After this recent election, I am not that proud (if at all) to be called an American. Not only did about 122,006,241+ people pick a bad choice for President (in my opinion), but 3 states have passed measures to ban gay marriage. Are we really that presumptuous? These people are good people. They have done nothing wrong to anyone. Yet, allowing them to marry under the state is such a travesty that we need to deny them that privilege? It truly sickens me to see how people treat other people that think or act differently when it does them NO harm whatsoever. I will say it again, GAY PEOPLE MARRYING WILL DO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY NO HARM WHATSOEVER. Letting people be free, treating them equally, with respect, and most importantly, treating them how you would want to be treated is the only good and proper course of action.
Note: This post was written with some time between the writing and the posting. During the transition, I happened upon a quote which I feel partially explains (to me) this hysteria and the results.
"Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck." - Thomas Jefferson
Please also note that I will be moderating comments on this particular post and will gladly delete those which do not represent diligent thought or respect.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Hey so you can delete if you want but they say it pretty much how I'm thinkin... I understand what your saying about they aren't hurting us in any way but thats not the point. All in the scriptures it states that homosexuality is wrong. We don't hate them for what they do, but we don't believe a sacred ordinance should be mocked. "The Church has joined a broad-based coalition in defense of traditional marriage. While we feel this is important to all of society, we have always emphasized that respect be given to those who feel differently on this issue. It is unfortunate that some who oppose this proposition have not given the Church this same courtesy."
While I think there are many flaws to your argument, I'll just respond with a few points. One problem with your argument is the fact that what is sacred to one is not always sacred to another, and what is wrong to one is not wrong to another. My view is that if they aren't hurting you, then what they are doing cannot necessarily be right or wrong because what is right and wrong is different for every individual. Trying to mandate your moral view on someone else is, well, immoral (in my opinion). More importantly, the government's recognition of marriage is entirely secular as well. The government saying you're married has no authority with the church, otherwise everyone would be married for time and all eternity even if they haven't gone to the temple. So, again, why does it even matter (unless you're saying the government does have authority over the church)? Does what the government say about traditional marriage define what the church thinks? No. The point is, if this country were run by the church, you would have a valid argument, but since it is "run" by the people then all people deserve to be treated with equality and given access to the same privileges as everyone else, regardless of their religious or world views, and this includes marriage. I think that to do otherwise is a deplorable act and indicates a pretty sad state of affairs.
Just to clear things up...Drew wrote that not me. But from me... my best friend Andy is homosexual, I try to think about what i'd want for him. I am for proposition 8. I agree with drew. If it wasn't a sacred ordinance why did you get married? If you waited, what is it like 10 years you would be considered married by the state and would have the same rights as now being married. If it wasn't a special thing why does anyone get married? Homosexuals in some states have just as many rights as being married so if the ordinance of marriage wasn't such an important and special thing they wouldn't be fighting for it. No matter what the religious veiw it is special and held high in ones life. It is sacred no matter the way you look at it. I think that it is fair to give all homosexuals rights in their loved ones life but there are rules for everything. What disturbes me is that something that was started way back in the day and was an institute ordained by God is now considered just a thing by law that anyone can do. Why not allow a person to marry an animal. I mean if a person thinks in their mind that is right why would the government have any say in it. If the U.S. was run like that we would have havic. This is the ends of times. Its talk about threw the scriptures. But whatever. I don't want to start any crap. I love you guys and hope you don't hate us for our different views. Thats what makes families so fun!
Leah
I have much to say to that but since I'm not wishing to sound contentious or start a fight I will leave it be. Suffice it to say that I think certain filters need to be momentarily disregarded in this issue before any rational thought can ensue. It just saddens me that this is even an issue at all.
I'll start a fight because I'm the "bitch" of the family, as I've been called.
Marriage has nothing to do with God. In fact, during my own marriage ceremony, and many others, God/Lord/Savior/Christ (ect) was not even mentioned. Marriage has to do with a long term commitment to each other, God has nothing to do with it. Marriage is a special ceremony, but many would not use the word sacred. It has to do with the people making the commitment. I think that the only restriction on marriage (if any) should be that it be between 2 living things (animal, human, I don't care). Only because when you add more into the mix (meaning 3-4 people), it get's somewhat complicated. Marriage is a lot about having tax benefits, work and insurance benefits, and health issues. That is what homosexuals are fighting for, among other things. If a person wants to marry an animal, I don't really care, go for it. It's weird and I don't think it serves a purpose, but it's none of my business. As long as they're not marrying my chihuahua, then I could care less. Among other things, according to specific religions, if marriage is such a sacred process then WHY is divorce allowed in said religions? I know that in the Catholic community being divorced mandates immediate excommunication. If marriage is such a sacred process then all religions should do this, no exceptions. If exceptions are made for divorce, then exceptions should be made for good people that want to honor each other and their own commitment. And if certain statistics are correct, marriage is less "sacred" now than ever before. To get married and divorced in 1 week is simple. Marriage is already not taken seriously by several people and yet they still have the "right" to make a mockery out of the act. So maybe we should be putting restrictions on these people, 3rd strike your out. If you can't do it right the first time, regardless of your circumstances, then you should not be allowed to get married again. Yeah, that sounds stupid, and so does not allowing other American's that pay their taxes and are good community members to not be allowed to show their commitment to the person that they love, regardless of their gender.
