http://www.rightsidenews.com/2014012233778/life-and-science/culture-wars/marriage-matters-and-redefining-it-has-social-costs.html

Anyone who is familiar with the Recovery From Mormonism Bulletin Board (this forum) understands that gays have a strong presence here. The gay posters have established a mindset that says theirs is the ONLY acceptable viewpoint and that anyone with a differing viewpoint should be insulted and silenced. The insults are often blantant personal attacks, which are against BB rules.

The above article clearly discusses the issues of marriage and why traditional marriage between a man and a woman has a major benefit for society -- something that a gay marriage does not have. Allowing gay marriage to diminish the value of traditional marriage is detrimental to society. Read the complete article for yourself and think about it.

And no personal attacks please. I am not a TBM. I quit the Mormon church 54 years ago.

Arguing from false assumptions doesn't lead to correct conclusions.

Also, if we go off of historic precedent, we should have left women and blacks without rights. These two equal rights movements concluded with change that had a "high social cost" that was ultimately beneficial. Change hurts, change is hard, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth it.

This article brings nothing new to the discussion.

Actually, it's a poorly written article without any hard data to back up its claims. The main purpose of the article is for the author to promote his book. The secondary purpose is to promote the views of the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing organization whose position papers are not peer-reviewed and do not meet scholarly standards. The approach resembles FAIR and FARMS.

The social, economic, and political concept of marriage is different today than it was 100 years ago, a thousand years ago, or 10,000 years ago. Believe what ever you want about "traditional marriage." If you want to convince people of your position, use research, facts, and data. Linking to a Heritage Foundation article written by a Notre Dame grad student pimping his book won't work.

One invalid assumption leads to an entire group of sequentially valid points.

It's like saying if the world stopped being flat all sorts of bad sh!t would happen. If lions had thumbs they would be the dominate species. How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

I am sorry but marriage has already been redefined and that is a good thing. Many of us see marriage as more of an equal partnership based on love then being based on commerse or female submission. Even if i married a man instead of a woman i would hate to have a traditional marriage.

in any way, shape or form.

And as for "traditional marriage", it is oppressive to women.

Okay then, I will not attack you personally. But the article is fair game.

Same old tired bigoted right wing religious crap trying to turn the focus of marriage to a man and woman only because those who already have rights others don't want to keep it that way. Since they don't have a leg to stand on legally, they are making grand sweeping statements about history, and children and where marriage came from and ignoring the fact that marriage is a legal transaction. Nothing is mentioned in this legal transaction about children. It is available to people who never have children. So enough of the "marriage is about children" argument.

Children need a parent or parents who love them, or at least a friend. Those parents may be someone they are not even related to.

And why is this next item even in the article?: "At one point in America, virtually every child was given the gift of a married mother and father. Today, 40 percent of all Americans, 50 percent of Hispanics, and 70 percent of African Americans are born to single moms—and the consequences for those children are quite serious.

If you find that to be a problem, it has nothing to do with the gay population. It has nothing to do with marriage as an institution. I has to do with changing mores in the heterosexual population. Nothing more. Get married, get divorced, do whatever you want. But don't blame us gays.

Marriage under the definitions of this article is a joke. Divorce is nearly 50% and I would guess that many of the fifty something percent that are still married are either in a semi-happy to unhappy relationship. The article is right about one thing. Marriage isn't about romantic love just as it is not specifically about children. It is about a legal joining of two entities so that the assets acquired can be split appropriately in the highly likely event of a divorce.

If gays can get married, straight people can still go to any bigoted church or club they want, they can still get married or divorced, they can still file their taxes jointly. Straight people are free to get their act together any time they want. I personally think they already have. They have learned to extract themselves from harmful situations and they are learning to be good parents--the trend being to put the children first even though you are divorced. No one should have to "stick it out." That hurts the kids worse. But marriage is never going to be a be-all, end-all even for the straights. They are difficult, and that is why the law is involved in marriage and why so many civilized countries don't even recognize religious marriages and require it to be done by a government official.

