I've wanted to say a few things for quite a while, but was unsure of how to do it without giving offense. after a lot of thought and prayer this is what i think i want to say. And now especially with the passing of prop 8 in CA, and similar passings in az and fl. I want to preface this by saying i in no way claim to understand what goes on in the minds of any person in love, i only know my own thoughts and feelings, and i know i am somewhat ignorant/unknowledgeable of some of the specifics of the proposition, but i DID look quite extensivley at it. I personally have known several people who are bisexual or homosexual. Some of them are VERY close friends AND family. I feel nothing but love and respect for them as people. I do disagree with their choices to act in that way, but that DOES NOT affect my love for them. I do not agree in taking away peoples' personal choices, but at the same time i would like to explain why i do not support such propositions. In Massachusetts (and now connecticut) gay marraige is legal. the effects of this is now taking away the choices of parents in how they want to teach and raise their children. I remember in elementary school we had to get a permission slip signed to go the facts of life classes, but one father was arrested after a long afternoon meeting with the school's teachers/principal for simply wanting to be notified of the diversification material being taught to his children. Now, call me crazy, but what about their right's to teach their own children???? And what about the preachers and pastors who are being accused of bigotry for teaching heterosexuality and denouncing homosexuality in church??? has anyone ever actually READ the bible? does soddom and gamora (i know spelling...) ring a bell. what the heck is church for if not to teach from the holy scriptures? What about the freedom of speech there??? last i checked it was NOT conditional. I can't turn on the tv with out hearing obscenities in the programs, or turn on the radio and listen to news shows or music without it, and what about commentaries, or just over hearing a conversation at the mall with out being embarresed. I know i am old fashioned but gee, silly me, i thought the good ole US of A was a place for the freedom of worshiping how we choose WITHOUT being discriminated. If people want to marry whom they choose, that's their choice and that's fine, but if it's going to take away my rights as a parent, or to exercise my rights as a citizen, then i'm sorry. we will have to go back to the drawing board to come up with another solution to appease both parties. One of the reasons i am posting this now, is that there are several threats and accusations being thrown at the church i and my family are a apart of,and again, i say this with a lot of apprehention, but I feel that people need to take another look at this. "Mormons" as we have been nicknamed, are NOT hateful towards gay people. in fact there are numerous amounts of people in the church who are gay, and EVEN attend the temple. They are able to do this because even though they have these feelings, they do NOT act on them. It is self control. The same for alcholics. I'd venture to say that there are Lots of alcoholics in the church as well, who also attend the temple, and are worthy to do so because they choose NOT to act on their desires which are contrary to the teachings of the scriptures and the gospel. We love all people (though i could name a few that I personally am not too fond off;)( just a little light humor there), regardless of their orientation, color, job, whatever... Our Heavenly Father is just like any other kind and loving parent you know. He loves us no matter what we do, but may be dissapointed in the choices we make. Again, I am not looking for an arguement, i just wanted a chance to explain a few things and voice my opinion. Please don't leave mean comments, but I DO encourage people to leave thoughts, maybe questions that others may be able to answer.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Noel...very well said! A while back I had heard that gay people could attend the temple...I was like WHAT?...but then I learn how they can attend...just like you said. That is a good analogy to the alchololics.
I think it is horrible that schools will teach children about alternative lifestyles without informing parents!! If that happened to my children, I would certianly raise a HUGE stink at school. That said, I am glad we are homeschool.
I have heard about the claims made against the Church in CA because of the Prop 8 thing. I think people just need someone to blame and the church is a large target...so why not. I heard there was going to be a "demonstration" in front of the L.A. Temple. I don't know how that went though.
There are some pictures online about how that went. it's really sad. ironically the catholic church actually put out commercials for prop 08 AND anti abortion stuff... hmmm, i haven't heard anything against them? AND then in virginia, at an institute building, a letter was sent with the threat along the lines of "if you think persecution against the church in the 19th century was bad, you aint seen nothing yet!"
I just wish people would not use freedom of speech and such in such a one way attitude!
I'm sorry, but no. A gay/alcoholic analogy is not "good." It's both factually ignorant and incredibly hurtful. Being gay is not a choice, and it's certainly not a disease, like alcoholism.
