I'm completely over this conversation and I'm sure the 6 of you are too- Emily asked me some questions in regards to my thoughts on Prop 8, since my response is far too long- I turned it into a post- sadly it's like the longest post ever- hopefully my last on this topic- then I can get back to things that really don't matter, and don't stress me out either.
Emily's comment is in italics- my response is not.
For those of you who like to skim, I put the main arguments in bold.
I just can't accept the heterosexual lifestyle of strip clubs and Las Vegas shows and magazines that degrade women and parents (either male or female) who won't pay their child support These things seem immoral to me. I am a hard-working, taxpaying, Christian-thinking lesbian who wants to make the world a better and safer place for my family. There are so many children unloved and unwanted in the world, this seems like the ultimate in immorality, and who is responsible for that? "We" (lesbians and gays) don't generally have kids we don't want, though accidents can happen to anybody.
Does this line of reasoning sound outrageous or offensive to you? That somebody would pick out the most shocking or 'undesirable' qualities of a group you happen to be part of in some way, and just lump you all together without knowing anything about you or your life or your family?
No, I don’t think this train of thought is outrageous...at all. I'm all in support of removing those heterosexual ills from society. I’d love it if the Las Vegas strip was wiped off the map. But, I understand the point you are trying to make here- I hate it when people try to define “Mormons” by the stereotypes they are familiar with. Though certain Mormon stereotypes certainly exist within the LDS church, it frustrates me when people think of all Mormons in these terms.
If someone questions heterosexuality or the ills that come with it, I don't take it personally- I don't define myself by my sexuality. I don't define anyone by their sexuality. I have many friends that done/ do things I consider immoral- but I don't tell them that they have to accept my morality- and they don't tell me that I have to accept theirs.
The reason gays and lesbians want acceptance and equality is that the fact of being gay or lesbian has nothing to do with morality any more than being hetero is a moral quality. Whatever scale of morality one uses, there are still going to be moral gay people, immoral gay people, moral straight people, and immoral straight people.
This is where you and I differ in opinion, and why we will never agree on this subject. I believe homosexuality is immoral, in many faiths homosexuality is immoral. I also believe that pre-marital sex in heterosexual couples is immoral, abortion (depending on the case) is immoral, prostitution and pornography are immoral. If the government tries to condone any act I consider immoral and give it legitimacy I’ll try to stop it- that's what members of communities do.
What is and isn’t accepted as moral is defined by the society in which you live. Should you live South America, it is considered completely moral to cheat on your wife, should you live in the middle east- you’re immoral if you show your elbows. Society dictates what is accepted as moral or not. 8 Years ago California decided it wasn’t going to condone homosexuality as a moral act- now it’s up for decision again.
Wouldn't it be great if we could all just be people, could all be treated the same by our government, and could all make the best possible choices for ourselves and our families?
I completely agree. If prop 8 passes, homosexual Californians will be treated the same by their government as heterosexual couples. Heterosexuals and homosexuals have the exact same rights, but for the homosexual community, this isn't enough- they want heterosexual acceptance of their lifestyle.
I would like to be able to make the best choices for myself- but if I work for the government I won’t have any choice- ask the firefighters that were forced to walk in the gay pride parade. Or the parents who’s kid’s got the surprise GAY day, there are no repercussions for educators for indoctrinating children with their morality… unless that form of morality mirrors Judeo-Christian ethics
The choice to teach our kids about sexuality in the time and place appropriate is gone.
The choice to not believe in homosexuality is gone.
And surely this point has already been made, whether you believe it or not--Prop 8 eliminates the right that same-sex couples in California currently have to be married.
Emily, you have the same right to be married as I do. What neither of us will have is the right to be married to a member of the same sex. What is entailed in that definition of ‘right to be married to a member of the same sex’? Does it take away the right to visit a loved one in a hospital? Does it take away the insurance benefits? Does it take away for you to have a ceremony of commitment? How does your everyday life change with the removal of the word marriage from your commitment to your partner?
Why do we care? Why do you care?