But at the end of the day, we can read all the "biased, bigoted word salad" articles on the planet, but gay people have no effect what so ever on straight marriage. It is pathetic to blame gay people for what straight people can't get right and that is all this article is attempting to do.

This article is disguised as a sociological discussion when in fact it is a thinly veiled attempt to demonize gay marriage when in fact that institution will do nothing but strengthen families across america, because you see---gay people are parents too, but more importantly, everyone deserves the same rights.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2014 02:40PM by blueorchid.

saviorself Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> has a major benefit for society --

Ah, the very keystone without which the entire arch collapses upon itself.

Why is this "The Greatest Good?"
Might it perhaps be an unchallenged assumption?
Have generations of youth have marched to wars under this banner of societal benefit - the 'war to end all wars'-?
What further assumptions are unexamined?

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."

- Krishnamurti

Edit: this from a common run-of-the-mill straight dude, and am not attacking OP.
Just think about the underlying assumptions a little.
Might be surprised how much crap we have ingested from well-meaning institutions through our lifetimes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2014 02:47PM by zenjamin.

I'm in a heterosexual marriage and I'm okay with gays getting married in homosexual marriages.

From the link:

"Marriage exists to unite a man and a woman as husband and wife to then be equipped to be mother and father to any children that that union produces."

Tell that to my 68 year old widowed mother who recently married a 70 year old man.

"First, it fundamentally reorients the institution of marriage away from the needs of children toward the desires of adults."

No children in my marriage - my marriage is all about the desires of my wife and myself.

I didn't read the article, just responding to what you have posted to reinforce your point.

My wife and I have been married for 19 years and we also have no kids. By choice. No biological reason we can't have kids. We simply don't want any.

I'm sorry, but this article seems less about gay marriage and more about dudes not stepping up to the plate and taking responsibility for the children they help make. Do that, and prehaps that would make a difference? At least be PRESENT in that child's life? I don't buy this concept of men parenting one way and women the other. Also, those church charities shut down their adoption agencies because they would rather children be homeless than with gay parents. This writer and people like him just don't get that families vary, and marriage and family has changed. Actully, the 50% divorce rate isn't totally true. I'd rather have a modern marriage than a marriage from several hundred years ago any day and any time.

Although it was written at the time of the election where California's Proposition 8 was on the ballot, my analysis of the church's position paper (which contained many of the same arguments as in the link in the OP) at http://packham.n4m.org/gaymarriage.htm may be of interest.

saviorself Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Allowing gay marriage to diminish the value of
> traditional marriage is detrimental to society.

Please tell me how gay marriage diminishes the value of traditional marriage.

1. Right off, the article starts by framing marriage as a function of reproduction. IOW, what about widow/widower marriages, second marriages where both spouses were previously sterilized, infertile marriages? If you follow the article's logic out, then all those people should call lawyers and sign up for divorces, because if you don't have children, THAT compromises the integrity of marriage. Really?

2. The social justice argument doesn't really support traditional marriage so much as it supports welfare reform and fighting poverty by raising the minimum wage, which most conservatives lose their minds over. The reasons single-parent households don't fare as well is because of lower income. There's also the erroneous assumption that SSM is less stable than OSM. Not true. My BFFs are a gay couple who have been together longer than any of the straight married couples I know. They are better with children than most straight people -- because there are an awful lot of Traditional Marriage people who trust these two to babysit their children. The irony is not lost on them. Other erroneous assumptions: GLBT people do not have children from previous straight marriages, or the old turkey baster technique (I've known of both). Traditional marriage guarantees absolutely that the children will always have a two-parent home. I agree that parenting is a team sport, but any loving, stable, consistent authority figure can be a "parent." Why then, are single adults allowed to adopt children, but GLBTs are not (in most states)?

3. The hospital visitation/inheritance laws argument. Yes, that is an issue that affects all single people as well. We are all in that same boat. However, when a couple has a state-sanctioned marriage license, all those benefits are accorded automatically; straight married couples do not have to spend a lot of money at the lawyer's office setting up Medical Power of Attorney and inheritance and life insurance beneficiaries. In fact, in most states probate law will send 100% of the proceeds to the next of kin, absent a will, and that next of kin is the spouse.