Further, no one is trying to take away a church's right to preach how it sees fit. Calling someone a bigot is not denying them the right to continue being one. Contrary to the Sarah Palin school of thought, where correcting misstatements of fact is a violation of First Amendment rights, suggesting that someone who wrongly correlates homosexuality to alcoholism is homophobic does not infringe upon their right to perpetuate such garbage. Nor would the legalization of CIVIL marriages force ANY member of ANY religious sect to officiate a gay union. If legalizing gay unions led to the shuttering of opposing churches, Catholicism in Massachussets would have died years ago.
Lastly, public schools are just that. PUBLIC. It is not the job of a public school in a religiously free country to teach variations of ANY religion. Imparting faith to children is done by a child's family. You can't indulge the freedom to indoctrinate your children as you see fit while also suggesting that PUBLIC institutions instruct ALL children in a manner that aligns with YOUR chosen religion.
It IS the job of public schools to teach FACTS. There are gay people in this world, period. Just as there are straight people. That's a FACT. If you want to raise your children to ignore the real world, you are certainly welcome to homeschool them.
Hopefully by the time they're old enough to experience unsheltered existence and draw their own conclusions about the different people and places they meet and go, otherwise intelligent, compassionate individuals will no longer be using the Bible or lack of education to justify their personal prejudices.
justin,
i in no way meant to be hurtful, i was trying to reply to a comment that mormons hate gays and was trying to show a couple of illustrations. i do not believe that all homosexuals "choose" to be gay, nor do i think it is a disease or disability. it just is. period. i DO believe that people have a choice on wether to act upon it or not though.
There have been charges brought against a ma preacher for preaching against homosexuality, and to be clear, are you calling me a homophobic?
and hey private school is a great idea. and thanks to obama, i'll have plenty of redistributed wealth to afford it!
and using the bible is not being prejudice. and it's not something you can just pick and choose through what to follow. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. so if 1+1=2 then, then is it still 2 today???
Noel, you know I love you, but I hope you can understand why I needed to take exception to some of the things you said. Whether you meant to imply that homosexuality was a choice or a disease, when you make an analogy comparing it to alcoholism, you can understand why it appears that's what you were saying. I know that the analogy applied to behavior specific to your temples, but I must agree with mothertomany. If homosexuality is not a choice, and it's not a disease, and it's not a psychological disorder (and it's most assuredly none of those things), then how can you suggest people "not act on" basic human emotions? It's OK to be gay, as long as you aren't? That's absurd.
As for the MA issue, mothertomany is completely correct. That never happened, which I meant to point out in my first post. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and it's very easy for a myth to become fact on the Internet.
The bottom line is, gay unions do not impact ANYONE but the two people involved. No one in MA or CT or CA was forced to enter into a gay union. No church was forced to perform gay union ceremonies. No church was told they had to endorse homosexuality. No children were told they had to become gay (as if that was even possible).
I'm really surprised at your comments about Obama's economic plan. John McCain was certainly not looking out for families like yours. Both you and Joe the Plumber are going to make out much better under an Obama administration, at least economically, than you would have under McCain. People who make more should pay more taxes. Those that have less to give shouldn't be burdened unnecessarily. It's a pretty simple concept that I would think both of us could appreciate, seeing that neither of us grew up with silver spoons in our mouths.
Lastly, you know as well as I do that the Bible is not interpreted literally in every instance. Do you never wear a garment made of two fabrics? Do you believe if a man marries someone who's not a virgin the townspeople should be able to stone her to death? Do you believe it's OK to keep slaves? Should a man with testicular cancer be kept from worship?
None of that even matters, because this is NOT a religious issue. There's a separation of church and state in this country for this very reason. A church is completely within its rights to condemn homosexuality and to refuse to perform gay marriage ceremonies. Such churches, however, and their members, should not be able to keep law-abiding, tax-paying citizens from rights the highest courts in the land find to be guaranteed them by the Constitution. Period.
stephanie, there are a couple of things i'd like to say, one is that i think that you are so far in trying to prove that the church is wrong that you have tread on very dangerous ground in reading things written of hate and ignorance, and in doing so have lost the ability to grow and learn from the spirit for yourself.
"Not to try and pick on you, but Biblically you proably would have been stoned to death by now. As it is your first born would not be looked on very nicely."
and one thing of a personal issue i'd like to say to you is that i'm not ashamed of that, but it's something i don't just share with anyone and i am hurt that you would have put that into the publicly viewed comment area. i understand the point that you are trying to make with that, but I don't think that was very tactful and it was not yours to share.
