Google Webmaster Tools
 
Marriage and family are essential to the Plan of Salvation.  The Proclamation on the family issued in 1995 says this much. Hence Latter-day Saints and Christians should pay close attention to efforts to redefine marriage.

Ross Douthat, a New York Times columnist, wrote an article exploring the impact of gay marriage on the marriage culture. One thing people on both sides of the marriage debate can agree on is that the surge of gay marriage will change our culture's understanding of marriage. Douthat highlights three possible directions marriage will go.

Some argue that gay marriage will be good for gays in the sense that it will promote stable, monogamous relationships in the gay community. Gay commitment to marriage will, in turn, strengthen marriage as a whole, as being a stable and enduring institution. An author who has written on this subject predicts that same-sex marriages will strengthen “marriage’s standard for committed relationships” across all society.

A somewhat different prediction is that gay marriage will “partially transform marriage from within.” Most noteworthy is the change in marriage sexual mores, away from sexual monogamy toward sanctioned infidelity. One gay activist hopes that same-sex marriage will end up redefining marriage “simply as a pact of mutual love and care” wherein gay and straight married couples are free to negotiate occasional sexual encounters outside the bonds of marriage.

The final prediction is the direst. There are some activists “who hope that gay marriage will knock marriage off its cultural pedestal altogether.” They want to abolish marriage as a “gold standard” for committed relationships. They hope to achieve this objective by having same-sex couples who have no intent on honoring marriage vows get married. They want to weaken marriage by denigrating it. They don’t want marriage. They want marriage to go away.

With regard to the first prediction, we do not need gay marriage to strengthen the institution of marriage, and I doubt that same-sex marriage would ever accomplish such a thing. If the gay community wants to strengthen marriage it could support traditional marriage as being between a man and woman and stop pushing for a redefinition. To their credit, some gay people are doing this. The traditional concept of marriage isn’t broken, so let’s not try to fix it.

The second prediction is very troublesome. It wants to redefine acceptable sexual relations within the bonds of marriage. Sanctioned infidelity would end up destroying marriage because it would eliminate a core component of marriage, namely sexual commitment to one person. Take out monogamy and marriage becomes little more than a relationship driven by economic and sexual convenience.    

The final prediction involves complete obliteration of marriage. Activists who take this position see marriage as promoting emotional and sexual fidelity that is antithetical to their vision of a free-for-all, sexual anarchy. They cannot live in long term, committed relationships themselves so they want to eliminate anything that promotes fidelity as the norm. They want infidelity and promiscuity to be the norm. The only way to achieve this is goal is to tear down the current norm.

Clearly we are facing forces that will, if they get their way, lead to the disintegration of marriage and the traditional family. Such changes will have dire consequences. The Proclamation warns that “the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.” I hope this doesn't happen, but it seems that as a society, we are headed in that direction.

 


Comments

Stan
07/19/2011 20:00

I think these concerns are overblown. First of all, many of these problems with marriage already exist with heterosexual couples. Second, why would someone else's behavior in their marriage determine how I behave in my marriage?

On another, more concerning note, I've caught wind of a more disturbing movement. There are groups of advocates fighting to change how breakfast cereal is eaten. One group insists that breakfast cereal be eaten with condensed milk. Yet another, more sinister group, is insisting that corn flakes be eaten with powdered milk! The most sinister and troublesome of all is a radical group of cereal progressives insisting that cereal be eaten with... no liquid whatsoever! Just plain dry cereal! Oh the humanity! I would hate to eat my cereal dry like that.

Reply
Stan
07/19/2011 20:02

Oh, I forgot about the part about cats and dogs living together. =:)

Reply
Cynthia L.
07/19/2011 22:54

So, you list three possibilities. One of them positive, one kinda bad, the third full-on Armageddon. Then you claim the positive one won't happen because, "I doubt that same-sex marriage would ever accomplish such a thing." That is the totality of your argument for why, of the three, the positive one won't come about. Then, with equally little support, you claim it is going to be the Armageddon one.

Can I ask you to elaborate? Is there any reason to believe it won't be the positive one, other than you just don't <i>want</i> to believe that any good could come of them?

