Monday, October 27, 2008

A Rose By Any Other Name....

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 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.)


JustRandi said...

Just popping in to say that I've been following along and I love the way you word your arguments.
This discussion is by far the most civil I've seen. I'm actually learning something because you're discussing the issues, rather than deteriorating into name calling. (Other than that homophobic thing.)

Thanks for hosting a great discussion. And thanks for standing up for what you believe in, even if it isn't the most popular thing right now. It's the right thing.

Steve said...

Where do I sign up for "Promiscuous Sex Celebration Day"?!?! ;-)

adam said...

"isn't the most popular thing"

I have to disagree there. Perhaps amongst bloggers it is not, but overall, supporting gay marriage is a campaign killer, is it not? It seems the majority of Americans agree with you Salt.

I'm actually surprised that this issue can ever be discussed civilly, because one side thinks the other side is a harbinger of doom on The Family, and the other side feels that their personhood is being rejected.

I still think that the state should stop using the word "marriage" altogether. Give us ALL civil unions or domestic partnerships or whatever. Then we can use "marriage" according to the dictates of our faiths. If that were the case, we LDS people would not be threatened at all (regarding use of the temple) because the temple sealing would be what it is supposed to be, a priesthood ordinance, not wrapped up in legal stuff.

adam said...

Thinking about polygamy--there is a difference there. Many people are "born gay" while I've never heard of someone who was "born polygamist" as a biological fact.

Salt H2O said...

I think removal of the word marriage is the direction we're going to have to go.

As to poligamy- one could (and has argued) every person is born poligamous- that it is not natural to have just one mate- but humans are naturally wired to have many mates. What's the difference between poligamous sects and Hugh Hefner if not for the word 'marriage'?

There are many men/ women out there that have numberous sexual partners- and if they want those relationships recognized as a marriage by the state- why shouldn't they be?

adam said...

Lol, I agree (regarding Hefner). He is a polygamist.

The only problem I have with polygamists is if it involves underage girls, abuse, unwanted pregnancy, kicking men out the community, etc. etc. If 3 consenting adults want to get married, why not?

Allie said...

I'm pretty sure I wasn't born polygamous.

One spouse is enough for me (and I don't plan on sharing him with anyone else either).

I'd be happy with a separation of the civil contract and the temple ceremony.

Robin said...

Kory - excellent post. You are an amazing woman. I am so proud to be related to you.

jess said...

Love it Kory. (i stalk your blog by the way). Your words perfectly echo some of the thoughts I've had but didn't know how to say. do you mind if i link this post on my blog?

adam said...

"I'm pretty sure I wasn't born polygamous."

allie, this is the quote of the day!

sue q said...

Hey, thanks for all of this. I'm a Californian by birth, but everyone in my current state of residence is sticking their heads in the sand like a bunch of ostriches, thinking that Prop 8 doesn't, or won't ever, affect us. We're deluding ourselves into thinking this is California's problem, and I thank you for spelling out so clearly for the rest of us who don't (or won't) take the time to truly grasp what is happening to our country. I'm sending all my friends and their dogs to your site!!

Daisy Paige said...

Like Adam, I actually don't care much if polygamy were to become legal as long as they pay all their taxes, don't force underage girls into marriage, and never go on welfare.

And as Mormons, weren't we told somewhere by someone that we will undoubtedly practice polygamy again? I have no source or an inkling of where to look, but it seems I heard it in Sunday School once.

adam said...

Heh, daisy, if we had to practice polygamy again I think I would change religions, unless I had a visit with God.

I think that idea (polygamy returning) is folklore.

Reuven said...

I'm a bit worried about Proposition 8. Have you seen this?

Steve said...

I'm kind of with you Adam, that polygamy is ok in theory. But so is marriage with one wife and multiple husbands, which is practiced in certain parts of Africa.

And Hugh Hefner is NOT a polygamist. He has only ever been married to one girl at a time. He might have mistresses/girlfriends and may or may not have sex with all of them, depending on how badly you need to believe in his image, but he is far from being guilty of being a polygamist.

The problem is that it has almost always led to the mistreatment and inslavery of women and young children. Reuven offers an interesting take on this.