I understand the hypocrisy that i am about to put forth, but our 8th article of faith states that we believe the bible to be the word of god as far as it is translated correctly, we also believe the book of mormon to be the word of god. I am not claiming to be an eexpert of the bible, or my faith. All I can share is what i have leanred, and how i have felt about it and what my testimony is. and that cannot be argued with. I do know that God is a loving god, i'm not saying that the peole who were handicapped deserved that or whatever, i know that the mosaic law was stricter because the understanding of the people was much more limited. This is why we have a prophet today, to continue to give us current council and guidance. Now i have not heard about the church not allowing temple marraiges for a racially mixed couple, but i am sure that you have researched this inside and out from both sides.
And I have no idea how you have time or enerygy to do all this research, but i will try and find where those stories were from. But this is where i was headed with this, regardless of wether prop 8 made temples perform them or not, the fact is that it opens the door for taking away the chioces the memebers of the church have....
thanks justin, i love you too!
Thank you for your comments, Noel. We are taught in the Church to love all people, but that does not mean we are to love their actions or choices. When God's Laws are ignored, it is important for us to stand for what we believe in, and to teach those who will listen.
I, too, have relatives and family who are gay. I love them dearly and appreciate their talents and the wonderful people they are. I would not fight their interest in forming a "Domestic Partnership", or other term besides "marriage". I, also, know members of the Church would stand by them to protect their safety and ability to say what they believe.
However, "marriage" is and has always been ordained of God and defined by Him as a union between man and woman, and it needs to be defined that way to protect the sanctity of marriage. "Opinions" do not change that. Much like we could have "opinions" of the earth being flat, but our opinions do not change "truth".
A marriage is to be supportive of "family", where children (hopefully) grow up in a home with a loving Father and loving Mother. This has nothing to do with MY opinion, and everything to do with GOD's Wisdom.
This is not to say that we are to be rude, crude, or hurtful to ANYONE who thinks differently from us. However, have you noticed how those that think differently from us want the freedom to speak their minds, but not for us to speak our minds if it in any way differs from their opinion. Hmmmm... we are granted freedom of speech as long as it is "politically correct" lingo. It doesn't even matter if the language that's used is foul, as long as we speak "politically correct" speech. Interesting.
In our educational system, we cannot teach any morality, such as the simple Ten Commandments... because moral behavior is considered a tie to "religion".
That means we can't teach them about integrity or chastity, as in not committing any form of fornication or adultry (homosexual or heterosexual). Yet, we can teach abortion (killing innocent life) as a woman's right; or homosexuality as a choice, as if it were a choice of ice cream flavors.
Often, we don't want to speak out because we don't want to offend... but how about our moral and ethical beliefs? Are we not offended by the lack of morality in schools? Do we not offend God by our unwillingness to use Freedom of Speech to support our Freedom of Religion. These two principles were the basis of this country's beginnings.
True morals and values are never outdated. And, though many will find us offensive because we dare to speak against them, we still have to speak for God's side... After all, it is His side that we align ourselves with.
Stephanie, i said at the begining of my original post that it is not my intent to offend or hurt.
" I am sorry I hurt you but at the same time you feel the it is okay to hurt others, based on what you consider a "sin". "
that sounds so wrong and twisted. so as long as i don't voice my oppionion i won't hurt feelings??? somethings a little backwards there steph. expecially using the 11th article of faith. if anything, that would be helpful.
Noelle,
I understand that you are writing from your heart, and I did take the time to read your entire post, as well as the comments on here and there were a few things that really got me thinking. First.off. Justin's post hit the nail on the head, and took the words out of my mouth. In response to what you wrote to him, I just don't understand how you think people could lead a happy life as a closeted gay person. I have many gay friends and family, too, and I would never, ever, wish that upon them. I love them enough to let them be who they are and not wishing they would fit my "righteous" ideals for them. Secondly, LDS people are being targeted more than any other group because, for 2% of the population, they accounted for more than 40% of the donations to yes on 8, and it was not too long ago that mormons wanted to redfine what marriage was. You know, Polygamy? So I guess it is a hard pill to swallow when the whole one man one woman thing wasn't always the case in church history. Further more, if you do believe that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, than why does he keep changing his mind? i.e. Polygomy, rights to blacks and woman, interracial marriages. Hmmmm...
