Button Eyes Me: That last post really, really sucked.Me: Do you think? No, it didn't! Dammit, I worked hard on it! I felt so much pressure to quickly get out an apology, clarify my points, further the conversation ...
BEM: No, it sucked. Greg told you to wait, he said, "As is, it sucks." You know it sucked. You should have taken more time, you can do better.
Me: No, I don't think I could; that was my best.
BEM: Whatever. You sounded like a condescending ass. You apologized for having an opinion, for being open to listening to other opinions. You contradicted yourself in every other paragraph. You're an idiot.
Me: Fair enough. I made someone mad, hurt their feelings; I felt like I owed her an apology. It was sincere, y'know.
BEM: Whatever, people make themselves mad. Emotions are temporary (you of all people should know that). People choose how to react to any given situation. You didn't go out trying to hurt people.
Me: Nope, I was trying to be honest and vulnerable.
BEM: Right, but then some angry lesbian calls you out and you fall apart.
Me: I'm willing to eat dirt if it makes conversation possible, if it brings about a positive resolution.
BEM: You getting anywhere?? Well??
Me: Maybe I just need to wait a little longer ... I tend to be impatient ...
BEM: You think? Have you read the comments? Anyone listening to you? Things getting more civil?
Me: (looks at feet, sighs) no ... not at all ... so is it hopeless?? Should I just give up? I mean ...
BEM: Look Brandy - if people are unwilling to compromise, unwilling to take any steps if they can't have it all now ... well, what can YOU do?
Me: It was easier when I supported Gay Marriage - easier on my heart ... most of the people in my real life disagreed with me, but they respectfully listened, they understood, even though they disagreed.
BEM: So what did the other side (now your side) say back when you were the other side?
Me: They were nice. They spoke from a place of love. They carefully, respectfully read what I had to say and, rather than calling me out, they kept making their arguments, no need for apology, and I was never afraid of the consequences for not agreeing with them.
BEM: But it's different now?
Me: Yeah - they act like I am personally responsible for their unhappiness, their anger. Me and my kind. Y'know? I'm not taking people's rights away, they are free to love, there are laws against discrimination and hate crimes.
BEM: You don't have to tell me. In fact, until last Thanksgiving Eve, remember, you opposed Prop 8 - you agreed with them and things were all "Go Brandy, way to think things through! Such an open-minded girl, that Brandy. Despite her narrow minded, black and white, hyper-religious, bigoted, LDS culture, she overcame it all and fights for equality."
Me: I KNOW. And you want to know something freaking hilarious? When that was my stand, the people who disagreed with me never called me a narrow minded bigot.
BEM: Right, because as long as you're in favor of making everyone happy at any cost, sad people will like you.
Me: Yeah, but y'know ... I don't know if I was ever 100% sold either way ... even still...
BEM: Good gravy - Brandy ... people can't take you seriously if you're a leaf in the wind, "maybe gay marriage, no, maybe not, i dunno" ... Brandy!
Me: No look. I had perfectly good reasons for supporting Gay marriage - you know ... who am I to say who anyone can love? What harm does it do me if Erika and Jenn get married?? Why the hell so much controversy? Give it to them already!
BEM: Greg always thought those reasons were pretty stupid - that your arguments were the stupidest he'd ever heard.
Me: Yeah. He did.
BEM: So, then, BOOM, one night you just gave that all up?
Me: Uh, no, it wasn't just, "Oh, the prophet says vote for 8, let me send a fat check and take my place in line, baaaa."
BEM: You sure? You spent at least 16 years actively supporting equal rights for gays, and now you want to take them away.
Me: Do you even read my blog? I want to give homosexuals the same rights. I want all couples to have a federally issued civil union ... all the legal rights protecting from discrimination, protecting children, inheritance, the whole enchilada.
BEM: What do they say about that?
Me: I'm not sure ... I guess it's not enough, I guess it really is just about the damn word ... not the rights, not the protections, not the freedoms, just the effing word ...
BEM: You think?