Regardless of how this ends, boys and girls, it is just one battle in a very long war. This law will rather soon just be voted on again, thanks to California's proposition voting mechanism (ain't democracy grand!) or any litigation willing to raise it up to the California Supreme Court, and each and every state will have to deal with this in its own way.

Sadly, I see this issue along the lines of the Crusades that waged for hundreds/thousands of years where both sides are "right" depending on what you choose to believe.

Hmmmm, sounds like a McCain/Obama debate, haha.

seaside said...

Oh my, everyone just give it a rest.

What this video and have a laugh

Or try this one:

adam said...

Haha! Hugh Hefner debates, I love it!

adam said...

Steve, and anyone else involved, I must point out that the correct term is "polygyny" while having multiple husbands in "polyandry" ... you'll thank me later! :)

Re: Hefner, if he's not a polygynist, then neither are the FLDS, because they only marry 1 wife legally, am I correct? What's a "marriage" if it's not legal, other than an arguably intimate relationship bond?

Ben and Kimberly McEvoy said...

I always try to find a way that i don't agree with you. but I do.
I agree with you post.

I also wonder why homosexuality wants to be accepted.

I mean what is next. Alcoholics that have a genetic predisposition to are they no longer going to be wrong or sinful to be an alcoholic.

I do not know nor do I care how one becomes or is homosexual I think the act of it is wrong. I do not think the person is a terrible person or should not have rights and etc.

Just as I think drug use is wrong and if you use/abuse you have consequences.

if you choose a same gender spouse then you choose to have a civil union if you choose to marry one not of your same gender you choose to get married.

why do they need/want to change our definition so bad.

and after reading all your blogs . .and all the many comments. no one has come up with any rights homosexual relationship will lack by not getting married.

I feel like homosexuality is a new cool trend. Hollywood loves it, they support it.

in my mind that should be the biggest red flag of all in why we need prop 8 to pass. I wish I could cite examples but I do not have any time. but many hollywood producer and actors love Fidel Castro- yes a communist. seriously. Have they ever lived in cuba?

Sorry to side track the conversation. but seriously we are getting way off base.

If it is in the constitution that marriage is any two people, and my church denies that . . .then isn't that unconstitutional. so how long would my freedom of religion last after prop eight doesn't pass. the democrats seem to brush off the fact that small business owners (dr's and photographers lost their freedom of religion based on this issue. where are my freedoms going to go if something that has been thought of as immoral for 1000's of years becomes accepted? I can list many I will loose. I still haven't seen one homosexuals will loose.


Silvs said...

I used to be for the removal of the word "marriage" from the government lexicon altogether also, but I watched a forum today that pushed me in the other direction. I think it kind of solidifies even moreso why it's important to have a traditional definition of marriage in every constitution.

He talked about how it's in the government's best interest to promote the stable family unit. It's something recognized by every government in the world in a legal-sense, for all of human history. Stable families allow for people to take care of themselves, but when families disintegrate, more government intervention is naturally required. The people that are hurt the most with disintegrating families are the poor, because they are invariably the ones that will receive the first, and highest amount exposure to the consequences of that familial instability.

And as we all know, nobody is better than the government at running people's lives, right? Anyway, I thought that was something interesting worth noting.

Mikie said...

"He talked about how it's in the government's best interest to promote the stable family unit. It's something recognized by every government in the world in a legal-sense, for all of human history. Stable families allow for people to take care of themselves, but when families disintegrate, more government intervention is naturally required."

I think it's in society's best interest to foster a stable family unit. The government's best interest? Well that depends on how moral the government is ;) They could certainly use the increase in ills associated with the disintegration of the family and subsequent increased demand for government aid to expand government power and control. Just a thought.

Good point, though. One really needs to examine why the government has anything to do with marriage in the first place and then ask what changing the definition does to promote the welfare of society. Is the purpose of having a spouse / partner and children to get tax breaks and other government benefits? Or were those benefits designed to encourage some type of healthy pattern?

I'm debating in my mind whether "marriage" is a civil right, since it requires the will of 2 parties and not just one. In other words, I'm not entitled to it, no matter what my sexual orientation is-- I mean who can I sue if no one is willing to marry me? I want my right to marriage!