I debated writing this, but I thought that, since you made me think, I thought I would return the favor.
Gina, Thanks for your comment. i think there have been some really great points brought up here by everyone!
a few thoughts i have on that, the first one that comes to mind is a quote from phyllis onthe office when she says to dwight " i just think that we all deserve to be with someone who wants to be with us." and i think that is soooo true, and so hypocritical to what i have been saying. and i'm sure what i'm about to write will probably keep tensions up. but anyways,
i didn't mean people have to be closet gays... (is that a true term???) but that is the part where (and this probably won't matter to most reading this) the atonement of our savior comes in. there is NOTHING in this world that he cannot help you with. And i just have to have faith that everything will work out the way it needs to be, but i have to do my part as well. does this make sense? i am not asking if you think i am right or wrong. only if it makes sense.
As a believing and faithful member of the church, you can't condone a homosexual lifestyle. In your eyes and the eyes of your church it is wrong. I understand that and respect your right to feel however you want on this issue. But gay marriage is a separate issue. President Bednar, like so many within the church, is scared of the ramifications. However, this isn't a moral issue for me. Despite the fact that many refuse to see that. I thought long and hard about what my stance was on proposition 8. And I finally came up with two questions that I needed to answer for myself. Does the U.S. Constitution protect homosexual conduct; and what limitations does the U.S. Constitution place on individual states to treat people differently based on sexual orientation?
In 1967 there was a court case called Loving v. Virginia, wherein a man was arrested for violating Virginia's interracial marriage ban and forcably removed from the state. The Court found Virginia's law to violate the Equal Protection Clause because it invidiously classified on the basis of race, but it also indicated the law would violate the Due Process Clause as an undue interference with "the fundamental freedom" of marriage. Now, looking back I don't think anyone today (or at least anyone in our family) would say that Virginia had the right to do what they did and the Supreme Court had overstepped their bounds by ruling Virginia law unconstitutional. And yet, at the time this was a very heated issue. In considering how this applies to gay marriage, I asked myself a couple of things. Would it be acceptable for a constitutional ban to be placed on interracial marriage? How would I feel if a measure to ban mentally retarded adults from marrying were to pass? How would I feel if a law was enacted prohibiting incompatible blood types with predispositions for diseases or disorders were prohibited from marrying and reproducing? How far were people willing to take this?
The Equal Protection clause to the U.S. Constitution allows each of us equal protection under the law. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This means that the law (courts, law enforcement, and whatnot) have an obligation to ensure every person's rights equally, without regard to race, gender or creed. Before the 14th amendment was passed, the constitution only protected us from invasion of the federal government into our lives. With the adoption of the 14th amendment, this was broadened to included state governments. It was made to reinforce the very American principle that "all men are created equal" by empowering the judicial branch to enforce that principal against the states. This means that if the states enact a law, or change their state constitution, to infringe upon the rights to life, liberty or property of any individual or group, the federal judiciary not only has the right, but the responsibility to step in and declare that law or provision of the state constitution to be in direct defiance to the U.S. Constitution.
Liberty is what is at question here. Liberty is a prerequisite to wealth and growth. It is what our country is built on, and without it, our constitution would disintegrate. Liberty is defined as "the freedom to act or believe without being stopped by unnecessary force." I would take this a step further and say that liberty is the freedom of an individual or group from outside coersion or compulsion. In other words, the freedom to live our lives as we see fit, so long as our actions do not infringe upon the rights of others (namely, another's right to liberty).
Now, we must take this a step further and apply it toward gay marriage. Is marriage a religious institution, or is it a basic liberty afforded to all citizens and regulated by the state? Now, all citizens are guarenteed a right to liberty. A right to act and believe however they want without being stopped. But if marriage is a religious institution, then a gay couple, absolutely and without a doubt, cannot force a religious group to legitimize their marriage. This all seems cut and dry until you think that it is not solely a religious institution and the state does indeed regulate marriage. Did you not go to the state and get a marriage license? A heterosexual couple can have a civil marriage without having a marriage in a religious sanctuary or in front of a religious leader. So that means that, under the state, marriage is independant of religion. So long as that is the case, the state cannot discriminate or deny this right from anyone. Under the 14th amendment, the state must allow anyone to marry, regardless of sexual orientation. The 14th amendment, however, only applies to the government. It expressly excludes private institutions, including churches. This means that it would be unconstitutional to force a religion to perform a marriage in their private sanctuary or force a religious leader to officiate at a marriage ceremony that was against their religious beliefs. The state, however, being separate from religion, is required to provide this service to anyone, even homosexual couples. Unless the state stops regulating marriage, then it cannot deny the right to marry to any group, so long as that marriage doesn't infringe upon the constitutional rights of another individual or group.