4. SSM affects TMs because SSMs shift the focus from the needs of the children to the needs of the adults. Again, what about childless straight married couples? Or simply older couples where all the children are grown? You should get a divorce when all your children move out because then your focus has shifted to your own needs rather than that of your children.

Sorry, there's not only nothing new here, but these arguments have holes I could drive a semi truck through.

Also, I think the OP's little snipe at the GLBTs of this board is out of line and uncalled for. Nobody ever tried to force you to not be a bigot. Not being a bigot IS the only acceptable mindset, but if you do not see your actions and words as bigotry, I can see where you'd confuse the GLBT call for fairmindedness as people trying to shove teh Gay down your throat. Disputing a weak argument is not the same thing as a personal attack. Some people get mad and lose their patience and start name-calling and getting kind of nasty. It happens to the best of us. It's hard to remain calm and empathetic and fair-minded when someone tells you that your partnership is not only illegitimate, but actually damages "legitimate" partnerships. That's just bigotry and trying to reframe it as anything else is disingenuous and smacks of denial and lack of empathy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2014 02:47PM by dogzilla.

It's interesting to me that you gave us a hint to your age. From your hint, I can conclude that we are about the same age. During our lifetime we have seen many changes toward equality. The civil rights movement and equal rights for women got a good start. I hope that my grandchildren will live to see a day of full equality. Now the LGBT community is asking for equal rights. The article you linked didn't really address the fact that as citizens and indeed as human beings they deserve full equality. Not because it's good for society, but because it is their right.

Please take a walk down memory lane and remember why you wanted to get married when you were young. I'm guessing that if you're honest your answer would be much like mine. I simply could not get enough of the object of my affection any other way. It isn't about raising children or contributing to society. It is a simple emotional and biological need to be with that person. I'm sure that same sex couples have that same longing. Is it right to deny them the right to fulfill that need? I don't believe it is. I believe in equality.

Even as a TBM I didn't understand how gays getting married somehow threatened or diminished my heterosexual marriage. I just never saw how it could possibly hurt me.

By the author's own logic, if one father is good for a child, wouldn't two be better?

Monogamous, heterosexual marriage is suddenly "traditional" because it's been the norm for a very small part human history? The Mormons are the LAST people who should be promoting "traditional" marriage.

We all want society to be better. The things that make it bad are not limited to hetero- or homosexuality. There are good and bad people in either of those categories.

If you push far enough, and it's really not very far, you can't defend any of the present arguments against gay marriage without resorting to the "because my version of god says so" defense.

This article basically says that marriage is simply an orginization to provide a stable environment for children. What a huge over simplification! As with most black and white theology, reality is much more complicated. If you really believe this then you need to start campaigning to make it illegal for people over 50 to get married, and to make it illegal for married couple with children to get divorced. Plus you fail to understand that even though it is illegal for gays to marry in many places, it is not illegal for them to have children. Denying these families the stability and advantages of marriage does not do anything to streangthen "traditional marriage". It simply punishes these family's.

(Their headline, not mine)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/20/historical-marriage-definitions_n_4589763.html?ir=Gay+Voices#

Dear saviourself:

What seems clear to you about what the article says, is really not clear to me and to others on the board who have already commented. I'm sure others will continue to comment until the thread is closed.

I read your article and thought about it as you advised. How about if you read my article (link above) and think about it?

Thank you. That article gives an absolutely amazing perspective and context to frame the whole idea of "so called traditional marriage." Fascinating to see some of the real history displayed.

Questions for supporters of "traditional marriage" -

1. How much of a dowry were you paid by the parents of your bride? What all did the dowry contain?

2. If your brother dies will you marry his wife without question, even if you're currently married?

3. Did your parents arrange your marriage or was a professional match maker used? Were you allowed to speak to your spouse before your wedding?

4. If the husband dies before the wife, is the wife planning on killing herself as part of his funeral service?

Feel free to add any other questions you can think of.

