Friday, October 31, 2008

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 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.)

Friday, October 24, 2008

It's not about equality...

...it's about acceptance.

With the passing of Prop. 8 homosexuals couples in California will not be denied any rights that they currently have- homosexual couples will have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

So why do homosexual couples care whether or not they are in a civil union or in a 'marriage' if their rights do not change either way?

Because it's not about equality- it's about moral approval.

Don't believe me- this come straight from the horse's mouth:

Why Moral Approval Matters- 365GAY.COM

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

One Question-


Why is it ok to teach 1st graders about homosexuality, but mention creationism in a High School classroom and you'll have a riot?

Sunday, October 19, 2008

I don't want to post about this....

I've been avoiding Proposition 8.

I don't want to talk about it.

I want California to go back to the place it was when I grew up.

I want to go to Disneyland and not have to check if it's Gay Pride day first.

Supporting proposition 8 is hugely unpopular.

I would love it if the homosexual community would act as they would like to be treated.

Why is it that those that want to be looked at like everyone else think the best way to do so is to wear some neon wings and a thong in a parade?

Why is it that if I believe one thing, and I respect your right to believe something contrary that's not good enough?

Why do I have to believe what you believe?

I'm coming to grips that I may be spending the rest of my life in Texas or the South-

Proposition 8 will have a greater impact on my family and society than either of the presidential candidates will.

I've been asked to blog about proposition 8.

Thinking about it stresses me out- I'm having a hard time finding the words to explain how I and many others feel-

This is the first of a series of posts about Prop 8 that will make others angry.

I'll deal with it.

Friday, October 17, 2008

Silly Utes...



U of U fans I have one question for you-

Did you cheer when BYU lost to TCU?

If so, you are a typical U of U fan, because your hatred towards BYU out weighs your love for the U of U. Also, you're showing that you probably need to re-take your Math 100 credits.

There are only 2 ranked teams left on your schedule this year- TCU and BYU.
Playing BYU was the only chance the U of U had to beat a top 10 team this year, and at the end of the season at that.

If BYU had won, and the U of U was going to cream them like all of their fans like to believe- the U of U would have ended a really great season not by just beating BYU but by beating #7- Utes- you could have been the ones to CRUSH BYU's BCS dreams! A #14 beating a #7 is better than a #14 beating a #18. You could have taken BYU's perfect schedule from them and in doing so thrust yourselves into a very legitimate BCS bid.

You lost your chance for people to stand up and take notice of the Utes this year, instead everyone is talking about TCU for a BCS bid- not you.

You had a chance to beat a top ten team, you had the chance to crush the spirit of BYU- and when you lost that chance, you cheered.

Silly Utes, now BYU has the opportunity to crush your dreams, and not the other way around.

Election Year Brings Out the Stupid

Yesterday in the airport while standing in line to board an airplane, CNN was playing over head- the girl next to me- probably 23 says to her boyfriend:

Girl: Dude what's with McCain's face?
Dude: I know- it's like paralyzed and stuff- what a freak!
Kory: That's what cancer will do you.
Girl: Yeah, and being old.
Kory: Yeah, and having your jaw broken by the Vietcong in a concentration camp.
Girl: Like that qualifies someone to be president.
Kory: No, but it qualifies someone to have a messed up face.
Girl- under her breath: I'd still like to punch him in the face.

That's when I realized that the person next to me wasn't just uninformed- she was an idiot.

Here's the question:
Do people get more stupid during an election year or does the election just magnify stupidity? I look at how supporters on both sides of the camp are acting and I have to wonder- do these stupid people really walk among us? And not only that- how much of this stupidity are we willing to put up with in our fellow man?

Are we willing when someone makes a degrading comment about Sarah Palin to stand up to them? Or will we sit by and let them sound off because we don't like Palin? When someone speaks of Obama and are way off base will inform the individual of the truth even though we disagree with Obama's policy? And if we let people say ignorant and stupid things while remaining silent- are we just as bad?

Flashback Friday- Biff

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Proof that Hollywood Thinks We're Stupid

Don't watch the full 5 minutes, I could barely stand the first 30 seconds.



Seriously? It's like all of the 'cool kids' got together and decided to peer pressure American into voting. This ad treats the viewer like they are an idiot.

This wreaks of Hollywood condescension- Jennifer Aniston can afford to care about the Polar Bears, but at the moment, I'm just trying to figure out if I'm going to have a job a year from now.

Hollywood may have a valid reason to think we're a bunch of mindless nitwits- afterall Beverly Hills Chihuahua is #1 in the box office.

Friday, October 10, 2008

Best 1/2 Hour of TV of 2008

There are probably only 5 people in the US that missed last night's SNL Thursday edition of weekend update. As one of them was my husband, I figured there's a good chance that one the blog's 8 readers may have missed it as well.