Now, as for the education argument, this is a causal fallacy and its sole purpose is to instill fear into voters. The fact is that there is very little regulation on what school districts can and cannot teach. This means that they have the option of teaching about homosexuality, transgenderism and a whole slew of topics that I wouldn't want taught to my children in a public school. Currently, there are plans to introduce teaching about tolerance of homosexuality into high school curricula in many state, including, but not limited to Massachusetts, New York, Maryland, and California. They are doing this regardless of state laws and statutes regarding gay marriage. If people want to keep this out of schools, then parents need to stop pawning moral and social education of their children off on public school teachers.
Is it okay to teach a ten year old how to have safe sex? Well, it is being done in many school districts around the country.
Why do some parents allow this, but do not want to allow instruction about homosexuality into schools? Either you want schools to teach children about moral and social issues, or you don't. You can't pick and choose what morals you want the schools to teach and what you don't.
For the simple reason that every parent will disagree on what is an acceptable moral teaching and what is not. So until parents take responsibility for this aspect of their childrens' educations, then they can't have a voice in how it is taught. In my opinion, parents need to take a stand against any moral or social issues being taught in public schools. That is the exclusive responsibility of the parent. But this will never happen because parents are either too busy or too lazy or too uncomfortable to broach these important subjects. It then falls on the shoulders of our public school teachers to teach as they see fit.
If a parent relinquishes this right to a teacher, then they have already had their say. The discussion is over once you relinquish rights to someone else. People expect the public school system to do all the work in ensuring a bright and hopeful future for their children, just as they expect the government to ensure a bright and hopeful future for themselves. This is a lazy and reprehensible attitude. And the more we lean in this direction, the more we are relinquishing our rights and becoming a socialist country. Whether to the public school system or to our government, it doesn't matter.
I see this in China. The schools are expected to rear children exclusive of the parents. The teacher was the end all in authority when it came to a child's instruction. The parent had little or no say. I, for one, do not want our public schools to head in that direction. If you are really concerned about this issue, then take it up in a proper venue where it will actually mean something. Because using it as a fear tactic to ban same sex marriage won't accomplish anything. It will not keep instruction of moral issues out of schools. It will not keep homosexuality out of school curriculum. It is merely a sound bite that instills fear in people. So they vote for proposition 8 thinking they can pat themselves on the back for keeping such things away from our innocent children without actually doing anything. That way, if it does make its way into the classroom, we can all rest assured that it wasn't because of us.
"We voted against same sex marriage, so we can't be to blame." It is hypocrisy in its highest form, in my opinion.
It is easy to take away a right from another group that believes differently than you do. But, as the famous WWII saying goes...First they came after the gypsies, and I did not protest because I was not a gypsy. Then they came after the Jews, and I did not protest becasue I was not a Jew. Then they came after the Catholics, and I did not protest because I was not a Catholic. Then they came after me, and there was no one left to speak up...Now, I didn't quote that perfectly, but you get my drift.
Preserving the idea of the SANCTITY of marriage is not a constitutionally protected right. Equal treatment under the law, however, is. And Proposition 8, Proposition 102 and Proposition 108 did what you say you don't want done. They redefined the constitutional definition of marriage for those states. And as much as I hate to say it, many people used the very same arguments against interractial marriage as you are using against.
Besides, I believe divorce is a worse threat to the sanctity of marriage than gay marriage is. As is adultery. So why not take away the rights of divorcees to marry again. The bible dictates that that should be done anyhow (in fact, it says that a widow who marries again is a fornicator). Why not make adultery grounds to deny the right to any future marriage to the adulterer. Or better yet, make it a punishable offense. Why not make it a law that no one can marry more than once, that way they will be less likely to end it needlessly? Wouldn't that be so much better than an ever-increasing divorce rate? Wouldn't that ensure that our children are raised in a civilized and moral society that puts marriage above all else, even basic civil rights? Wouldn't that strengthen to family unit by making divorce rates decline? Wouldn't THAT SANCITIFY marriage? Now THAT is a message our children would definitely understand.