Bwahahaha.

Let's face it, it boils down to normalizing something that some people don't want normalized. This is the fear that the LDS put in their Prop8 ads.

But our teenage kids go to school with kids who are openly gay, and they've accepted it. They aren't going to live by their parents rules.

Marriage Equality threatens traditional marriage in the same way that abolishing slavery made freedom less enjoyable for white people--Michael Schiller

And by the way, if you actually have a demonstrable, legitimate reason why marriage equality will harm traditional marriage, the attorneys at the appellate court could really use your help!

I think for some of us it comes down to what Garth said in Waynes World: "we fear change"

Gay marriage diminishes the value of traditional marriage the same way freedom and equality of African Americans diminishes the freedom and equality of white Americans. It doesn't.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2014 03:24PM by wine country girl.

saviorself said:
>Anyone who is familiar with the Recovery From Mormonism Bulletin Board (this forum) understands that gays have a strong presence here. The gay posters have established a mindset that says theirs is the ONLY acceptable viewpoint and that anyone with a differing viewpoint should be insulted and silenced. The insults are often blantant personal attacks, which are against BB rules.

I'm sorry this is your perception of RfM.

The "strong presence" that gay posters (may) have here comes from a handful of regular posters (who may actually be gay - or not) who have an interest in topics about homosexuality and the social issues with which it intersects, such as religious beliefs, legal cases and human rights.

One of the main reasons these topics are discussed on this forum is that the Mormon Church, the subject religion here, denounces homosexuality and treats its gay members with enough misguided homophobic pronouncements and deeds (including withholding of "privileges", such as a TR, and horrific "cures", such as electroshock therapy at church-affiliated institutions - like Evergreen) that gay ex-Mormons have a few things to process once they get out. It helps to discuss the various issues and to meet up, if only in cyberspace, with others who understand what they are going through. It is the type of mistreatment, by church and family, that in many cases necessitates this "processing" for the rest of people's lives. If RfM posters, gay and straight, can help in the process, that's all to the good.

However, many more topics than these are featured here and it's easy to skip the threads you're not interested in. Leave the space, though, for others to engage in such discussions if they so desire or need.

Nor is there only one "mindset" here, that I see. The focus of this forum, frequently articulated by Eric, Board Founder, is to respond to "questioning Mormons" and those who have newly exited the church. This is one of the main causes of other exmo boards being established, to offer space to those who are no longer newbie exiters or newbie posters and those who have an interest in other subjects at some point in their new lives. That leaves this board to continue its aim of focusing on the questioning Mormon and new exmos.

If this group includes LGBTQ people, so be it.

I see issues affecting them as being of general interest, not a subsection of RfM or any special group. To me, the issues are about society, of which I am a part, and specifically touching religious and legal matters, which are of particular interest to me. So, I don't separate the topics or the threads or the posters even into gay and straight matters or people. I do note whether a poster is gay or straight, if they have shared that info, only in order to hopefully better understand their viewpoint. I find I read and get it better if I see a person's position and obviously in certain matters your opinion will arise from your orientation. One example would be if a TBM says the church is all good and a gay member says I beg to differ - from where I'm sitting it's not so great. It's easy to see why each one would have the viewpoint (perception) they do. It holds true for the posters here too. Obviously, each of us speaks from our own experiences but hopefully we can see where someone else is coming from.

As for people with differing opinions being "insulted and silenced", you are correct. Hurling insults is against board rules. If you or anyone feels a post is insulting to them in a way that is against board rules you can simply use the "report" button and let Admin know. You are strongly encouraged by them to do this. The offending post may disappear, if Admin agrees with your assessment.

However, "offence" is subjective. Sometimes Admin will consider that the post you object to is indeed a personal attack (not allowed). Other times, they will allow a post to stand. Offence is really in the eye of the beholder. One example for me is that, as a Christian, using "Jesus Christ" as a curse (swearing) makes me wince. I greatly dislike seeing it in a subject line. I never get used to it. To non-Christians, it doesn't even register. How are you going to moderate a board and keep all sides happy? That is the million dollar question. Fortunately, this particular bugbear of mine doesn't occur too frequently and I just have to suck it up and not let it diminish my enjoyment of the whole rest of the vast board.

