2.3 Discussion Board: Threats to Marriage

2.3 Discussion Board: Threats to Marriage

The articles from Wardle, Anderson, and the Church address issues concerning traditional marriage and its inherent value for individuals, the family, and society. Additionally, these articles discuss social repercussions that result from the departure from the institution of marriage and the attempt to formalize other conjugal relationships. As you read these articles what feelings did you experience? Why? Also, share a few specific things you learned from these articles.

Insights gained from Wardle’s article, The Attack on Marriage as the Union of a Man and a Woman.

Wardle discusses a few main points. He has sections that cover these topics: attack on marriage; the global movement to legalize same-sex marriage; how same sex marriage movement threatens the institution of marriage, children, families, and society; same sex marriage will endanger Civil Rights; he then advocates the defense of marriage and that everyone needs to unite and defend it.

I truly enjoyed reading this article because of the topics he covered. I felt that he did a fantastic job with seeking to defend his beliefs and values. The way he was able to show a cause and effect in regards to legalizing same sex marriage helps me to see how it is going to affect the culture I live in. Before reading this article, I didn’t quite understand the implications to the decision to legalize same sex marriage. The parts that stood out to me the most within his article are how same sex marriage will threaten the institution of marriage and will endanger Civil Rights.  He mentions how the changes will come over time. He says,“The morality and behavioral expectations of gays and lesbians differ markedly from married men and women. For example, promiscuity, infidelity, multiple sexual partners, and dangerous sexual practices are the behavioral norms among gay couples (and also, to a lesser extent, lesbian couples), rather than monogamy and sexual self-control which are the norms fostered by and nurtured in heterosexual marriages.” He explains by using this study…

“For example, a study by Dutch AIDs researchers, published in 2003,

reported on the number of partners among Amsterdam’s homosexual

population.45 They found:

• 86% of new HIV/AIDS infections in gay men were in men who had

steady partners.

• Gay men with steady partners engage in more risky sexual behaviors

than gays without steady partners.

• Gay men with steady partners had eight other sex partners (“casual

partners”) per year, on average.

• The average duration of committed relationships among gay steady

partners was 1.5 years. 46”

He continues to illustrate other examples of cheating in these relationships are higher and how divorce is higher among same sex married couples as well. 

The section that stood out to me the most was about Civil Rights. He discusses how same sex marriage will influence America’s culture and laws.

“Legalizing same-sex marriage will undermine the civil rights of those who oppose same-sex marriage. Gay marriage supporters argue that it is a basic right or matter of equality, and that those who oppose same-sex marriage, like those who oppose inter-racial marriage, are simply bigots. If same-sex marriage becomes law, that principle becomes the law. Opposition to same-sex marriage may be deemed “invidious discrimination” and punished. Public schools, teachers, administrators, adoption agencies, psychologists, social workers, marriage counselors, fertility experts, artificial reproductive treatment (ART) clinics, religiously-affiliated schools, and social-service agencies and workers who do not support same sex marriage will be branded “bigots.” They will face civil liability, job discrimination, and be forced to conform or lose government contracts, government employment, government licensing, and tax and other benefits. The persecutions of parents, teachers, other public employees, and church affiliated adoption agencies in Massachusetts in just three years since same sex marriage was legalized there, shows the kind of harm that can be expected.”

Above he describes what will happen to those who oppose same sex marriage. The description of how discrimination will be tied to those who speak up against same sex marriage. They will be punished.

He mentions how religious institutions will be required to extend services to same sex couples because of the law. If they refuse, then the law will seek to punish them. This includes church-owned hospitals and teaching clinics that might be required to provide services that go against their beliefs such as, being“forced to offer procedures, like sex-change operations, and teach about gay lifestyle, violating church doctrines. In the United States, this has occurred in the abortion context, so we should expect it to occur with same-sex marriage, also.” Changes might be seen in schools as well as the law will require new material to be presented to children. “For example, the California legislature in 2007 enacted SB 777, containing radical curriculum requirements designed to remove proconjugal marriage values from the public school curriculum and to socialize public school children into acceptance of the gay lifestyle.85 It requires “textbooks, instruction materials, and school activities to promote ‘sexual orientation’ (defined as homosexuality and bisexuality) and ‘gender’ (defined as including transsexuality) in all grades in California public schools.