Me: I don't KNOW, I don't know if I even care anymore ... why freaking bother? Y'know? I came trying to listen, compromise, show "them" how "we" think ... they spit on me, indicated they were more supportive of random acts of violence than finding resolution.
BEM: So ... you finally going to give it up? Just let it be, let "them" fight it their way? They clearly don't want your "help."
Me: Yeah, no ... I'm ok. Strangers can call me names, think their thoughts. Sticks and Stones, y'know? I'm just one person ... I have diapers to change, I have my blog, I'll keep on keeping on, as I always have. It would have been nice, to magically find the right gay person, willing to listen AND talk, have it be the right time, work it all out ... I'm not that girl. It was silly arrogance on my part to have assumed otherwise ... no, I'm just not that girl.
END DAY LIGHT SAVINGS TIME!! HUZZAH!
27 Brilliant Bits of Inspiration:
I like this framework-- I'm going to start slowly dividing my consciousness in Me and Button-Eyed Me. Then I can do whatever I want!
Have you seen the movie?
I am having such a hard time with this issue. And while I do believe in equal rights, I also believe in the LDS religion and modern revelation. It is all or nothing though, and while I can see why gay people feel they deserve ALL (why wouldn't they?) it leaves people with religious beliefs out in the cold.
I am hurt by what is being said about the Mormon church, and I think that as mormons we understand a little bit more about being "different" from mainstream America. Erika blogged about feeling like she can't hold her partners hand in public, well when I was in labor I had a nurse ask to switch patients when she found out I was LDS. It's not the same, but the feelings are similar. Because it's not just my religion that is being attacked, it is my lifestyle.
Perhaps this is why I am so sympathetic to their plight. No one should have to feel like a second class citizen.
I admire you for speaking out in such a public way. I don't think I could take the heat from either side, although the comments I have received from LDS friends and family have not been attacks, such as you are receiving. But I think that is partly because prop 8 would never have really impacted their lives that much either way. It wasn't as emotional an issue for them.
I still don't know the answer. If you take religion out the equation, I one hundred percent support gay marriage and would be out at the protests, writing letters and donating money. But how can I take religion out of the equation? So I am back to square one, and dealing with my conflicting emotions and beliefs. And I feel guiltly, so guilty. First for having such wavering faith, and then for not doing more to support gay marriage.
I am at an impasse, and I am not sure how to move forward.
I don't understand some of the religious sides to these arguements. Gay or not, I wouldn't ask anyone to ignore their religious beliefs for my sake. I don't really understand the LDS church and some things can seem weird to me, but I would never try to prevent someone from practicing their religion, and if LDS is what they are, then so be it. If I don't like it, I'll just ignore it. It doesn't hurt me.
So how does gay marriage hurt you? Can't you just ignore it? And by "you" I mean people of a religion that is anti-gay-marriage. As a former Catholic, I'd like to tell the Catholic church to practice a little more of what they preach. In the end, if you believe in God, only He will judge. So what's it to you if someone is "sinning" by your book? This is not meant to be an attack. I'm truly confused. If more people just minded their own business and stopped trying to govern others' lives, Prop 8 would not have passed. Because in my view, it's really only affecting those to which it denies rights.
Kasi, Brandy - I sympathize with you both. Having been raised on an island of jack Mormonism amid a sea of devout LDS family and community, I at least superficially understand your conflict – and people who try to belittle or dismiss it as far as I’m concerned don’t have much of a leg to stand on when they demand that you understand their plight.
So, maybe stalemate on this blog topic...so what? How awesome to see the game actually played all the way through. The sympathy is apparent on both sides, and is a rare record of human progress on this issue that wouldn’t exist were it not for articulate and compassionate people like Brandy and Erika willing to tackle the issue and “take the heat”, as Kasi says.
So chin up girls (speaking to both personalities).
PS – your buttons are crooked
I'm not sure if it's fair to compare the people on your side "not calling you a narrow-minded bigot" to the people who are not on your side calling you names. Granted, it's never right to call people names, but your church members and family members could afford to sit back supportively and listen to your arguments when you disagreed with them, because despite your disagreement, you were not actively condoning THEIR oppression. If someone was arguing to make the LDS religion illegal, I bet you would think they were a narrow-minded bigot.