I care because I’d like to put my kids in the public school system with out worrying if their teacher will teach them about homosexuality in what they deem to see the proper light. I’d like to live in a world where if a public educator decides to indoctrinate my children with her morality- I can sue the school district. I care because I don’t want “Gay Pride Day” considered as much of a holiday as the 4th of July. To me, and my belief system it’s the same has having “Promiscuous Sex Celebration Day” in schools. I care because it is ‘a slippery slope’- California Law was already changed by one judge in 8 years and the more universally accepted homosexuality gets, the more likely those that don’t believe in it will be sued for vocalizing it.
I care because any one that works for the government is forced to accept homosexuality- the four fire fighters ordered to walk in a gay pride parade at the threat of losing their jobs, or the off-duty policeman (who is also a pastor of his church) who preached against homosexuality and was demoted by his department for “hate speech.”
Would civil union be good enough for you and your husband? Good enough for your family? No, you say? (Forgive me for speaking out of turn there.)
To be completely honest- a civil union would be fine. But, due to my faith- I got married where I got married- but if I believed homosexuality wasn’t a sin, I wouldn’t be a member of my faith, and I really would have been ok with a civil union (actually, we'd probably just be living together- but that gets into a completely different conversation).
Why is the homosexual community caught up in semantics? The rights of the couples are exactly the same. As Juliet said (referring to Romeo’s forbidden last name) “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet” Why is the wording so critical if not to provide the legal loophole to universal acceptance?
But you feel like it's alright for you to tell a whole group of people you don't know that they aren't worthy of the same treatment you are? I find that quite remarkable. I'm sorry, I'm sure you have excellent judgment in many matters, but I don't think you are in a position to decide whether or not I can be married to the person I love.
Emily, you and I do receive the exact same treatment.
There is no discrimination in this- you and I have the same rights.
No one, not me not anyone has the ‘right’ to marry the person they love. What you, I, and every one else has is the right to marry a consenting adult of the opposite sex. Just because you do not choose that to be an acceptable option, does not mean your rights have been stripped.
If everyone has the right to marry who you love, why wouldn’t three men who love each other be allowed to marry? What about polygamous marriage? What about incestuous relationships? Shouldn’t consenting adults in these types of relationships have the right to marry?
If same sex marriage is permissible because an individual has the right to marry whomever he or she loves, the only reason for prohibiting these types of extreme alternative marriages is that they are not socially acceptable. But once you accept that society has a right to limit some marriage relationships , you recognize society’s right to also define marriage in a way that benefits society as a whole.
If the definition of marriage changes, are you- or society at large- prepared to accept the consequences? Once men can marry men, and women can marry women, who is to stop a man from marrying MULTIPLE women? The same argument can be made “we love each other and we shouldn’t be denied the chance to be together. Don’t impose your morality on us.” …But soon little girls are raised to think that polygamy is okay. Teachers could teach kindergartners about the King and Queen and Queen and Queen or have polygamist week at school. Many kids from polygamist families will go on to form their own polygamist unions. Polygamy will rise throughout the US—not just in the NV, UT, and AZ border towns.
I’m not telling a whole group of people they can’t spend their life with someone they love- I’m not telling a whole group of people they can’t wear a dress or a suit or whatever they like in a ceremony committing themselves to whatever they like. I’m not telling you that your partner shouldn’t have ALL the same legal rights.
It’s ok for me to think that abortion is immoral (with the obvious exceptions) and especially late term abortions and to try to stop that from being universally accepted- it’s ok for me to think that credit card companies preying on college students is immoral- and to petition schools and governments to not permit credit card companies on college campuses. It’s ok for me to think having a half a million dollar party for top performers after getting a bail out from tax payers is immoral- and expect the government to put into play actions to stop it from happening again.
An act that society has deemed immoral (by a 53% vote in 2000) and that society decided that they don’t want to be considered one of the fundamental building blocks in society, a judge has decided that he in 2008 knows more than the voters did in 2000.
I respect your right to think that homosexuality is completely moral- I expect others to respect my right to believe it is not.
(I know my opinion is not popular- if you disagree and feel compelled to make a comment- please check the 70+ comments on the past 3 posts to make sure you're bringing something new to the conversation. If you're going to be redundant I'm going to delete your comment- this pregnant lady is tired.)