The Divine Institution of Marriage and SSM

[Shawn_]

I know some of your are tired of posts about same-sex marriage (SSM). However, I can create a topic just as much as anyone else here, and I want a thread that begins with points made by this publication: The Divine Institution of Marriage
I wish members would be more unified can stop opposing or disregarding the Church regarding this issue.

Please stop saying the church is trying to force others to live by it's precepts.
The truth is that "a movement has emerged to promote same-sex marriage as an inherent or constitutional right. This is not a small step, but a radical change: instead of society tolerating or accepting private, consensual sexual behavior between adults, advocates of same-sex marriage seek its official endorsement and recognition." They are the ones seeking to impose their will on others. The onus is on them to show that a new definition of marriage is needed. "Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults....Co-habitation under any guise or title is not a sufficient reason for defining new forms of marriage."

Stop saying there is no good, non-religious reason to oppose SSM.
One reason is that "children are entitled to be born within this [man and woman] bond of marriage." And "Court decisions in Massachusetts (2004) and California (2008) have allowed same-sex marriages. This trend constitutes a serious threat to marriage and family. The institution of marriage will be weakened, resulting in negative consequences for both adults and children....Because this question strikes at the very heart of the family, because it is one of the great moral issues of our time, and because it has the potential for great impact upon the family, the Church is speaking out on this issue, and asking members to get involved."

Please stop saying that Church members must be Christlike and show tolerance by allowing SSM.
"The Savior taught a much higher concept, that of love. 'Love thy neighbor,' He admonished. Jesus loved the sinner even while decrying the sin, as evidenced in the case of the woman taken in adultery: treating her kindly, but exhorting her to 'sin no more.' Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not 'tolerating' transgression. In today’s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone – acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship. Jesus taught that we love and care for one another without condoning transgression."

Please stop talking about how SSM "will not affect the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage in any way."
Talk about "how it will affect society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future generations. The "dilution of the traditional definition of marriage will further erode the already weakened stability of marriages and family generally. Adopting same-sex marriage compromises the traditional concept of marriage, with harmful consequences for society....the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children?"

The Church is not wrong on this. Support the message and the method the Brethren have set forth.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by Shawn_

Stop saying there is no good, non-religious reason to oppose SSM.
One reason is that "children are entitled to be born within this [man and woman] bond of marriage." And "Court decisions in Massachusetts (2004) and California (2008) have allowed same-sex marriages. This trend constitutes a serious threat to marriage and family. The institution of marriage will be weakened, resulting in negative consequences for both adults and children....Because this question strikes at the very heart of the family, because it is one of the great moral issues of our time, and because it has the potential for great impact upon the family, the Church is speaking out on this issue, and asking members to get involved."

I think that your paragraph is trying to verify the underlined point, but I fail to see it here. All you've done is demonstrate more religious reasons, as opposed to point out any non-religious reasons.










P.S. You might make more friends by not telling people what to do.

[Shawn_]

It is "a serious threat to marriage and family. The institution of marriage will be weakened, resulting in negative consequences for both adults and children." That is a universal reason. Anyway, there's more in the section titled "How Would Same-Sex Marriage Affect Society?"

[Maureen]

Originally Posted by Shawn_

It is "a serious threat to marriage and family. The institution of marriage will be weakened, resulting in negative consequences for both adults and children." That is a universal reason. Anyway, there's more in the section titled "How Would Same-Sex Marriage Affect Society?"

How would SSM be a serious threat to marriage and family? How will the institution of marriage be weakened because of SSM? I'm geniunely interested in knowing the answers to these questions.

M.

[Shawn_]

Originally Posted by Maureen

How would SSM be a serious threat to marriage and family? How will the institution of marriage be weakened because of SSM? I'm geniunely interested in knowing the answers to these questions.

M.

From the publication:

Possible restrictions on religious freedom are not the only societal implications of legalizing same-sex marriage. Perhaps the most common argument that proponents of same-sex marriage make is that it is essentially harmless and will not affect the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage in any way. “It won’t affect you, so why should you care?’ is the common refrain. While it may be true that allowing single-sex unions will not immediately and directly affect all existing marriages, the real question is how it will affect society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future generations. The experience of the few European countries that already have legalized same-sex marriage suggests that any dilution of the traditional definition of marriage will further erode the already weakened stability of marriages and family generally. Adopting same-sex marriage compromises the traditional concept of marriage, with harmful consequences for society.

Aside from the very serious consequence of undermining and diluting the sacred nature of marriage between a man and a woman, there are many practical implications in the sphere of public policy that will be of deep concern to parents and society as a whole. These are critical to understanding the seriousness of the overall issue of same-sex marriage.

When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children. Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide. Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment. By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring.

It is true that some same-sex couples will obtain guardianship over children –through prior heterosexual relationships, through adoption in the states where this is permitted, or by artificial insemination. Despite that, the all-important question of public policy must be: what environment is best for the child and for the rising generation? Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children?

As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations. These developments will create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality.