Wow! I love being semi-related to a pot stirrer. Homosexuality aside, this prevented marriage benefits for opposite sex couples that have been together for less than ten years. Living in Florida, a retirement state, it was sad to see our own amendment rejected in fear that it would encourage homosexuals. There are plenty out there who could finally be with loved ones in their times of need, but, instead fear led them in the polls and they will have to find out how their significant other is doing through the grapevine. A bad idea all around. Tolerance lost on Tuesday.
ya jessica. I really hadn't thought of it like that. There are tons of people that get married a million times and laugh that its their 6th 7th 8th marrage. Thats a really good point. I guess I hate thinking about it cause it means alot to me. But when you think of it like that it puts a different spin on things.
Ps.. you can be a b sometimes but isn't everyone. I'm the b in my fam. haha
I tagged you. Savannah's cute, think about participating.
From: Whitehead Family - Cedar
The real power and beauty of America is our freedom to vote. Rarely do election results turn-out exactly how I would want them to, but nevertheless I am extremely proud to be an American. Every American should always feel this way.
California voters this past election decided to amend their state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. Yahoo! The people realized the mistake that their own California Supreme Court had made earlier in the year and took action to prevent the same problems that Massachusetts is currently experiencing. Feel free to research these issues and problems as I have done because they are unbelievable – the rights of children and parents have been taken away. The last time I checked, liberals were supposed to be in favor of recognized human rights, particularly concerning children, who are typically society's most voiceless and vulnerable group. Or have I now said something I shouldn't?
There is very strong agreement across America on what marriage is. As the people of California themselves recognized when they voted on this issue just eight years ago, traditional marriage is essential to society as a whole, and especially to its 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, every good and decent human being is speaking out on this issue and getting involved.
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
- Thomas Jefferson
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?” 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.
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?
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, stable families are vital for political freedom and are the anchor of civilized society. When marriage is undermined by gender confusion and by distortions of its God-given meaning, the rising generation of children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identity as a man or a woman. Some will find it more difficult to engage in wholesome courtships, form stable marriages, and raise yet another generation imbued with moral strength and purpose.
If you weren't my mom that post would be deleted. I asked that replies contain diligent thought, not regurgitation of someone else's opinion. But since you did and I'm not going to delete it, please allow me to challenge some of the issues I have with that response.
First, you're proud that Americans can vote and you're glad that the election turned out the way you wanted to. You say this as if it reinforces your argument that same-sex marriage is wrong. It always amazes me that this is even used, because if the vote had gone the other way, we would hear that it's the "principle" that should matter, not the vote. The results should never be used to justify moral reasoning.
Second, and more importantly, I have a HUGE issue with this particular phrase:
"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."
THAT IS THE EXACT PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT. It specifically says in the Declaration of Independence (emphasis mine):
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
It is not up to you or anyone else to dictate how someone else should live their life, as long as they are not hurting you. Plain and simple. Children being raised by same-sex parents are not freaks or abnormal. This is a fallacy and is presented only because it challenges the status-quo.
When society wakes up and accepts people for who they are, and when people are truly free to be who they want to be, then we will see a society that truly flourishes. It is all the condemnation and bigotry that is keeping this world behind, not homosexuals. Those that oppose same-sex marriage are the ones "swimming in the current", a stream that is fed by religion.
In my opinion, anyway.
I thought you signed me (mom) up on this google reader because you wanted us (parents) to take part on your blog so we just thought we'd take a whirl at it. What, you think we can't handle your deleting it? It's okay, go ahead. We're sorry we 'regurgitated' such nonsense at you! Are you alright? When our nausea settles, can we meet for dinner? Maybe at the HARD [as a] Rock Cafe?
I'm sure you can handle it. I was merely trying to be somewhat respectful to my parents. You can read and comment all you like, I even enjoy disagreements and debate, but simply copying and pasting excerpts from other people is simply lame. My biggest problem here is that all this nonsense about gay marriage is based on religion and fear, when religion should have no say in the matter and there is no reason to be afraid. And I don't mean to be rude, this issue just really, really bothers me.