It seems kinda cheap (and immoral) to try to change the rules to suit one's own personal preferences.

Jeri10 said...

Just a note to correct your statistics. The measure passed in 2000 by 61% (not 53%) and it was 4 liberal judges (out of seven - in San Francisco of course)who overturned the will of the people.

Your friends and relatives in other states had better get their heads out of the sand because all eyes are on California to see how this goes. If it fails in California, this issue will be faced by every state until it is the law of the land.

I really have no issues at all with gays. They can do what they want. I just don't want MY rights taken away in the process.

Jeri10 said...

P. S. You've inspired me to post MY opinion on MY blog. Read it at:

Steve said...

Adam - I can't believe we have belittled this important topic to further delve into semantics and defense of Hef and his pjs....

By YOUR definition, then I have a few wives too! But the reason I wouldn't consider Hef a "polygynist" (is that like the hygynist at my dentist!?!) is b/c his was/is for image AND the girls are there willing to get themselves famous. In FLDS, the women often have no say and the sex with minors and kicking out young boys isn't something we need to rehash. One situation is an old rich guy in his own mansion that likes "hot" young women to live with him where the girls know the guy will make them famous. The other is a micro-society where male domination, sexual deviance, and physical and emotional abuse, not to mention often times federal laws are committed.

Anyways, like I've said, if people want to continue to fight against gay "marriage", they better have their Wheaties b/c no matter what happens on Tuesday, it's far from over and the debate is getting as tired as that of abortion where it only really comes down to those that value religious beliefs over civil liberties and vice versa.

adam said...

Steve - Believe it! Although I would hardly call it belittling after 3 Salty posts on this prop 8. :)

More seriously though, it seems that you're saying that part of the very definition of polygamy is "the women often have no say and the sex with minors and kicking out young boys." While we're all aware of that, there are polygamists who don't do those things, and yet they are still polygamists. I am jsut going with the strict definition of being "married" to multiple partners... What I am really interested in here is the word "marriage" and how it is used.

Apparently semantics are very important (although I admit no one cares about my pedantic insistence of terms!), as the gay community wants access to the word "marriage," even though apparently, according to this blog, they have all the same legal rights.

And legally speaking, Hef is polyamorous. Poor guy, didn't one of his non-wives just leave him? :)

joanna said...

I just found your blog and I was impressed to see how well you explained the LDS reasons for not supporting homosexual marriage. I really appreciate you posting this! It can be very helpful for others who do not know how to face this topic.

I'll keep up with your blog. It looks like we have a lot of the same opinions.

Steve said...

Adam - I love how we have threadjacked this post to talk about the semantics of Hef's 'love' life and secondly, that you refer to Salty as Salty, which I coined! haha.

I totally cave on your correct vocab for Hef's situation. Actually, what happened is the proverbial "too many hens in the hen house" problem. The three of them, his real wife and two "friends" are now "famous" in an E! kind of way, ask Salty, I think she likes those shows and I only watch "The Soup". So they are going to strike out on their own with this new fame to pursue whatever apparent talents they have. Again, I think this is/was part of the plan all along for all parties. And before you cry for Hef, he has welcomed in 19-year-old twins from Florida to continue the charade. :) A new E! show can't be far behind!

adam said...

More threadjacking... you may have coined the name "Salty" (for which I give you major props, especially because I started using it without realizing someone made it up... you are a real trend starter!) but I think I may have been the first one to use it as an adjective as well! All good things!

For those who still have enough energy to talk about prop 8, carry on!

Ben and Kimberly McEvoy said...

Hey Salty, since I might be the only one who knows you and is calling you that, can I be considered original. I know how cool it is to be original, and to come up with your own thought. I hope I am not redundant, I don't have time to read all the posts in your blog, but I just want to declare that I WAS born polygamist. I see that no one has the guts to come out of the closet yet, so I hope to inspire you, I know you are out there. I was just born in the wrong century. I have had to change my nature to be law abiding. It has been tough.

Anyway, Kory, very well done. Thank you for standing up on this issue from me and the rest of those who are in California and realize it is not just an in house issue. I really hope if you read this and haven't donated to and you are for prop 8 that you will. If you would like to ask me to donate to your state some day, I would be glad to return the love, but this is an issue that really needs as much help as any of us can spare.