Finally, throughout history the family has served as an essential bulwark of individual liberty. The walls of a home provide a defense against detrimental social influences and the sometimes overreaching powers of government. In the absence of abuse or neglect, government does not have the right to intervene in the rearing and moral education of children in the home. Strong families are thus vital for political freedom. But when governments presume to redefine the nature of marriage, issuing regulations to ensure public acceptance of non-traditional unions, they have moved a step closer to intervening in the sacred sphere of domestic life. The consequences of crossing this line are many and unpredictable, but likely would include an increase in the power and reach of the state toward whatever ends it seeks to pursue.

[anatess]

Basically, a simple summarization of the entire OP is the following, centering only on the non-religious point:

* Marriage is the basic relationship or contract that is the foundation of society.
* Marriage is the foundation where the next generation is built upon.
* This nucleus requires 2 genders. Male and Female.

Any deviation to this foundation is detrimental to society. Yes. That includes single parenthood (absent fathers, absent mothers) and children raised within SSM.

Legalization of SSM is not just "do your own thing, I'll do mine". It's a redefinition of this foundation and an acceptance of SSM as equal to 2-gender-marriage. This means that the SSM environment is equal to the 2-gender environment in raising children. This means that, as a society, we accept that there is no inherent difference between male and female in the fabric of society.

Note that there is nothing in my comment above that touches on religion.

[Vort]

anatess, your post is good, but it will fall on deaf ears. I have already pointed out that, as far as I can tell, never -- NEVER -- throughout human history has marriage ever been defined as anything except a union between a man and a woman. No exceptions, until a few western European countries in the late 20th century decided to redefine marriage, for the first time in human history, as a union between members of the same sex. No one ever responded to that, except to say "Nuh-uh!"

So this is manifestly not about truthful conversation and exchange of ideas. This is about one side imposing its values on the rest of us. And despite the lies to the contrary, the imposing side is not the side defending historical marriage values.

[Thinker]

Originally Posted by Shawn_

I know some of your are tired of posts about same-sex marriage (SSM). However, I can create a topic just as much as anyone else here, and I want a thread that begins with points made by this publication: The Divine Institution of Marriage
I wish members would be more unified can stop opposing or disregarding the Church regarding this issue.

Please stop saying the church is trying to force others to live by it's precepts.
The truth is that "a movement has emerged to promote same-sex marriage as an inherent or constitutional right. This is not a small step, but a radical change: instead of society tolerating or accepting private, consensual sexual behavior between adults, advocates of same-sex marriage seek its official endorsement and recognition." They are the ones seeking to impose their will on others. The onus is on them to show that a new definition of marriage is needed. "Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults....Co-habitation under any guise or title is not a sufficient reason for defining new forms of marriage."

Stop saying there is no good, non-religious reason to oppose SSM.
One reason is that "children are entitled to be born within this [man and woman] bond of marriage." And "Court decisions in Massachusetts (2004) and California (2008) have allowed same-sex marriages. This trend constitutes a serious threat to marriage and family. The institution of marriage will be weakened, resulting in negative consequences for both adults and children....Because this question strikes at the very heart of the family, because it is one of the great moral issues of our time, and because it has the potential for great impact upon the family, the Church is speaking out on this issue, and asking members to get involved."

Please stop saying that Church members must be Christlike and show tolerance by allowing SSM.
"The Savior taught a much higher concept, that of love. 'Love thy neighbor,' He admonished. Jesus loved the sinner even while decrying the sin, as evidenced in the case of the woman taken in adultery: treating her kindly, but exhorting her to 'sin no more.' Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not 'tolerating' transgression. In today’s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone – acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship. Jesus taught that we love and care for one another without condoning transgression."

Please stop talking about how SSM "will not affect the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage in any way."
Talk about "how it will affect society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future generations. The "dilution of the traditional definition of marriage will further erode the already weakened stability of marriages and family generally. Adopting same-sex marriage compromises the traditional concept of marriage, with harmful consequences for society....the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children?"

The Church is not wrong on this. Support the message and the method the Brethren have set forth.

Excellent, Shawn.
I've gathered a similar list.

Nonreligious reasons to object to legalizing Same Sex Marriage:

1. Rights should never be given based on learned sexual fetishes.
Evidence shows that having homosexual preferences is a choice, more linked to environmental influences than to biology...
Science Does NOT Support the Claim That Homosexuality Is Genetic
http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf
Homosexual Researchers Debunk ‘Born Gay’ Urban Legend

"* No research has found provable biological or genetic differences between heterosexuals & homosexuals that weren't caused by their behavior.
* In two large studies conducted... Homosexuals overwhelmingly believed their feelings and behavior were the result of social or environmental influences.
*Older homosexuals often approach the young
*Early homosexual experiences influence adult patters of behavior
*Sexual conduct is influenced by cultural factors - esp. religious convictions
*Many change their sexual preferences
*There are many ex-homosexuals" Environmental factors may influence sexual orientation
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archiv ... t/06102608

Although those who have homosexul fetishes have learned to have such fetishes, often it is because of uncontrollable issues, like childhood abuse, so we need to have compassion in this regard, and distinguish judging a person from judging the behavior.