It could be that I was home by myself, or that I had watched a very disappointing episode of Kath & Kim- but I have never laughed in front of the tv the way I laughed through out the entire 1/2 hour. From the opening debate spoof which you can see at nbc.com- to the very end- I think this was the first time EVER that an entire episode of SNL kept me laughing- granted it was only 30 minutes.

At the end of the following segment I burst out in spontaneous applause. Too bad SNL is only awesome every 4 years.

Thursday, October 9, 2008

A Woman in the Men's Room


If there is a line for the ladies restroom, and no one is in the men's room- I'll use it. This is easier done if it's a one stall/one room bathroom but when it's multi-stalled sometimes I get trapped and have to wait for all the men to leave before I'll exit. Either way I get relief far earlier than if I had waited in line with the women.

That's not really what I want to talk about, it just works with the title of this post. I'm currently dealing with a different kind of men's room. I work in a male dominated industry, and I like it. I've figured out how to connect with men of all ages, and connect with the women that I need to- but I have to be very particular about how it is done. I take pride in being the only female rep for my company in 3 states.

Being 6 months pregnant has changed the game. I use to wear glasses because they made me look more intelligent to men and less threatening to women. I figured pregnancy would cover the less threatening aspect- but little did I realize that pregnancy would also bring down my credibility.

Granted with people that already know me, the pregnancy has been a huge bonus- but if walking into the men's world as a woman was tough, doing it as a pregnant woman is nearly impossible. The pregnancy almost puts me immediately behind the 8 ball. I feel like to compensate for the pregnancy I have to kill my personality and become all business- which is quite the challenge.

What is it about a pregnant woman that makes her less creditable? Am I the only one who has experienced this?

VICTORY! VICTORY!

October 08, 2008
Dear Kory,

Wow! Congratulations! You received 100 Rapid Rewards credits in a year! As one of our best Customers, you are eligible for a Rapid Rewards Companion Pass, which allows a designated Companion to fly free with you anytime you travel through November 30, 2009.

Thank you so much for your patronage. We look forward to seeing you and your Companion onboard soon.

Sincerely, Rapid Rewards

*Visit www.southwest.com/rapid_rewards/companion_pass.html to learn more about this benefit and for a complete list of Companion Pass rules.



I have been working for this all year! Woo Hoo! Brent flies with me free whenever I fly, even if I'm using a free ticket! Eat it Delta!

Friday, October 3, 2008

KoryCare- Revisited


I want to make a slight addendum to my health care program: I think I've found some middle ground in this debate.

It's no secret that socialized health care would be a disaster- but people in extreme circumstances need help. Hence I propose the federally managed health disaster insurance- it's extended to those that have had extreme misfortune befall them.

The nationalized medical program would not cover dental (unless it's a form of cancer), or regular health issues- people need to pay for those themselves, it's a part of life- but the kind of disease that can debilitate a person, their finances and their family should be insured.

I don't know anyone that would argue with paying money into a National Health Care plan that assisted with severely stricken patients. Especially since none of us knows when we might become one of them.

Flash Back Friday- Richard Simmons

I have a mild infatuation with Richard Simmons- maybe it was those prepubescent years that I spent Sweatin' to the Oldies (my sisters and I have the first tape memorized- you should see the three of us do the routine to Big Girls Don't Cry which now that I think of it, whoever decided to put Big Girls Don't Cry on a workout tape was seriously disturbed.)

Every time I see Mr. Simmons I smile, apparently advertisers know this.






Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Tis Better to Owe than to Receive


When the gentleman sitting next to me found out I majored in International Economics-he asked what I thought of the current state of wall street. I have many an opinion of the bail out- but my specialty is practical day to day econ. How economics affects the little decisions you make every day- ie cost per wear.

He wasn't familiar with the concept of time value of money - a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow. A dollar today is worth a great deal more than a dollar a year from now. And this is where I was able to give him one piece of solid financial advice.

In tax season it is better to owe the government than to be owed. If you receive a tax refund- you lost, the more you owe, the more you win. Most Americans don't think that way.

Let me explain: If you get back from the government $1,000- then the government borrowed $1,000 from you for a year with out paying you any interest. If you owe the government $1,000 then you borrowed $1,000 from the government for a year with out having to pay any interest. If you took that $1,000 and put it in the bank and saved it because you knew you were going to use it to pay taxes, and got paid 3% interest for the year, then in the end you made $30.

Not only that it is better for you to have that $1,000 today rather than in April because that $1,000 is worth a lot more today.

This requires you to have some self control and methodically put aside money each month for taxes, but it is much better for you to be getting paid interest on your money than the government. It is better for you to have your money today, than tomorrow. Go maximize your exemptions, and if you get money back from the government in April, instead of thinking you won, realize- you lost.