Kristen said...

Holy Granola! This IS a lively discussion.

Kory, I just wanted to tell you that I agree and I think you did a great service to many with your well stated beliefs and support of them.

Thanks! And, it was great to see you the other night. You look fabulous and it was enjoyable to spend time with you. I wish we could have talked more about lots of different things!

Steve said...

adam (and maybe Ben) - The Salty thing, however "original" or unoriginal I was with using it on here was more a play on Salty's posts, since she usually came off as kind of "salty" in her attacks. :) She knows I mean that in the nicest way and since her moniker is salt water, which is, duh, salty, it wasn't much of a stretch of a nickname. And I really don't care who called her that first, online or off.

The important thing is she starts posting again. And hopefully about non-political things b/c with only a few days left in this marathon, I'm ready to get back to talking about important things like the babies coming and Vanilla Ice sightings!

davers said...

Kory -

You hit the nail on the head with "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. "

That's what it has always been about ... whether or not the government will not only condone same-sex marriage but whether they will promote it. Being married has financial advantages more often than not, and the government has intentionally set up the laws of the land to promote marriage.

So the moment they recognize same-sex marriages will be the moment they promote it.

I guess this would be fine if same-sex marriage is best for society, but in scandinavia where this has happened it has spelled the death knell for marriage. Marriage as an institution lost all it's sacredness for the bulk of Scandinavians and now very few people get married.

There are lots of reasons for this, but the main one seems to be that marriage becomes ever more a trivial matter when people want to get married simply to prove that they're "equal".

Heck, I think they should tighten up the rules for getting married. People should have to pass a test to prove they know what it takes to be a good spouse for example.

Then, of course, there's the religious objection that I have. I honestly don't think LDS Bishops will be legally bound to perform weddings in LDS churches, my reasoning is that LDS Bishops are not paid to do so. However, it seems paid clergy every where else will have to do this or loose their tax-free status.

This seems just another attack on religion, and seeking a legal means of rendering religion powerless to provide the faith and services they've done for 1000's of years.

If Prop 8 does not pass, we'll be following in the steps of Scandinavia.

davers said...

Another thing ... I've heard all the argument for promoting same-sex marriage and if you take those arguments and replace the words "homosexual" "same-sex" (etc.) with "sodomy", you end up with equally valid arguments for promoting sodomy.

I'm not trying to be hateful or inflammatory ... I'd just like to honestly know if there any of the standard arguments that do not also work well for sodomy. "Born that way", "God made me that way", "loving relationship", "can't marry the one I love", "abused by society because of my orientation", "not hurting anybody", "my partner and I can't help ourselves", etc. They'll all work for sodomy too.

Apparently the fact that I find sodomy repugnant isn't a valid argument if it also isn't a valid argument for same-sex sex. Obviously the sodomizer doesn't think it's repugnant and the last time I checked some dogs still like to hump human legs. Why should they have to keep their sex life private?

It just goes to show there is a slippery slope here once you expand the definition of marriage, and that line is getting blurrier by the moment. Without Prop 8 it's only a matter of time.

The UnMighty said...

I love that you compared communism to homosexuality. Brilliant.

Steve said...

davers - WTH? What does sodomy have to do with any of this? I could have sodomy with a woman just as well, or two women can also (if you don't know how that works, then this isn't the place to explain it!). And there are even gay guys that don't like sodomy just like hetero guys that don't like certain other acts. Again, govt has NO place in my bedroom, let alone in my house!

Kim/the unmighty - Comparing homosexuality with Communism would be like comparing Republicans with vegetarians. Exactly, one has nothing to do with the other. And no matter what you think of Castro personally, he HAS done some very good things for Cuba that even this country could learn from. In totality would I rather live in Cuba over the US, no, but the problem with generalizing groups or people with certain ideologies, such as homosexuals, is you lose the ability to clearly understand the situations.

Salt H2O said...

We already dedicated half of this thread to debating Hugh Hefner and the name Salty-

I'm tempted to engage in a conversation as to what you see as the 'virtues of Castro', and why there are boat loads of Cubans risking their lives to enter the US while I don't know of a single boatload of US citizens trying to get to Cuba-

This is getting far too far off topic. I guess this is your way of forcing me to post about something different.