"Blatant personal attacks" are definitely and consistently against board rules. Hopefully these are more obvious than someone finding a comment "offensive" which is so subjective (as above). Again, just use the report button and such posts will certainly be deleted, if they are indeed deemed to be personal attacks.

A huge opportunity we have as readers and posters at RfM is to hear from all sorts of people with a wide variety of experiences. This may mean mixing with those we've never encountered before. It may take some getting used to for some of us. But any new experience helps us grow as adults on new paths. As a convert, I met one Mormon who was gay, although he didn't tell me so in words (which is itself unfortunate - he didn't feel he could state it, which is telling in itself). What he did say was that he couldn't go to the temple. When I (cluelessly) asked why he said, "because I'm not worthy".

Nobody should have to feel that way about themselves. No church should teach that lesson to its gay members or its straight ones. I found his self-assessment to be profoundly sad. I was already a pre-mo Christian who was troubled by the Christian stance on homosexuality, mainstream and fundamentalist factions alike. I don't believe that anybody should ever be "left out" and this basic ingrained urge to do the right thing, the just thing, and include everyone (and especially to render justice to all) has left me out in the cold myself on many occasions. Try being a straight person in a homophobic church who doesn't identify with the homophobes!

Yes. I KNOW the scriptures (apparently) denounce homosexuality and we can't go "against the scriptures", can we?

To me, though, it's a matter of understanding the translation/interpretation process. The words we read do not necessarily render the original meaning from the ancient languages. Committees of men, in all ages, wrangled over words and their interpretation in order to come up with the scriptures we have today.

I live in a bilingual country. Every day I see instances where French-speaking people are trying to put their experiences and ideas into English words (such as reporters in various French towns in Quebec speaking to English language news stations). Ditto for English-speakers in majority French-speaking areas. There is not a precise and exact translation for every word or idea. In fact, in various cultures, certain concepts literally do not translate.

How certain are we that translators of various Bible versions got it exactly right? It's not necessarily right because the translation itself says it's right!

So all this kerfluffle over homosexuality may truly be a big huge tempest in a tiny little teapot.

What a waste of time and energy! What a tragic waste of human treasure, especially if our (mis)translation leads to a person who is homosexual feeling that their life is not worth living. Because we say they are not worthy. Because we say we don't want to hear their voice. Because we say our holy book denounces them.

That is not a holy book I wish to follow (nor one I believe is relevant or true to the original intent).

Nor a god I wish to worship.

(NB: My general comments on the topic of homosexuality and religion, especially in the latter part of my post are not meant to convey the idea that these are the OP's opinions. I don't know what he believes other than what he has specifically stated above).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2014 03:36PM by Nightingale.

I didn't finish the article.

Here's why.

The article states:
Marriage exists to unite a man and a woman as husband and wife to then be equipped to be mother and father to any children that that union produces.

False!

Wrong!

This premise is so flawed that it invalidates the entirety of the article because the rest of the article will be based on this false premise.

According to this premise, a marriage only has meaning if the couple being married intend to have children.

This is so ridiculous I'm not even going to bother to deconstruct it.

I haven't read the article, I have no intention of filling my mind with more bigoted views with weak arguments based on opinions that simply don't matter.

Others above have done a very good job of pointing out the flaws with the article, and reading those comments, the arguments are nothing more than the tired and pointless statements that are trotted out over and over again. Basically they all boil down to nothing to do with Gay Marriage and everything to do with the problems with marriage in general.

You've stated that you don't want personal attacks, that's fine, but I do think a response to what you said is warranted. You've stated what you want in public, you should expect a response.

"The gay posters"
- Ah... The "gay posters"... You do realize that there are a lot of people on this board who support marriage equality, not just "the gay posters". I'm one of them, I'm in a hetrosexual marriage and I'm very happy with that arrangement. But, I see no reason to deny homosexual couples the same legal rights, privileges and benefits that my wife and I have. Does that make me one of your "gay posters", I'm not sure, but if "gay poster" means accepting and open, then I'm fine with being included in that number.