Divorce and adultery will not be tolerated in our society. And those who do not fall in line will suffer the consequences. Why not introduce a bill for that?
Yes, there is sexual perversion in the gay community, but there is sexual perversion everywhere, including the heterosexual community. Probably more so in the heterosexual community. It is more pervasive than you could imagine in both heterosexual and homosexual communities.
I love you and respect you, but I absolutely cannot agree with you on this issue. Leaving religion out of it, it is a basic civil rights issue. And I won't be a part of a movement that thirty years from now will be viewed along the same lines as Jim Crowe laws in our history books. It is discrimination, pure and simple, based on differing belief systems. That is wrong, and it is wrong of you to try and force your beliefs on the rest of society.
This, in my opinion, is christianity's latest "Crusade". And I think that the people who are protesting hatefully toward Mormons are just as wrong in what they are doing. There are proper ways to protest, and vandalism and hatred are not included in the list.
Regardless of your moral stance on this issue, this is still a Constitutional issue. Is homosexuality a constitutionally protected right? That is what this boils down to. I understand you not wanting your children exposed to homosexuality. In a perfect world, I suppose it wouldn't exsist, but we are not a perfect people and are we in no way living in a perfect world.
But if we take away someone's Constitutional rights based on fear, we are that much closer to living in socialist state so many fear. It is up to us to ensure we keep the freedoms afforded through the Constitution. Government is about power. And the more power we feed it, the hungrier it gets (and consequently, the stronger and more effecient it gets at taking more power from us). And the gay community isn't going away. Our children will be exposed to it in one form or another. It is up to YOU, not society to teach them what you feel is right. In the end, they are a free agents and can decide for themselves. But it is our jobs as parents to teach them as we see fit. To build their foundation upon the teachings, morals and principles we believe are important. You shouldn't rely on public schools or public policy to teach your children morals.
Your conscience doesn't allow you to accept homosexuality. That is fine. But there are others who don't agree. And they have the right to disagree without being penalized for their dissent. And not allowing them a CIVIL marriage is a penalty for how they choose to live their lives. Just because you don't agree with their lifestyle, doesn't mean they should be required to change it.
Religion is expressly excluded from government, legislation and policy making. That is the way our founding fathers intended it to be. God was not on our money until the late 1800s. God was not included in the pledge of allegiance until 1954. Mention of God has been expressly excluded from government so as not to infringe upon the rights of anyone to live according to the dictates of their own conscience. Just because you are a faithful and believing Mormon (for which I respect and admire you), doesn't mean you have the right to force your beliefs on the rest of the country. And the same goes for Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, or any other religion. I'm not picking on Mormons here. I disagree with all christians who have tried to force this issue. It is a civil issue when people are not allowed a CIVIL marriage. It is a religious issue when people are not allowed a religious marriage.
In one instance, the state is controlling the outcome, in the other, religious institutions are controlling the outcome.
Different religions should be able to decide what they allow and do not allow in this regard. But so long as there is an option to have a CIVIL marriage (i.e., one regulated by the state), then they must allow ANYONE to marry.
So, so long as the marriage of two men, or women, does not infringe upon the constitutional rights of another citizen, it must be allowed.
So, in closing I just want to say one last thing. It is my job (I believe my most important job) to teach my children moral and social awareness. But equally as important is my duty to ensure that they enjoy the same rights, freedoms and liberties that I do. And in order to do that, I cannot in good conscience become complacent about these rights, freedoms and liberties. If I allow another person's rights to be taken away because I do not believe that they should be living as they choose to live, then I am reliquishing a little bit of my children's future freedoms to the state. And that is something I am not willing to do.
Noel, I love you, and deeply respect you, but I whole heartedly disagree with you on this matter.