The UnMighty said...

I guess the sarcasm in my comment wasn't clear enough. I actually DO NOT think a comparison between Communism and Homosexuality is appropriate.

However, a comparison between Homosexuality and Flamboyant Anarchy is perfectly logical.

mj said...

Kudos. This was very well considered, even-handed, relatively compassionate, and persuasive, while still respectful of the right others have to disagree. I teach English Composition at the local college and I always try to get my students to grasp the concept that giving the other side a measure of respect and credibility (instead of lashing out) enhances your argument and this is a good example of that. And hooray for Emily bringing up such valid questions.

It seems like pretty much everything else has been said, so I thought I'd just give you an "A."

adam said...

"I don't know of a single boatload of US citizens trying to get to Cuba"

Really? Have you seen 'Sicko'? There is at least one man (besides Steve), from Flint, Michigan who likes Cuba quite a bit. :)

My additions to the Hefner/nickname parts was most definitely a passive-aggressive move at getting some new topics going. These last three have really worn me out!

Salt H2O said...

I'm going to take the thousands of Cubans trying to get into the US a bit more seriously than a Michael Moore movie- then again I take the advice off of a Laffy Taffy more seriously than Michael Moore.

adam said...

No, really? I thought Michael Moore was a prophet! lol.

Really, although Fahrenheit 9/11 was (at Moore's own admission even) blatantly biased and filled with propaganda, Columbine was pretty good, and Sicko was too, although it was kinda long.

I do like Laffy Taffy, though sometimes the jokes can be a little lame.

davers said...

Steve -
You said "Again, govt has NO place in my bedroom, let alone in my house!"

Proposition 8 does not control or effect in any way what you do in your bedroom. You can have sex with anyone or anything in your bedroom and not effect your voting status ... AS LONG AS YOU LEAVE IT IN YOUR BEDROOM.

From the start it has been the GLBT community that has made an issue of this by taking it out of the bedroom and into the public schools (even kindergarten), the work place and everywhere else.

The "get out of my bedroom" argument holds NO water because your bedroom does not belong in my kids public school.

I don't celebrate my bedroom activities in public, and I'd gladly comply with any laws that prevent me from doing so in the public arena for the sake of a parent's right to own what their kids learn, if not simply the sake for my own dignity.

That's how most straight people feel. The GLBT however think they need to be treated differently, and that is what Prop 8 is all about.

davers said...

"What does sodomy have to do with any of this?" - Steve

Sodomy has fallen by the wayside as a term because it throws homosexuality into the same group as bestiality.

Questions like yours ("what does this have to do with sodomy") appear when homosexuality is preceived as being healthy and wholesome for certain people who simply are naturally inclined and desirous to do it. It's the "God made me that way so it must be okay", but it also holds no water.

Heck, science has proven things like alcoholism, kleptomania, and comulsive lying can have a genetic component, but we don't say that being genetically influenced makes them okay.

More to the point, there are untold number of men and women who think "God made them as polygamists" because they've always been sexually interested in more than one person at the same time. Heck, as a teen we all fit that profile, but does that make polygamy appropriate and something to be condoned, even promoted (by giving it tax advantages)?

Furthermore, spend much time around dogs and you see one hump a human leg at some point (and then get kicked as far as possible). AIDS even came about by human sex with monkeys. What's to say that such people and animals are no less inclined toward each other than I am toward my wife. If God make them that way and there's a loving bond between the partners who are we to not condone such activities by another human?

Because, as any of our founding father's would have said (and didn't have to because it was so ludicrously obvious at the time) giving legitimacy and legal advantages to sodomy (including both homosexuality & bestiality) is harmful for society.

You have yet to provide an argument why your arguments wouldn't equally support marriage in all the cases of sodomy. So what if one of the two loving partners is not human.

In short, if you deprive that person the right to marry the one they love you're worse than Pop 8 proponents because you're a hypocrite.

Della Hill said...

Go Salty, Go Salty!

Linda said...

Kory, this is a great post and I respect your civility and that of those who disagree with you. Your arguments prevail in my opinion. Good jorb.