The APA changed the definition of homosexuality not because of scientific studies, but because of political harrassment from gay lobbyists.
The Born "Gay" Hoax |

2. Homosexual practices prove to be unhealthy, & laws are supposed to promote healthy & well-being, not sickness.
According to the United States Center for Disease Control (US CDC), those who engage in homosexual practices tend to switch partners often and thus have disproportionately high statistics of contracting and spreading STDs and AIDS.
Even in 2 healthy individuals, anal sex (fetish) involves risks of anal fissures, anal cancer, colon rupture and bacterial infection.

3. Children have the right to be raised by a mother and father.
Studies (besides common sense) show that mothers and fathers are important to the upbringing of children. Children tend to imitate what they see in their parents & homosexual behavior has proven to be unhealthy. Children also learn how to get a long with the opposite sex by observing their mother and father get along. Same-sex marriage supporters don't care about what is best for children, but want what they want, when they want it - when only heterosexual unions can bring it about.
Children are the future of society and that is why a portion of our taxes goes to fund their education. They are worth investing in, and that is by supporting the union from which they naturally come and in which they thrive best.

4. Many rights have been infringed upon in the attempt to force society to honor "gay rights."
Most concerning are children being indoctrinated about homosexuality in public schools where same-sex marriage has been legalized. There are many cases of adults also being harassed for expressing their views about marriage between a man & a woman. Some have even been fired, & countless have had their freedom of speech limited, as I have.

Some liberals are even beginning to realize the homosexual movement is more dangerous than meets the eye. If we are giving a group rights based on their sexual fetishes, what does that say about other groups with sexual fettishes for children. Already, backed by the LBGT (gay community) - have been attempts to push for normalizing pedophilia and child porn laws.

[Soulsearcher]

I'll ignore most of the other points for now, but i have to comment on this part

1. Rights should never be given based on learned sexual fetishes.
Evidence shows that having homosexual preferences is a choice, more linked to environmental influences than to biology...
Science Does NOT Support the Claim That Homosexuality Is Genetic
http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf
Homosexual Researchers Debunk ‘Born Gay’ Urban Legend

"* No research has found provable biological or genetic differences between heterosexuals & homosexuals that weren't caused by their behavior.
* In two large studies conducted... Homosexuals overwhelmingly believed their feelings and behavior were the result of social or environmental influences.
*Older homosexuals often approach the young
*Early homosexual experiences influence adult patters of behavior
*Sexual conduct is influenced by cultural factors - esp. religious convictions
*Many change their sexual preferences
*There are many ex-homosexuals" Environmental factors may influence sexual orientation
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archiv ... t/06102608

Although those who have homosexul fetishes have learned to have such fetishes, often it is because of uncontrollable issues, like childhood abuse, so we need to have compassion in this regard, and distinguish judging a person from judging the behavior.

The APA changed the definition of homosexuality not because of scientific studies, but because of political harrassment from gay lobbyists.
The Born "Gay" Hoax |

LOL where to start. I guess I'll go in order

1)No research has shown a clear provable cause, i can agree with that, however it also hasn't dis proven anything. With a number of theories and connections being found you can keep saying "until you have proof i won't believe what you say", but at the same time religion does tend to fall under that as well, prove to me god exist with clear provable facts or else he doesn't exist. most religious people scoff at the need to provide evidence for what they know to be true but seem to dismiss others in the same boat.

2)Can you please provide those studies for me. Almost none of the homosexuals i know, including myself feel that way and i really would like to review the studies.

3)Hmm older people approaching young. Lets see how many men look at younger women? How many men have affairs or leave their wives for younger women. Yes there are homosexuals who will date younger, that being said there are also a number of younger that will pursue older, just like in heterosexuals.

4) Define early homosexual experiences? I didn't have any kind of homosexual experiences of any kind til i was in my 30's. The desires were there but i avoided it out of fear of perception, so my earliest homosexual experience was as an adult, so were my behaviors set then or when i was younger? Again this seems to be one of those "easily applied to heterosexuals as well" kind of comments, but really doesn't address anything.

5)There are many ex homosexuals. 8% of those seeking to reverse their orientation are successful, these numbers coming from the organizations who trumpet their success and less than half seem to stay reversed. i think it's closer to 60% are able to subdue their desires and turn pretty much asexual again this not being a long lasting change. Also might want to look at the number of leaders of the so called therapy groups who have admitted they have been running a scam and changing for the vast majority doesn't work.

6)This is one of those fun claims that really no amount of proof could ever really change your mind on. If you want to believe that's how and why the APA decided to make the change then more power to you, it tends to be ranked up there with the birther movement among other theories to explain why things happen we don't agree with.

[carlimac]

Soulsearcher...(Hi there!) So how do you prove that the APA wasn't coerced or at the very least pressured into changing homosexual status. How is it a theory? Are we not to believe what appears to be actual happenings and experiences by the people involved?