Reply
Dave C.
07/19/2011 22:54

Stan,

"I think these concerns are overblown."

Only if the concerns do not come to pass. I hope you're right. If you're wrong then we as a society are seriously in trouble.

Reply
Cynthia L.
07/19/2011 22:55

PS: here's a video for Stan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3ZOKDmorj0

Reply
Dave C.
07/19/2011 22:55

Stan,

Dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria!

Reply
Dave C.
07/19/2011 23:03

Cynthia,

You raise a good question - what good could come from the push for gay marriage?
I can think of 2 things. People wake up and take a stand for traditional marriage, realizing that it is something worth fighting for. Second is that society becomes more aware of the plight of gay people living in a largely heterosexual world.

Reply
Cynthia L.
07/19/2011 23:12

I think the argument, mentioned in your post, that including all individuals in marriage strengthens the institution by making it THE standard for committed relationships, is a compelling one.

If we have a large-ish and very visible/influential minority are barred from marriage and thus are forced by law to make cultural adaptations, they will develop parallel institutions. They will, by necessity due to the law, normalize non-marriage relationships even in cases when the couple is deeply committed and sexually active. That sets a really bad precedent for couples who aren't barred from marriage (i.e. heterosexuals). A young urban-living heterosexual couple might look at all their gay friends and say, gee, they aren't married, why should we get married? If instead they look at all their friends, gay and straight, and see that the path to a stable, happy life is seen almost exclusively in their married friends, and not those who have chosen other paths, that will encourage them to get married.

Reply
07/29/2011 17:48

I have to agree with Cynthia on this one. There is little reason to shun the good option and endorse the third, and it would be interesting to see that fleshed out a little more. I think the first option is strong for more or less the same reasons that Cynthia described.

The second option, which I will call the "Dan Savage route", is just that, Dan Savage's idea. It has a fair bit of popularity in the heterosexual community, but since Dan Savage chooses to make a big deal out of it, it becomes a gay issue that represents the harm that gays can do to marriage. It is his opinion and I would think a minority opinion (I don't have stats for you).

And as to the third option, there have been people calling for the downfall of marriage for the last fifty years, and I'd reference you to the Oneida community in the 19th century, as well as the Shakers and other celibacy-advocating types for examples of people crusading against marriage further back in history. Likewise, in the gay community there are activists that want to do away with marriage because of the slight the institution puts on them (even if they're allowed to enter into it) and on others that are of the polyamorous variety. This is definitely a minority, gays want to be integrated, accepted, and loved (like everyone else), and participating in an active, healthy marriage culture is an important part of this. However, the minority that wants to legalize gay marriage <i>in order to</i> destroy marriage is even smaller, or maybe even entirely mythical. Marriage is a real commitment, made all the more real once you have the legal right to it, and just entering into a sham marriage to weaken the institution through some long convoluted process of other people's marriages failing because you are bad at your own, is waaaaaay too elaborate for these activists that want change now. I'm not saying the "do away with marriage and endorse a whole slew of relationships" crowd doesn't exist, only that it isn't trying to legalize marriage for gays in order to achieve this, and their success/failure is in no way predicated on gays being able to marry.

So I hope that my take on the three potential outcomes is helpful in crafting a more rounded understanding of them.

Reply
09/04/2011 13:34

I'm with Stan. The OP's arguments are quite vague: how, exactly, are these things going to happen? All three options seem to reference some unitary state of "marriage," as if that were one thing we all knew about, and it could be threatened, changed, or destroyed (how, exactly?) by allowing gays to marry.

I don't argue that individual actions or symbolic acts have no consequences. On the contrary, the way we pair-bond and our attitudes about it are very important. I believe that a high prevalence of sexual and emotional fidelity are important for establishing and maintaining a healthy society... but is gay marriage really the threat to that? Heterosexuals are, numbers-wise, "destroying marriage" at a much faster rate than are the various gay communities; and we've been doing it for millennia (or, if you believe in the myth of universal preindustrial chastity, at least for several decades).

The American Evangelical/LDS pushback against gay marriage feels to me like a strategic retreat at best (i.e., we've already lost the battle to keep straight sex within marital bonds), and a manifestation of our insecurities at worst.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply




Google Analytics