"theirs is the ONLY acceptable viewpoint and that anyone with a differing viewpoint should be insulted and silenced"
- Ah... irony... I love these kinds of statements, because they are totally ironic. While "gay posters" are trying to get the same rights as everyone else and pointing out the reasons why, people like you relegate them to 2nd class. People trying to stop marriage equality have compared homosexuals to pedophiles, predators, and the next stop to all kinds of deviant behavior. Young homosexuals have been kicked out of their homes, disowned and thrown to their own devices, some even been literally tortured trying to change who they are. I think the "gay posters" on this board have a right to more than a little anger and indignancy, especially with how the church has historically treated them.

Besides, I think you're going to find that you are on the wrong side of history. In just a few years, most people will agree openly that theirs really is the ONLY acceptable viewpoint and that you are wrong. I think it's fairly safe to say that people have said the same thing to people supporting racial and women's equality. Yet, today, yesterdays opponents of those movements are almost universally accepted to be wrong, just like you will be. Someday, if you don't realize how wrong you are, you will be looked at as the crazy old grandparent that people avoid talking to because they say embarrassing things that are no longer acceptable in polite conversation.


"The insults are often blantant personal attacks, which are against BB rules."
- I haven't seen these "blantant"(sic) personal attacks, but you do know that these boards are moderated. If someone is breaking the rules, report them. That is the rule. If you have a problem, you are supposed to click the report button.

"The above article clearly discusses the issues of marriage and why traditional marriage between a man and a woman has a major benefit for society"
- Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Who cares. The issues of "traditional marriage" have nothing at all to do with marriage equality, does it? Hetrosexual marriages can rise and fall, homosexual marriages won't have an impact at all. I'm fairly confident that I can say that any two random people getting married won't hurt my marriage in the slightest. If there are problems with hetrosexual marriages, why don't you focus on those issues (divorce rates, single parents, etc), rather than trying to block people from getting the same legal rights that you have.

"something that a gay marriage does not have"
- Wow... Could you be more wrong? If a hetrosexual, childless marriage between octogenarians is a benefit to society, wouldn't a 30 something tax paying married couple with 3 kids (adopted or otherwise) also be a benefit, maybe even more? Does it matter if the couple is same sex or not? If it does matter, I'd really like to know how their sex matters, because I have yet to hear any real argument that shows that it does matter. If a "marriage" is a benefit, then YOU have to prove that the sex of the couple matters or is a deterrent somehow.

"Allowing gay marriage to diminish the value of traditional marriage is detrimental to society"
- I have yet to hear argument that successfully shows how marriage equality will diminish in any way "the value of traditional marriage". How will a gay couple getting married hurt my marriage or my view on marriage? Please tell me how? I really want to know because this is a common statement and it makes no sense. Besides, it sounds like the article does a pretty good job of pointing out that marriage isn't doing so hot on it's own, maybe a little equality and more potential positive examples will help.

"Read the complete article for yourself and think about it."
- No... But, how 'bout you start thinking about it yourself rather than just parroting old tired arguments that don't work. If you have something of value to add, please do... But really think about what you're saying, because these, based on what I've read in the comments, alone are nothing new and are easily demolished and meaningless.

"I am not a TBM."
- In a way, you still are. Maybe not with the LDS church, but if you don't see the problems with the arguments posed by this article, you are still "true believing" and not really thinking. If you aren't for marriage equality, fine, but know why you aren't for it and give a reasoned and well thought out answer... If you can't come up with a reasoned and well thought out answer then maybe you should rethink your views on the topic.

Marriage used to be defined by the churches.

But the churches did a crappy job of it, they wouldn't let people get divorced and it really sucked to be a woman under church marriage.

So people (as a group and a society) created civil marriage and defined it the way they (as a group) liked it. It is a legal civil status. We even invented prenuptial agreements so couples can tailor fit their own marriages.