Brandy, I still love you and the whole conversation between you and Button-Eyed you- it worries me :-)
The last post before the apology (which was kinda lame, if the truth be known) truly made me view your side differently. I still think the side supporting Prop. 8 is wrong (totally, entirely, completely wrong) but your outline of your beliefs (and willingness to do away with marriage as a "state" institution altogether) made it so very obvious that both sides can have equal rights under the law. It also made it clear that so long as homosexuality is considered a moral issue, as opposed to a biological issue, there will be religious strife associated with gay unions (or marriages).
This isn't the only doctrinal difference between LDS and Catholics, between Lutherans and Buddists, between Methodists and Amish. The reason we have so many different religions is because we don't all agree and have never all agreed about God's plan for our life here on Earth and what will be waiting for us in the afterlife.
Our founding fathers were so wise when they set up the Constitution specifically seperating church and state. If marriage is such a hot topic for religions (and it is) then the only way around the issue, while maintaining equal rights, is to choose your proposed solution (although the solution seems vaguely familiar somehow). File a union with the state, marry the person of your choice within your church. Don't confuse the two separate issues.
It's a pleasure to read your blog (if only to find out whether we agree or disagree) and I think you've tried very hard to handle the whole issue in a very non-confrontational, compassionate manner.
Dan - I just finished the book. I highly recommend having a Button-eyed self - they can get away saying the stuff you better not say. Ventriloquists aren't so silly, just scared to take credit for their thoughts.
Ben - That's how my eyes are! Geez.
Kasi - I sat on that damn fence leaning back and forth for a long time. For me, it came down to the fact that God wasn't mad at me for supporting gays (I'm not sure he cares, as long as I love y'all -assuming God is from Texas ...).
I am free to take as long as I need to work it out for myself. I'm relatively confident that the prophet won't lead me astray. I allow myself to really consider what is marriage. I determined it is NOT primarily about love. That the Primary benefit of marriage was the stability it provides a couple producing children.
I fully recognize that oodles of hetero couples can not have children and have no desire for them. Also that lesbians can have children, that oodles of gay couples currently have children, and more would love to adopt and raise children. And for all of those, the government should provide a way to protect your choices.
Me and my meanie-head majority say a marriage takes a sperm producer and an egg factory because marriage is Primarily about the babies. You might get me to waffle back and forth, but most of those guys, I don't think they'll budge, I worked hard on them for 16 years). And yeah, I was condemning their oppressive opinions, Anonymous - I told them their bigotry made Jesus cry.
The purpose of laws is not to make people "feel" good - it's to provide a stable, safe environment for the good of the many, while allowing as much individual freedom as possible. Would you say?
How does gay marriage hurt me or society? I think it diminishes the purpose of marriage - I think hetero couples have diminished the purpose of marriage so much that many actually do think marriage is about feelings - when I no longer feel lovely, I end my marriage, take my stuff, and eff up the lives of the children I promised to raise in love and stability.
Marriage is the tie between mother, father, and child (and God, if your religious). I'm traditional, my definition is narrow.
Janet's a smart woman, she wouldn't lead you astray ... if the problem is religionmarriagegovernment - divide and conquer.
See, now here I am AGAIN!! Poor Kasi is struggling. LISTEN TO HER!! I really was just trying to hear her and explain EXACTLY WHAT SHE IS GOING THROUGH (um, before she had a chance to speak for herself).
Remember what I was saying about "their faith being a part of every.part.of.their.life"? Remember that? Then Kasi went ahead and said, Because it's not just my religion that is being attacked, it is my lifestyle.
She said it. Not me.
The defense rests.
Oh! And Kasi, if you're coming back here to see a response, I do want to respond directly to you.
1. I only thought the Jews and the Catholics did guilt! Now the Mormons do guilt?? Who knew? ;-)
My two bits on faith:
I think religion and faith play a very, very important role in the fabric of our culture. I respect people's religious practices and choices fervently; so long as they don't impede on other people's happiness, comfort, rights, etc.