The new, “non-discriminatory” materials would have to include:

• Sex-change handouts (Omitting sex-change material in sex education class would “reflect adversely” on e.g. homosexuality)

• Transvestite speakers (Limiting classroom speakers to biologically born men and biologically-born women would “reflect adversely” on e.g. homosexuality)

• Transsexual, bisexual and homosexual videos (Showing videos depicting only the traditional family or man-woman relationships would “reflect adversely” on e.g. homosexuality).87

Insights gained from Anderson’s article, Marriage: Where Do We Go From Here?

Anderson explains how we are active participants in laws being approved. He states, “. We are citizens in a self-governing society, not pundits watching a spectator sport, not subjects of rulers.” He mentions how important religious liberty is, but expounds upon how we need to defend marriage. He says how we need to have our goal be to restore a culture of marriage.

He tells us six ways that we can stand as a witness of truth about marriage:

1.) Stand up for our authority as citizens to pass laws reflecting truth about marriage.

2.) Defend our form of government and our liberties.

3.) Make the case for marriage.

4.) We must diversify and strengthen our efforts.

5.) The Church has a central role to play.

6.) We must all take the long view. 

I feel that his suggestions are very helpful and help me to see that there are steps I can take that will allow me to stand for what I believe. He says, “Truth needs a messenger. We must be bolder, better organized, and more strategic, and exercise greater foresight when engaging on this issue.” I know that as I study this topic that I will be able to plan and prepare myself. I need not fear to stand up for the truth. I shouldn’t be fearful in what I believe in. To end, I want to share something he said, “Although Americans are free to live how we choose, we should not use government to penalize those who think and act differently.” I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. I feel that it leads into the Church’s address about the Divine Institution of Marriage because we can respect differences, while maintaining our beliefs. I think we shouldn’t be punished for the beliefs that we do have.

Insights gained from the Church’s address, Marriage: Where Do We Go From Here?

The address from the Church helps to illustrate where the Church stands on the same sex marriage topic. They go over how “intimate relations are acceptable to God only between a husband and a wife who are united in the bonds of matrimony [they continue by describing the other purposes for the address] “…set forth the Church’s reasons for defending marriage between a man and a woman as an issue of moral imperative. The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage derives from its doctrine and teachings, as well as from its concern about the consequences of same-sex marriage on religious freedom, society, families, and children. A fourth purpose of this document is to reaffirm that Church members should address the issue of same-sex marriage with respect and civility and should treat all people with love and humanity.

The comments made within this address help to give me clarity. I can see how important marriage truly is and how sacred it is in the eyes of our Heavenly Father. The laws may seek to change what marriage is, but it will forever stand in God’s law…marriage is between a man and a woman. We may tolerate the differences, but we are reminded what tolerance is by Elder Dallin H. Oaks [who] has observed, “Tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination.” We can love others while not accepting the behavior as they demonstrated in this address as they mentioned the woman taken in adultery. The Savior loved the sinner without condoning the sin. The Church advises: “The Church acknowledges that same-sex marriage and the issues surrounding it can be divisive and hurtful. As Church members strive to protect marriage between a man and a woman, they should show respect, civility, and kindness toward others who have different points of view.”

I agree that this topic is very sensitive. I choose to stand for marriage. I can do so respectfully and be kind towards those with “different points of view.” I will say that I hope that those who have a different perspective than me will give me the same courtesy. I think the future holds a lot of uncertainty, but as we prepare and plan for what could potentially happen we will know what to do. I believe that the laws need to protect both sides. We live in America, the land of the free. Freedom counts towards all involved. If one’s beliefs cannot be protected on either side, can we really be free? If we are unable to stand for what we believe in, then we will be in bondage by another's beliefs. If we can stand united as a nation to stand for humanity and defend the rights of all involved then another solution could be discovered. But if the beliefs about same-sex marriage is forced upon those who believe differently, then this can create hostility on both sides. There must be a better way than force or coercion. 

Sources: 

Anderson, Ryan T. Marriage: Where Do We Go From Here? 2014. 

Wardle, Lynn D. The Attack on Marriage as the Union of a Man and a Woman. 2008. 

Newsroom- The Official Resource For New Media, Opinion Leaders and the Public. Divine Institution of Marriage. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. 2015.