The so-called destructiveness of gay marriage

In response to the LDS church’s seemingly monumental support of certain gay rights (“common sense” anti-discrimination measures — they haven’t said anything about civil unions and they are sticking to their guns against gay marriage), which others commented on elsewhere, there was a terrific post on Mormon Matters from a guest writer, John Gustav-Wrathall, about the Gay Rights Paradox.

In the Mormon Matters discussion, I saw the sharks swarm around John…see, I don’t have anything against the commenter Jared as a person, but he does seem to telegraph his strategies in advance. Now, his current hypothesis he is espousing is that he feels when people take “radical” positions, it is because they failed to consult the scriptures. If one consulted the scriptures, then they would have no problem following the Prophet and believing in the church’s position.

I wanted to warn John about this tactic…but John didn’t fall for the bait. He took the discussion offline (where, I guess the two may be emailing back and forth now.)

Well, I went to John’s short post linking to the Mormon Matters discussion from his blog. Despite the short post with no additional information added, there was a bit of a discussion going on here. And here I saw that Christopher Bigelow had commented.

Again, nothing against Chris as a person either, but his position is telegraphed. He takes a conservative, orthodox stance against gay marriage. So, when he presented his scenario, I kinda knew what to expect.

Here’s a question about gay marriage: Say gay marriage is accepted by society…Say you have a 14-year-old Mormon boy who feels a mixture of attractions to both males and females, at different times. Or maybe he feels more attracted to other boys, overall, but also feels at least SOME attraction for females. (Kinsey taught that, for many, sexual orientation is fluid and can be quite different at 40 than it was at 20, depending on a person’s influences, circumstances, behavior, etc.)

If society says that a gay marriage is equally valid to a hetero one, what’s to stop such a boy from choosing to go the gay route, when he also could have chosen the hetero route? There may even be other subconscious reasons affecting his decision to go with the gay thing: not wanting to rear children, not wanting a woman to control him or boss him around, not wanting a traditional Mormon suburban family lifestyle, etc.

In other words, equalizing gay marriage will really confuse forthcoming generations, in my opinion. It won’t hurt existing marriages, but it will decimate future marriages.

OK, so I just take this to say, “Why would a bisexual person marry a woman?”

My answer has to be harsh…given the scenario, I have to ask: why would ANYONE want this person to marry a woman?

The answer is that a bisexual person would marry a woman because he wants to. If he doesn’t want to, he should not.

The hypothetical individual does not want to rear children. He does not want “a woman to control him” (and the fact that he sees things like this is particularly telling). He does not want the “traditional Mormon suburban family lifestyle.” Let me be clear here: gay marriage didn’t cause ANY of this. This is the milieu. This is the setting, ante-bellum. This is the backdrop.

So, with this backdrop, why should this person marry a woman? He doesn’t want to, and his doing so will be disingenuous for all parties involved. (What damage would be caused to the woman who married this person, who must come to realize that he believes he is being controlled by her…that he resents her for it?) Again, this has nothing to do with gay marriage.

However, what gay marriage would allow is for this person to be in a committed, loving relationship, without the pretenses and expectations.

I mean, the implications here are kinda frightening. I should hope that people only marry because they want to. They marry because they don’t think the “woman will control him.” They marry because they may want a family (even if it’s down the road). They marry because they have aspirations.

I should most certainly hope that people aren’t marrying just because of pressures. Because of some ill-begotten duty. But Christopher’s example makes it seem like he does want people to marry because of these pressures. That, without gay marriage to ruin everything, the bisexual man in this situation would marry anyway — despite his many worries and dislikes — because that’s the way things should be.

Gay marriage will not confuse oncoming generations and it will not decimate future marriages. It will revalue (and appreciate) marriage. People will marry who they want to, because they want to. Instead of marrying out of duty to who society thinks they should marry.

~And of course, all of this is taken on an assumption of bisexuality. Would a heterosexual male ever have to debate, “Ooh, I dunno…man or woman?” When people say that “future generations would be confused,” I wonder if they think about themselves. Were they confused about who they liked? Did they need society to train them?

UPDATE: This is a comment from the Mormon Matters discussion. It may well be the worst comment I have read on the blogging internet.

I think you people need to read your scriptures. The Lord is very specific about what he says concerning “sexual sin” and politically correct or not, homosexuality is sexual sin. You can’t support the law that prevents a person from discriminating against homosexual’s without destroying the law that gives a property owner the right to use his property however he pleases. True every person should be able to support themselves and earn a living for their families, however, homosexuals don’t have families unless they indulge in heterosexual behavior, either themselves or a heterosexual who provides the service. I find it very interesting that homosexuals have been around since time immemorial and it has only been since they have sought to legitimize their behavior that any question of discrimination has been brought up. If you study history, which unfortunately most American’s avoid out of fear of being called intolerant, or uncultured, you will find that any nation which has “tolerated” homosexul behavior as a lifestyle has bit the dust. I also find it interesting that man is the only creation that practices this vice and I think its because he is the only creation with the power of “thought”. I have always found it curious that homosexuals and lesbians are never 2 women or 2 men, they are always one partner who adopts the role of the female and the other the role of the male. Doesn’t that say something to anyone with a brain. If Heavenly Father, as Johngw states, smiles on her union, and I take it from her blog that she is the female componet of the relationship, why would He not direct his leaders to sanction the relationship? Satan is having a field day, especially with Latter-day Saints. We have become so desirous of being accepted we are no longer a peculiar people. How I long for a Latter-day Saint leader like an Abinadi, a Moroni, a Teancum, or Samuel the Lamanite who has the cohona’s to stand up and be a man instead of the whimps that fill our pulpits, congressional seats, and homes.