The guilt that came along with my own faith, in "condemning" others for not believing in my God, for not attending my church, for thinking I had all the answers, etc. simply wasn't the way I wanted to live. At all! I can't do it.
So while I listened to things from the pulpit that spoke AGAINST what I thought Jesus stood for and made me feel BAD for feeling a certain way, I couldn't do it anymore. I started making other choices for my life and have never been happier.
I have never once turned my back on God or Jesus or his teachings or any of it. Heck, if anything I now live closer to God than I ever have before.
Organized religion, to me, is an amazing way to control the masses. It's quite impressive really. But I can't stand the guilt and the fear and living for heaven to be rewarded for a life I live now.
I will say, about 90% of my life is lived for other people. I march for the common good, I fight for those without a voice, I work for social injustices ... this is what religion and faith are to me. Dedicating my life to others and making sure everyone has the same happiness and opportunities I was afforded. I don't ever want to live in a system where I have to "strip away religion" in order to bestow someone else rights. Man, that doesn't seem right.
And don't have guilt for having free thought and thinking about this critically. We were created with the ability to do so. Pat yourself on the back, you're not a sheep. YAY!!
I don't have magical answers for you. I know a LOT of people follow the way they were taught and struggle with every second of it. I simply hope you will find peace, in whatever way that is and that your faith fulfills you. If you want to believe whatever you believe about gay marriage, g'head. It's between you and G-O-D, no one else. Never in a million years would he say, "This is for us, not them."
It's as simple as that.
In Peace,
LilSass
What do you say Kasi - is LilSas telling it like it is for us? Every part of your life? Every? I concede that religion plays a big role in MOST aspects of my life, but I still watch Brett's Rock of Love Bus ... so, clearly it has not penetrated EVERY aspect. Also ... I totally watched Tia Tequila AND that one with the bisexual twins ... SO ... I know about stuff; I have cable AND internet. *snort derisively*
@Brandy hahahaha
watching a sexually confused miscreant on the tv certainly doesn't mean much of anything. Other than I am glad you can afford cable ;-) Watching something for entertainment or the shock value doesn't mean you want it happening in YOUR REAL LIFE!
Brett Michaels is trash, no matter what his sexual orientation!
Oh man, I feel bad for stirring up problems and introducing more issues/strife. I was just speaking from my limited perspective and trying to say simply that it's so difficult to judge another's inner workings when all sides of this issue are complex. And it seems EVERY person here is a good individual, but our words sometimes fail us and build walls, even in the very moment we were attempting to tear them down.
Brandy,
I have a (mostly rhetorical) question about the whole premise that modern marriage isn't about love:
What is a marriage without it?
Seriously, I know some people divorce too easily, when they stop getting what they want 24/7. But those examples don't invalidate the premise that love is central to modern marriage & families.
We all know kids do better in a home with love as its basic foundation. Yes, one can clothe, feed, and keep kids safe, but what is the price of growing up without love exemplified between adults? Also, people STAY married long after the kids leave and are able to take care of themselves.
I'd just like to submit my premise that there's something inherently special (sacred) in the bond itself, in the commitment to share your life with someone based on love. I have to quote my hero:
"What greater thing is there for two human souls than to feel that they are joined for life--to strengthen each other in all labour, to rest on each other in all sorrow, to minister to each other in all pain, to be one with each other in silent unspeakable memories at the moment of the last parting?" -George Eliot
Ironically, George Eliot wasn't allowed to marry the man she loved because divorce laws in 1850 made it impossible. She lived as an outcast, a fallen woman in her society.
Today our definitions of marriage and the laws governing it have already vastly changed. I would argue this is a good thing, and I think they will continue to evolve.
Ok, sorry to rehash this. I'm mostly just putting it out there because I'm *compelled* to defend what I believe is holy about marriage. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to articulate it.
Vesperstar - no need to feel bad - I think, if not openly on the blog, then privately by email, I have poked holes in those big stupid hostile walls and I hope the negativity has been dispersed.
