Sometimes I get into (or stir up) debates on Facebook. It helps me figure out what I really think and believe. Sometimes it even changes my views. My friend Jeff Wilbur is a great guy to debate with, because he's very opinionated and always has great rationale for his views. In fact, he has caused me to reshape my views a time or two. Still, I tend agree with my own views more (duh, cause they're my views), and so I tend to think my own comments are awesomer, especially in terms of made-up words.
Anyway, Jeff helped me realize that my point of view on gay marriage is definitely founded in the gospel, and that's why it's so easy to ridicule: I can't prove the gospel. It is pretty presumptuous of me to tell someone else, "You can't do that" when I have no proof that it's actually harmful. Nevertheless, it is harmful, especially in an eternal sense. Well, okay, fine then, let them "harm" themselves. God gave us agency! And so the debate goes.
Eventually I came up with this summary/explanation of why I would vote against gay marriage. My rationale is based upon eternal principles that I know to be true, but cannot prove. Sigh. Now I'm going to be called names. "Rejoice, and be exceedingly glad." I'll try.
Undermining or changing societal norms hinders self-determination in that a person's moral views are greatly influenced by their environment, and we are constantly shaping the next generation's environment. Thus, we are manipulating the next generation's point of view and self-determination by actively (or idly) shaping our society.
Sending a memory-wiped spirit to a society that views the commandments as optional (or laughable) would greatly hinder God's children from determining to follow Him. By standing idly by as morals are generally ignored, we neglect the environment wherein God's children will begin their mortal lives.
I'm not saying it's up to me to tell people how to raise their children. We can teach our kids whatever we want in our homes. But if there's an item on the ballot that can either make our society more conducive to the acceptance of the gospel (including the commandments), or make the gospel seem outdated (including the commandments), I'll go with the one that will be more likely to have positive eternal effects on the next generation, even if my neighbor (or I, for that matter) wants to break the commandments anyway.
As an analogy, children in Utah are free to be Sacramento Kings fans, but that is rarely the case because of popular opinion in their environment. If being a Kings fan could bring eternal happiness, then I would want to raise my kids in Sacramento, even though I can teach them about the Kings myself.