Wow. My head literally hurts. Mothertomany, for all the researching and presenting you've done in your post, I doubt you've changed anyone's mind in all this. And to be fair, that probably wasn't your intent. But you didn't really even give anything for me to chew on that I haven't chewed on before in making my decision about Propisition 8. I will say I am overjoyed over it's passing, and if that makes me sound bigotted and politically incorrect, then that is just what it is going to have to sound like. People who support Proposition 8 have JUST as much right to voice their opinions about this issue as people who oppose it. I'm afraid there are things in life in which people are going to have to agree to disagree, and this is one of them. I am as at peace with my decision with this issue as much as those who oppose it are at peace with theirs. Really, I see no point in debating this. Everybody thinks they're right, and regardless of who may be "truly" right, it was passed by a vote spoken by the majority of the people. We're coming at this issues from two completely different ways and it will never be satisfied on either side of the fence. That's why, thank goodness, we live in a democracy and voters in states have the right to choose legislation for what they deem right. Nothing is being "forced" on us without a majority of voters. I agree there is some legislation, such as the Jim Crowe laws,that were passed and overturned as they should have been. And maybe one day Proposition 8 will be overturned in California and mothertomany will get some sleep again at night. Maybe one day it will be legal to marry in all fifty states. And then I would expect we will see the second coming of the Savior to follow promptly. And lastly, the personal shot you took at Noel was simply shameful. She didn't single any one person out about their homosexuality, she was just sharing her thoughts and feelings in general about this issue. If you think that is what "respect" looks like, you might need to look again.
Jeni, it must be nice to be "at peace" with your decision when it doesn't change your life in the least. While I didn't approve of the personal comment mothertomany made about Noel, statements suggesting that the legalization of gay unions would bring about the second coming are incredibly personal, incredibly hurtful and based on a biased and completely self-serving interpretation of Christianity and humanity in general.
When you take responsibility for your selfish hate, then you can criticize others. That personal comment aside, mothertomany presented logical arguments grounded in unrefutable fact that you chose to ignore. How you can be "at peace" with a decision that is clearly (and admittedly) uninformed is beyond me.
I just hope that years from now, when ridiculous decisions like the one in CA - where 500,000 people decided that millions more cannot be secularly joined because it didn't fit in with THEIR personal religious faith - are finally overturned, the shame isn't as deep for people like you as it was for people who fought so hard against women's rights in the 1920s and African American rights in the 1950s and 1960s.
And, that's the last thing I'm going to say on this issue.
Justin - DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT accuse me of having "selfish hate" when you DO NOT EVEN KNOW ME. If you can deduce from a paragraph of words that you think I am selfish and/or hateful, then you are worse than what you deem me to be. Ask people that know me, at least, if I am either of those things before you go accusing me of such an abhorrent criticism for the whole wide world to see. It is completely absurd that you could throw comments like that around. It must make you feel better. You don't know me. You don't know my personal circumstances or how homosexuality may have touched my life, so you need to BACK DOWN. I explained in my post that this issue will never be resolved among people who view this as a moral issue vs. people who view this as an issue of rights. I don't know what your religious beliefs are, but mine are that when a prophet of God speaks, I listen and heed. And the prophet who I believe speaks for the Lord today has advised that homosexual marriage is not the Lord's plan. It's a matter of testimony, which must be terribly frustrating for people who do not share the same beliefs as me to understand. So you see, mothertomany can bring out all these great comments and factual tidbits, but that doesn't change what President Monson, the current prophet of our church, has said about homosexual marriage. It's okay for you not to believe that. It's okay for you to feel differently. However it is not okay to name-call a total stranger when someone disagrees with your position in the manner you just did. I have said before to other people I wish there could be a happy medium where everyone could be happy, but unfortunately in this case, it doesn't seem that there can be. Somebody has to lose. And one day, it may be my opinion. And oh my gosh, I am so tired of this being compared to race issues and womens' rights. I would try to articulate how I believe them to be different, but you would probably just call me another nasty name, so I'll keep my opinions to myself.
You are absolutely killing me. Look - even though this may be what you want to believe about me: "the thinking was NOT done for me." You make my decision sound so flippant, so unthoughtful. And nothing could be farther from the truth. My testimony of a living prophet is a matter of spirituality between me and God. Because of my relationship WITH GOD, my testimony of a prophet as as his mouthpiece is firm. I have not been brainwashed, rather I think for myself and am offended that you would imply otherwise, especially without even knowing me. I believe God speaks to our spirits and souls through the Gift of the Holy Ghost, which means every time the prophet says something, I can go to God in prayer and receive a spiritual confirmation that what he says is correct and true. I did so in this case, therefore I personally would have voted to support Proposition 8 if I could have. You get out of sorts because I personally want to keep marriage defined as between a man and a woman, and I get out of sorts that you imply that I don't have a brain in my head in which to think on my own. Who's judging who now? What gives you the right to make such senseless blanket statements with others who have different thoughts on important issues?