I fully (get that? FULLY!) agree with your contention ... without a deep, warm, enduring Love, why marriage? Sure, I can ramble on and on about biological duties to perpetuate society, but at the end of the day, I crawl in bed with the person I Love (and sometimes a couple monkeys whom I am also rather fond of) and that is where it's at.
I think I get it. I think I have stated it as clearly as I know how - the problem isn't so much here, with me, it's with the 99% of the Pro 8 individuals who aren't wafflers.
Yes, I respect the traditional purpose and definition of marriage. AND I respect any two individuals willing to stand together against the world. I feel entitled to my narrow definition of marriage; it is based on my personal religious convictions and I (for the most part) have no guilt. To me, marriage is a religious experience. My personal religion is very restrictive about the use of sexual expression. Other religions are much more liberal and open in their acceptance of alternative relationships. Also, a number of people have no desire to affiliate with any church at all and would still like their love validated.
When two people are in a long term, loving, exclusive, committed relationship, they want that love to be publicly recognized and the sacrifices of joined lives needs to be legally protected.
To provide the necessary legal sanctions for unions not universally accepted, I am still baffled why a federally issued, universally recognized (yes, even on Uranus), whole legal enchilada of a civil union is unacceptable.
Rather than accepting a secular, but fair compromise, I am asked to surrender my religious convictions because they are too rigid for some.
I, and the majority, can't do that and am constitutionally not required to.
And, as my good friend Ben stated, there lies the stalemate.
Compromise requires both sides to give a little. I am happy to allow homosexuals the right to be married by clergy (or whomever) willing to perform that rite for them. In the context of my chosen religion, I reserve the right to limit marriage to a man and a woman (and you know, within the LDS church, a temple marriage requires much more than just opposing plumbing). So, the LGBT community would be asked to sacrifice a legal, government issued marriage license, but enjoy the protection and benefits by obtaining a civil union and the freedom to marry via the protection of the 1st amendment. (Congress shall make NO LAW ... something something exercise of religion). Why can't people see that the only way you can nullify a State constitution's ability to define marriage, is to protect marriage with religion as in the 1st amendment?
SO let's just grandfather all current marriages of both types in, and start fresh with this new system, say, next Monday, all in favor?
Stalemate or compromise?
I don't know, maybe my fellow religious radicals wouldn't go for that either ... you work on the resolution and I'll try to get them to vote for it.
I just have to say....
only 23 more days till DST!!!!!
YAY!!!!
No, SUPER-YAY!!!
As Olivia says, in a tone of complete wonderment when we leave music class at 5 pm and it's no longer pitch black (since it's getting closer and closer to that time), "it's still light outside Mommy!" And I always say "Hurray!"
On THAT issue, dear Mrs. B, I am afraid we will always sit on opposite sides of the fence (unless of course you decide to move to Arizona....and since I can tell you that I have visited there extensively since my Mom lived there for 3 years and my brother and sister have lived there for going on 7 years each, and I have a great aversion to both the sun and a great love of DST, so I will never ever move there....in that case, you will get your wish and we will be on the same side I guess)
Anyway, UP with DST!!!!
(can you feel my beneficent naughtiness?)
Smiles to all,
Catherine
I realize that in my rambling aside I forgot to add that YOU could always move to AZ...it's much closer for you, anyway! :)
This is where I get caught up: I am asked to surrender my religious convictions because they are too rigid for some.
Can you explain to me how someone else's choice, behavior, actions, etc. force you to surrender your own convictions? Your faith so easily waivers by the actions of others? Are your religious convictions shattered when 48% of the nation gets divorced? Is your relationship with God, The Church, your prophet, the community, your household 'surrendered' when other people in other churches, in other households, in other marriages whom you may never meet on any given day really, honestly rock the core of your beliefs?
One would venture to say that 80% of what occurs in the world, outside the pretext of your own religious convictions must shock you every day.
You have every right to say 'marriage for me is a religious experience' and 'my personal religion is very restrictive' ... I support your desire to 'own' your faith. Keep on keepin on. But I fail to ever, ever, ever see how the actions of other people a/effect your faith, your religion or YOUR view of YOUR marriage. Your new comment is laden with your personal feelings about where religion and rights and sexuality converge. Why can't those feelings and practices stay within your heart and you can keep feeling that way?