The topic of gay marriage is becoming one of the hot button issues facing our time. it demands that forums such as this exist and that discussion be held. To deny two people the right that others enjoy and benefit from is bigotry and at worst it is hate. This issue is less about the "erosion of society" as it is about using government to impose sanctions on a group that the mainstream is uncomfortable with.
There is NO solid evidence that allowing homosexuals to marry will have any effect on the fabric of society much less, a detrimental effect. Give thought to the people you encounter everyday at the grocery store, gas station, mall... Are they married, friends, coworkers? You don't know and why do you need to? We are not talking about legislation to prevent homosexuality so why is it incumbent upon us to define marriage between a man and a woman if not out of fear and misunderstanding?
Defining marriage by the government has happened before and was considered unconstitutional and wrong then also. Until "Loving vs Virginia" in 1967, yes 1967! It was illegal for interracial couples to marry. Our President-elect would have been the product of an illegal marriage!
The laws used to enact this ban were found under "eugenics" programs, this means to manipulate human heredity through intervention. Read that again, it's frightening! The United States government was not created nor intended to be used as a means of intervention as it pertains to personal liberty. Passing laws preventing gay marriage is exactly that! Banning interracial marriage also took place in Germany under NAZI rule and in South Africa under APARTHEID. In Arabic nations it is punishable by HONOR KILLING. These example of the past serve as a reminder of how far our nation has progressed as human beings, not as Mormons, Christians or even Americans. To support legislation that stalls or even halts social progression seems counter productive for the " Church of Eternal Progression". To legislate the definition of a HUMAN right such as marriage,( Please Note this is not a christian right it is a HUMAN RIGHT, and the US government is beholden to make that distinction.) is not only immoral it is deplorable and not what my country has fought and stood for for over 221 years.
I am not frightened nor hate gays. I would just like a definition here. What is your definition of 'religion' and 'god'. I'm thinking that religion would be someone's personal beliefs, faith, and choice. Of course this is personal and can be swayed and practiced as that person chooses. I believe that the religious freedoms that were fought for in this country, created the current laws to enable me to practice my religious beliefs on marriage, for a reason, and that they were inspired. I feel that changing the laws to include gays will force their beliefs upon traditional marriages.
One definition of MY God is 'Creator'. Now I don't know for sure why He created male and female, but I think it's pretty obvious. I'm not going to argue with Him about it or try to change His mind on His purposes. I believe that He is unchanging. His purposes were, are, and will always be the same. I don't believe that He would alter this argument for the point of social or human progression. I don't care if people want to live their lives according to their own sexual choice. I'm fine with that! But why do they have to push the envelope and bring marriage into it? I believe marriage is god sanctioned for one male and one female. To redifine this is to redifine My god and again, forces someone's different definition of God, upon me.
Hello Tyson (and Jessica),
First of all, love your blogs! Don't always agree with your opinions--although I can certainly identify with some of your frustrations. However, I feel I must weigh in on this subject. Proposition 8 has created a firestorm for both sides. It's such a delicate issue and I feel both sides should probably look for compromises instead of vilification of the opposing view. There's probably some common ground to find here--a THIRD WAY if you will (i.e. hospital visitation rights, beneficiary designation rights, the sharing of health insurance and benefits, etc.). The vitriol and hate from both camps has been disappointing. I've had conflicting feelings about the proposition. I have, however, studied the issue at depth and have arrived at my own conclusion based on my philosophical research. For your sakes, I'll remove "God" from the equation. Arguing with atheists, deists, or agnostics about marriage being ordained of God is like using Book of Mormon scriptures to prove the erroneous ways of a Bible-thumper--they just don't care what your magic book has to say because theirs is the only one that's true. You can most certainly disagree with my basic argument--that's your constitutional right (isn't democracy grand?) After all, was it not Voltaire who said, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." The free exchange of ideas is what makes our society vibrant, strong, and free.
First of all, marriage is not a right. It is a privilege promoted by society for the promulgation of human kind. Government and society has an abiding interest in this promulgation for one very simple reason... self preservation of the species. It's in our DNA. Marriage and heterosexual coupling is the relational result of thousands of years of human evolution. While homosexuality has probably existed just as long, there is no societal benefit to the promotion of this type relationship. Simply applying Darwin's theory to it's logical conclusion proves just how detrimental homosexual relationships can be to a species' survival. In fact, its very promotion could be detrimental even beyond the fact it doesn't promulgate the species. I know some proponents of same sex marriage poo poo this argument, but the question remains, "where do we stop?" Won't those practicing polyandry and polygamy or wishing to experiment with even more radical human relationships demand similar "rights" under the law? You're probably saying to yourself, "Well, why not allow them to marry too?" Here's the problem: Husband and wife relationships can be difficult, having children is difficult, being a parent is difficult. If government suddenly encourages and legitimizes a whole host of "marriage" relationships, who will actually want to have children and promulgate the species? Who will want to enter into a relationship where children are potentially the end result? Let's use Europe as a prime example of what can happen to a society where traditional marriage and child-rearing are no longer regarded as important. The countries of Western Europe are a generation away from a demographic catastrophe. Negative population growth is not a good thing, especially in a socialist society. By design the young work and contribute tax revenue to support the aged. When a society no longer has enough young to take care of the old, you have a problem.