And you act like the 2% of California Mormon voters were forced to vote this way without being able to have their opinion. While the church did ask for church members support to defeat this proposition, they're not going to strip your name from the records if you didn't vote the way they hoped. I can promise you there are many very active members of the church who did not support the proposition, or who were simply apathetic about it. So to make such blanket statements about "not being able to argue with Mormons" about this is erroneous on your part. You'll find plenty of Mormons who feel the way you do who would take offense to statements such as the one you made.
And because I have more important things to do in my day than beat this horse to death, I, like Justin, am done commenting on this issue. I have said it before and will say it again, there simply isn't a resolution to this issue where all can be happy and satisfied. So goes democracy. If you believe this decision is flawed, then hope and pray that it will be overturned one day. Write the California Congressmen. But in the meantime, let's be thankful we live in a democratic nation that allows their common citizens to make decisions such as these and that it's not left up to some elite group with no hope for change after the decision is made. It could be so much worse. And that, I believe, is a point on which we all can agree.
"Again, I am not looking for an arguement, i just wanted a chance to explain a few things and voice my opinion. Please don't leave mean comments, but I DO encourage people to leave thoughts, maybe questions that others may be able to answer."
I wasn't looking for an arguement when i posted this. and i DEFINATELY wasn't anticipicating my religion or beliefs to be attacked either. I am quite disturbed and dissapointed by some of the comments on here. I was really just upset and disgusted by the reactions and attitudes of the way some people are reacting to the various parts of this past election. I did not vote for obama, but i am not a sore loser, i do think he has great ideas and plans, however i do not agree with his morals or values... but i do not wish ill upon him nor his presidency... and to be honest had i the chance to vote i would have voted for prop 8, 102, or whatever the other ones were, because that is how I, repeat I feel. and everyone else is entitled to do the same. I want everyone to knock off the name calling and belittleing (sp?) for whatever they may believe.
geeze, this takes so much mroe restraint.
I am still frustrated by the way some people are reacting as i said earlier. desicrating things that i hold sacred and special. using words and rights like voting is one thing, but to physically do damage or harm is disgusting and dishonorable. i'm not saying anyone i know would do that (i am unaware of it anyway.) but i have seen the pictures and news reports of people protesting at the LDS temple grounds...
I find this absolutely hilarious as a side point that a protest was planned for sunday and monday at the LA temple i think... uhm, the LDS temples are closed sunday and monday... I wonder how successful the protesters thought that was.
and side note again, protesting is fine, but the violence from EITHER side and vandilism IS NOT.
That being said, I do not wish for any further arguements to be added. Comments? questions? in a peaceful way, fine, absolutely welcome!!! but NO MORE ATTACKS!
~thanks,
noel
I think any political discussion you get into, it'll turn into a bad debate like this subject has. There's two sides but to each side, there is only one side that is right, and that side is theirs. Like Jeni said, sadly, there is no happy medium. I feel sorry for those are going through a hard time with Prop 8 being passed. I know that's their lifestyle but like it's been said a million times, there's many people who don't agree with it, and obviously from the polls, it shows that there's more people who disagree with it then those who want to allow it.
People have to realize that they will most likely get the chance to vote on it again one day. I'm almost positive it will come up again. But there's only so much they can do like the LDS church has. They can campaign and try to explain their side of the story to others to persuade them into voting against prop 8. Must more then that is uncalled for, like the beatings and picketing.
Do people honestly think that picketing outside an LDS temple is going to change the law that just passed?! Express your views, but do it on your blog, do it at your home or with your friends, but in front of a place of worship, it's just tacky. I know their trying to get their point across, but obviously the LDS church handled it better, because it passed, and they didn't have to stand in front of a gay persons house with mean signs to make that happen.
But there are people who are straight who voted against prop 8 too. Just like there are many people who were not LDS that voted for it.
Post a Comment