No one is FORCING you to feel or accept anything because it's legal. Your own church continues to condemn the usage of alcohol yet it remains legal. In fact, I am sure the county you live in, whether dry or not receives alcohol taxes that pave your roads and fund your sidewalks. That doesn't for one minute mean beer is served at the next church function. It simply means we live in a country with lots of people with lots of lifestyles and lots of choices and we need to live TOGETHER without impeding on the rights of others.
You continue to use Prop. 8 statistics without a context. The vote was not simply showing how people felt about homosexual unions. The ad campaigns on both sides were disgusting and a poor use of public (and private) funding and completely denegrated organized religion, the educational system and about 400 other things that the great state of California stands for.
No, my faith and convictions are not heavily impacted by the actions and choices of others (though I have to say, every time I hear about someone committing adultery I can't help but worry a little and give my boy a little extra love so he doesn't look for it elsewhere).
If we keep marriagegovernmentreligion, people will be able to sue a church or a clergy person for discrimination if they choose not to solemnize homosexual unions, thus the government would be forcing churches to accept and validate. Is that an inaccurate conclusion? If that's a fallacy, tell me.
Not me specifically as an individual, am I effected. The homosexual community suing the religious community for discrimination, forcing us to accept a definition we more than just disagree with, is the what I mean by forcing a surrender of religious convictions.
I don't want churches to be forced by the government, by legislators or judges, to bend their morals to the will of a minority unless that church wishes to do so freely.
Brandy,
Please don't beat yourself up over expressing an opinion. That is what debating is for. I don't think you have to necessarily even choose a side. Your allowed to feel one way at one time in your life and another at a different time.
Ok, I see clearly where you stand.
Off topic, sort of. DST this year is my birthday. It's also International Women's Day, so that's cool, right? And I think it's Muhammad's birthday in Bahrain (lunar calendar).
We just keep prodding those huge issues: gay marriage and DST! It's charitable you let us continue to hang out over here. :)
Peace all.
Well, I'm no lawyer but allowing homosexual marriage wouldn't force churches to do anything because the separation of church and state would not be nullified. There are a lot of things "legal" in this country that a whole lot of people don't agree with or have to subscribe to. It's just a way to protect people and ensure they have rights. Giving one rights, doesn't make something moral, does it? Hmmmm interesting thought ....
Morality isn't something "governed" per se and morals are things we each decide in our own lives.
Despite my love for the gays and their need to be able to marry, I don't for ONE SECOND think churches should be held accountable for choosing not to marry them. My people (the Catholics) don't marry divorcees and won't marry you outside and are able to set a whole slew of rules in order for The Church to "approve" of your union. It is legal for men and women to get married but if a church doesn't see fit to perform that ceremony, then they're out of luck. And I can't imagine a lawsuit of such nature would stand up in a court of law.
Ensuring people have ACCESS to something (in this case the civil rights afforded those in marriage) is not the same thing as FORCING someone to do something or believe a certain way or agree with someone's lifestyle. Providing access to contraception doesn't mean people HAVE to use it. And even though using contraception is legal, a ton of faith-based organizations do not have to pay for these services. (For instance, organizations run by the Catholic church will pay a part of your health insurance if you work there but will NOT pay for 1 cent of your birth control. They have the right to do this, within the parameters of the sep. of church and state). Churches are a very, very sacred part of this nation and I think a lot of people, even if you don't attend a certain church, wouuld defend a church's right to make their own rules (so long as they don't accept government funding for things).
In this debate I have always contended that churches should keep on keepin' on. If they have rules, as members of said Church, you have to abide by those 'rules'. Even if those 'rules' are simple moral and ethical codes. You know, like not buying crack from a male escort and then having sex with him. Those kinds of moral codes. *ahem*
For hypothetical purposes, let's say it is decided that marriage IS a civil right and any adults can enter therein. If homosexuals are a valid, protected minority ... well, let's take an extreme example - right now, can a racist church refuse to marry two black people? Can the black couple force the issue? Can the individuals being discriminated against then sue the racist church and collect punitive damages? Will the government revoke the church's tax exempt status for discrimination against a recognized a protected minority?