Then, you may argue that gay people or those in any "new" marriage relationship can have children through sperm donors, in-vitro fertilization, etc. Heck, why not just farm children (I really don't think we want to go there ethically). The problem is, and countless studies prove this, there is simply no better advantage in society for a child than having a loving father and mother in the home. You may not like to hear this, but each sex brings certain traits to the rearing of the child. Mothers provide the nurture, can breastfeed and provide emotional support to the child. Fathers provide protection, a second nurturer, and stability. The concerted effort of the two sexes working side-by-side is a beautiful symbiosis created by nature and human evolution. Perhaps it's selfish of me to say this, but there is no compelling reason for society to grant homosexuals a special marriage status on par with heterosexual marriage. Enacting such legislation will only produce negatives.
Cory
This is my final response, and the last comment as I will turn comments off on this blog after this. I feel this has, in some ways, gotten out of hand. And I get the last say because it's my blog and I get to do whatever I want (I'm kicking and screaming too).
Mom:
I feel like I'm belaboring the point here, but this is not about religion. Religion has come into the matter and that's what I do not like. Our different religious views shouldn't matter. How the government treats other individuals is not forcing you to redifine God, as you see it. If the government's view of marriage is so intertwined with how you believe, then wouldn't my own marriage be officially recognized by the LDS Church? But, as far as I know, it's not. This is also might seem harsh, but doesn't it seem hypocritical for you to claim that this infringes on your right to freedom of religion, when you are at the same time trying to force your definition of marriage onto others who feel different? I love you, and I am sorry if I have offended you in some way but I'm trying to speak the truth here as I see it.
Cory:
I appreciate your calm, rational dialogue. I do, of course, have a few rebuttals and questions for consideration.
One of the basic premises of your argument seemed to be that if we allowed gay or other radical marriages, it would undermine the desire for other people to marry and have children. I do not think this is true at all. Take an extreme example. Say tomorrow the government not only recognized gay marriage, but actually, full-on encouraged it. Disregard that it shouldn't be the government's job to encourage any sort of lifestyle (imo). After they do this, do my feelings for Jessica and our desire to have children suddenly change? No, they do not. What the government and everyone else is doing in no way affects how I live my life. Recognizing gay marriage, I think, would not adversely affect the human race because most people still would want to have normal, healthy, hetero relationships because that is what they want and no one else can really influence that.
Also, I agree that a two parent home is more ideal for raising a child, but I do not agree that two males or two females cannot provide an adequate environment for raising that child. Many times, one partner exudes more "feminine" traits and the other, more "masculine" traits. This argument also suggests that single parent homes are doomed to fail. If two same-sex partners cannot raise a child because there is no influence from both sexes, wouldn't that apply to single parents as well? To take this even further, I would rather have EVERY SINGLE child raised by loving, caring gay parents than ANY ONE child raised by abusive parents.
Thanks again for your thoughts! I have always looked up to you and your ability to think clearly in emotional situations.
Everyone:
Thanks for pitching in and making this the most lively blog post I've ever had. I'm sure there will be more in the future as I have many controversial opinions on many things.
Some questions to think about as inspired by the comments:
- Is negative growth really a bad thing? Isn't the world in need of some equilibrium as far as the human race is concerned?
- Isn't socialism, if enforced by government, immoral in respect that it's basically theft?
- Is gender identity really defined by your parents and/or society?
- Is being gay a choice? If you think so and you're straight, when did you choose to be straight? When did you choose to prefer blondes over brunettes, etc?
- Should divorce be allowed by government, considering its effects on children are profound?
- Isn't democracy just as dangerous, if not more so, than a monarchy or oligarchy?
- A friend told me that he thinks that the whole gay marriage hoopla is not based off of the marriage issue, but that anti-gay people are really just anti-gay, but won't admit it outright and instead cloak it in this issue. How much truth is there to that thought?
- Should issues of morality/immorality really be determined at the polls?
- Can permanent moral and political truths be found using human reason alone?
- Who is your daddy, and what does he do?
Post a Comment