Along the way thousands of privileges and responsibilities became legally associated with the status of being married. Life insurance, social security survivors benefits, health benefits, inheritance, etc.

It all boils down to how people and the courts decide what "equal protection under the law" means under the 14th amendment. The traditionalists say everybody is perfectly able and capable to marry someone of the opposite sex so there is no inequality before the law.

But people (as a group and a society) are beginning to accept this odd notion that people should be able to marry someone to whom they are sexually attracted. Maybe traditionalists don't like sex or they just hate that kind of sex, or sex shouldn't be discussed in any venue. Having hang ups is their privilege, meanwhile, the rest of us are moving on without your permission. It doesn't appear we need your permission.

I think this is as inevitable as no-fault divorce.

The article basically rehashes the tired old argument that if SSM is legalized, then individuals who would otherwise be in a committed, healthy, child-rearing OSM will suddenly decide they don't want to be. It's just ridiculous. It's not like straight people are just waiting for gay marriage to become legal so they will have an excuse to switch teams or become absentee parents or !gasp! decide not to have children.

The whole article is trying to convince people that marriage culture is disintegrating. Well, denying a large portion of the population the right to marry does not strengthen marriage culture.

So now what? We wait for the savior to return and comment on these arguments?

Homosexual marriage cannot destroy a self-destoying institution. I believe that all legal matters are ultimately self-destructive.

Heterosexuals destroyed marriage by making it a legal matter to begin with. The most private, intimate, and deeply personal relationship is now free game in divorce courts across the country, introducing politics into family life at an alarming rate. Try being a dad told by a judge when you get to see your own kids.

People who don't see that government is interested in building avenues of power anywhere it can are part of the problem. If we homos do anything to legalized marriage, it will be to merely finish off a comatose institution.

Heterosexuals destroyed marriage by making it a thing in the first place. A few hundred years ago, only royalty married and those marriages were arranged for strategic territory or revenue purposes. That's why dowries got involved. If you look into current marriage traditions, most (if not all) of them are rooted in the principles that women are property and a commodity and a staffing resource (breed your own farm hands, split your estate amongst your sons, sell off your daughters for dowries). We made it a romantic notion only in the last hundred years or so -- during the Victorian Age with the Virgin Queen and all that nonsense. Up until then, your average, run-of-the-mill working/middle/lower class couples didn't married. The bred and lived together as was necessary.

And then there was the mormon church with its polygamy. If anything destroys "marriage" it's that.

Sorry, I didn't read the article because from what you described it doesn't sound like it merits my time. One key phrase you used is "Allowing gay marriage to diminish the value of traditional marriage is detrimental to society." Do you realise that gay people are just as gay with or without gay marriage? Same goes for straight. We could ban straight marriage and that would not change your heterosexuality one bit. So my question is, how does handing a marriage license and the same civil rights enjoyed by straights to gays diminish the validity of the straight marriages? If you can give me a coherant, well reasoned answer then maybe I'll go ahead and see what's in the article.

I am not homosexual, never have experiemented with homosexuality. I am a gay ally and I got there in spite of my fundamentalism and my Mormonism because I was able to see people as individuals and one of my best friends from BYU was comfortable enough to share this information of his homosexuality and Evergreen and his struggles.

I am pleased to be able to say that I kow many gay parents that are excellent parents and their children are fortunate to have them as their protectors and providers. I know heterosexual parents, especially TBM and NOM parents that are willing to knowingly teach their children a fraud cult, because it is the least disruptive choice for the parent.

No sale. There are great people in each group and real jerks inneach group. I like to associate with the better ones as I try and be the best I can be. I am happy to support and align myself with those who want to be marrid because it is their civil right.

The key of marriage, as I stressed it once, should not be "gay" marriage but the re-establishment of marriage as a permanent union. Today one half of those reaching marriage age get married and of those who do get marriest the real reate of divorce is 80%. This does have substantial negative results for the society. Back in 1958, for example, in New York only five percent of marriages were ending in divorce and 95% of people eventually married. A light difference....