If the answer is yes, well then, calling marriage a civil right, protected by law, we take away a church's right to determine for itself the moral doctrine it can teach and practice. If churches are threatened with litigation for determining what behaviors are right and wrong, what the hell is their purpose?
There are lots of churches out there that are all about making people feel good regardless of what people do. There are some churches that are more strict in their behavioral guidelines. We're free to choose which we like, but if we give the government power to tell us how churches can be run, what we have to do or else ...
maybe that's what some of the religious radicals are so terrified of ...
I must say, if this is not a fallacious line of reasoning, if this is a distinct possibility, even a remote possibility, well, it helps me to see why my church rallied to hard and fast to pass Prop 8. no?
I just came back and read some of the comments and I wanted to respond to just one thing. Is religion a part of every corner of my life?
Well, if you want to get technical, my kids go to public school where they are taught by non-mormons and my daughter attends preschool at a Methodist church. My husband works with non-mormons, and we have non-member friends. I shop at Wal-mart and target like everyone else. I watch a few questionable shows on TV and read some questionable books. I love politics and I am one of the few mormon democrats :)
But when I watch those shows, I feel a twinge of guilt at the racier scenes. When I visit my kids classrooms, I hear my son asking his teacher why she drinks coffee, and when my daughters teacher asked her her favorite scripture story, she talked about the Book of Mormon. And when I voted for Obama, I felt a little sick about his views on abortion.
I WOULD say that my religious beliefs and practices influence most of my life, the choices I make, the music I listen to, the way I run my home, spend our money, what I read, who I spend most of my time with, what I eat and drink, the way I spend my time. It influences my goals for the future, my priorities, and even what I feel guilty about or want to improve about myself.
So while I don't think I live in a protective bubble (anymore anyway) being LDS influences how I see the world. How could it not?
Brandy -- wow a lot has happened in the last few days.
You are one tough cookie and you are loved!
Your husband mentioned this blog at work the other day and it sounded pretty interesting so I thought I'd come check it out. I see that the last comment was left last week, so I'm not sure if anyone will read this. If not I'll just talk to myself, that's fine.
You are one of the very few people I've ever heard of changing their position on a topic like this. You are the only person I've heard of changing in this particular direction. I find your reasoning interesting, but rather than shedding any light on how people hold that opinion on homosexuality and same-sex marriages it instead reminds me why I abandoned the idea of organized religion 14 years ago.
I find it a little scary when one person holds so much influence over a large group of people that they can cause those people to throw all their logic and their natural emotions regarding an important topic like this out the window.
The people who express their negative views on same-sex marriage do express them in a peaceful and friendly way, but I still find myself very angry after hearing about these views. I think this is because I have yet to hear one point made that seems to have any logical basis behind it rather than sounding like an attempt to explain away feelings of superiority towards others. It seems that the argument being made is simply that we heterosexuals were made the right way, and they were made the wrong way, and therefore we should get benefits that they don't. It sucks, but that's what they get for not being the "right way"! If anyone is still reading this and would be willing to respond to the following questions, I would very much appreciate it (and I do mean that sincerely):
1) Assuming that the purpose of a marriage is to raise children, how does same-sex marriage diminish the purpose of marriage while childless heterosexual marriage does not?
2) How is promoting monogomous relationships that are more likely to provide homes to children who have been given up for adoption harmful to society?
3) Polygamy, adult-minor relationships, and incest keep getting mentioned, and each have proved their damaging effects on society. What damaging effects have same-sex relationships actually provided?
4) If you truly do feel that homosexuals are physically different from heterosexuals, and that their relationships are valid, how can you believe in a religion that supports the whitholding of such important benifits from that group?
Thanks for posting such an interesting blog. Sorry if I've come off as disrespectful or arrogant - that definitely has not been my intention.
