sweden, with gay marriage in place for over 12 years, the rate of gay marriage is 5%. Hardly a stampede towards the institution of marriage. In another recent study, members in gay unions have an average of 7 outside sexual interactions per year... hardly the concept traditional marriage suggests of fidelity. Gay marriage as defined by the LGBT community is not what marriage has traditionally mean, and the push for gay marriage acceptance has been a con job from the very beginning.
Really great comments,lots of food for thought. Truth is, most heterosexuals in the world including maybe myself not worthy or ready for the rigours of marriage as it was originally ordained by The creator. Thus the 50% fail rate in a lot of the world. Marriage even outside the Temple was always meant to be a holy sacrament, a sacred ordinance and binding agreement between man woman and God. By that standard atheists would have to look to another form of union or come to the alter as a believer. That's the kind of strictness and reverence that results in the kind of successes Heavenly Father must have envisioned for us. By that standard everyone would have to really really step up to meet the bar. These are the values that have begun deteriorating in a big way since the 60s and this is the issue that is bigger and broader than the issue of gay marriage. I believe in the world we are oft times more serious about buying property (also originally a covenant) than We are about holy matrimony.
It seems that most of the domestic violence now,is being commited by those living together without being married.
Freedom to choose is fundamental to doctrine of the Mormon church. Denying same-sex partners the right to choose recognition as a committed relationship is against the doctrine of the Mormon church. Whether you believe homosexuality is a sin is a moot point. Nothing about same-sex marriage alters the outcome of Mormon heterosexual marriage.
For those wanting to get the state out of marriage, there is a problem - If the state is out of marriage, them the couple are simply roommates in the eyes of the law. If that is the case, then how can a wife get alimony, community propoerty and other spousal benefits like her husband's SSI benefits upon his death? Roommates can't claim those things. What wife would gladly give up the legal protections she enjoys and instead, become just a roommate?In the temple, we covenant to only have sexual realtions with those to whom we are LEGALLY and lawfully wedded. Should that be changed too if marriage isn't recognized by the state?
Colorado does issue a marriage license if you want to get married officially. But you can also hold yourself out as "married" by filing joint taxes and stating you're married and then a license or ceremony is not involved. Often this is called "common law" marriage. Some states require cohabitation for a period of time before you are considered married. In CO you can say you're married and file joint taxes, and there is no waiting period or length of time. However, if you go this route, you do need to file for a divorce if you choose to dissolve this relationship. Some people dissolve these arrangements after holding themselves out as married but do not file for divorce. No one seems to be tracking the potential of bigamy as often these couple then just say they're divorced.
Roman, Greek, Sumerian, Moorish, Babylonian, and Anglo-Saxon and 80 primitive cultures were studied by British philosopher Daniel Unwin. He noted in his study of these 86 civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called "expansive energy," which might best be summarized as society's will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived.
The smoke screen is coming from the adversary with the biggest threat being religious freedom. That is what all of this is about--the intended demise of religious freedom. None of the issues are ultimately about "types" of marriage but rather the annihilation of the right to believe in and worship God
I agree that Richard and Linda are correct to point out that declining marriage rates among heterosexuals is a big problem, but Supreme-court sanctioned homosexual marriage is a big problem, too--the reason is that the homosexual activists will do all they can to eliminate religious liberty in the name of fighting discrimination.
This is a good point, though I would be careful not to miss the point that the governmental affirmation of gay marriage culturally devalues marriage through the resulting distortion of the meaning of the institution and of sexual mores, which in the long run will result in even less heterosexual marriage and will be (is) also used as a hammer with which to bludgeon religious freedom. The whole of it is designed to tear the country further from God and lead to the ultimate destruction of society.
No, it's not a smoke screen.
Yes, commitment to marriage has declined as more choose the "individual" path than "family" path. This is a problem.
But I think the largest threat to our society is in the level of obedience to eternal truth.
Having enthusim and commitment to same sex marriage is a threat to eternal truth and to the larger issue of righteous marriage.
Sealing covenants do not include enthusiasm per se, but do include faith and obedience.
So no, the largest threat isn't as suggested here. I suggest too much analytical thinking has resulted in this circular rationale.
Thank you for being so articulate about this issue. I have been having similar thoughts. Children suffer so much more from being in a single parent household than in one with 2 parents who are committed to each other and the child.
Marriage licenses are a new requirement in the USA. Abe Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Joseph Smith and John Taylor certainly did not obtain permission from the government to marry. License requirements started mostly in the USA in the 1940s. Why? The SCOTUS has declared that marriage is a "fundamental right". Can you name another fundamental right that requires a license from the government? Like to talk or publish or gather together? Many people marry today for the Socialist benefits. The Gay community demanded these so called benefits. We need to get back to unlicensed marriage like they still have in Colorado. We need to get government OUT of marriage. God certainly does not need a license to seal a couple in the temple. Why do free people need a license from their servants to act on a fundamental right?
well said. if one follows the money, what does this smoke screen actually hide?
Email (will not be published)
Daily news, articles, videos and podcasts sent straight to your inbox.