Hey Lance, thanks for stopping by - for whatever flaw in me, I'm still interested in this discussion - for the sake of time and space, I'll just go to the heart of the matter, as I see it. Email me directly if you want to further discuss the other points (or tell Greg to invite y'all over for dinner and discussion, that should be oodles of fun!).
While the primary purpose of marriage (in my opinion) is to provide a stable, protected, committed environment to produce and raise children, there are instances where a male/female couple are unable to have children. The ability to actually produce offspring is not the prerequisite for marriage though, the prerequisite is two people who have reproductive potential; a male/female coupling is the only combination unit with reproductive potential (regardless of their ability or desire to reproduce).
I freely acknowledge that my definition of marriage stems from a religious source. And I used to, with all my heart, think that I had no right to use that part of my heart when voting on issues that impacted others. Many would still say I don't have that right, that I am trying to impose my values upon society, which is unfair.
What they don't realize is that they are doing exactly the same thing, trying to force their values on society. Well, surprise, just like they don't like mine, I don't like theirs and we are BOTH EQUALLY entitled to hold our opinions.
Yes, I come at marriage from a religious point of view, AND many gay people do, too. And yet the state wields the power to accept and deny.
I think THIS is where the true problem lies. I thought the solution could be had by granting all couples a civil union and allowing churches to conduct marriage ceremonies as they see fit. Then, all couples desiring to join their lives would be equally protected. However, I have not heard from the LGBT community as to why this is an unacceptable compromise. I am left to assume it is not equal protection under law they seek, but acceptance for their lifestyle through the word marriage. (tell me if I'm wrong)
I don't think gay people are bad, deficient, or wrong, anymore than the rest of us stupid humans plugging away at life. At the end of the day (a long day spent debating emotionally charged issues and defending my religious convictions), I'm okay either way, whatever we vote on or the courts decide ... I can live with either outcome.
However, I reserve the right to practice religion according to to the dictates of my conscience. I am part of a church that holds its members to comparatively high standards of living. When Greg and I got married, I was not worthy to receive a temple marriage; I had not lived up to high enough standards. Many people leave the church over such things. I changed my ways, repented, and 15 months later had my marriage solemnized in a temple. I had to live up to the standards set by the church to receive the ordinances.
I would NEVER be able to support a movement that would try to use legal pressure to force a church to join a couple it deemed unworthy, for whatever reason. (is that even an issue?)
On your last point, if I feel homosexual relationships are valid, how can I belong to a church that denies them the benefits of marriage?
First of all, my church has publicly stated that it supports equal protection and civil unions. The church recognizes these couples exist and can be of benefit to society. However, as the church interprets the Bible and through modern revelation, a marriage is ordained of God and consists of a man and a woman.
The most basic definition has little to do with love and public commitment. It's a man and a woman covenanting with God to care for the needs of each other and their children - the opposites of the species coming together to fulfill one of the oldest commandments, to go forth and multiply, to the best of their abilities.
My faith in God, my membership in the church is not hinged upon my perfect agreement with every precept and dictate. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints simply doesn't work like that. Each individual member is expected to determine for themselves if a thing is true. Like the Quakers, we believe we are entitled to personal revelation, if we seek answers, we will find them.
I personally struggled with this issue - I couldn't wrap my head around the church's stand, mostly because I defined marriage in terms of love and emotion, not logic or reason, which, is what you were looking for. How do you use emotion (usually temporary, often fickle) as validation for the allowing any couple to marry? To take religion completely out of the equation, isn't it more logical to use biological attributes as the basis qualification for marriage, anyway??
A church has every right to define marriage as it believes correct, that the problem lies in the mixing of religion with state issues and the fairest solution seems to be dissolving that mixture, leaving legal type matters to the state and spiritual matters to the churches. That is really the only option I can support.
Today.
Wow, I can't believe you actually responded to my comment as if I'd written it the way I meant to. I realize now that posting something so late at night and when I'm in a bad mood is probably not the best idea.
First I would like to clarify - I don't for a second think that you or any other religious person is stupid. I think my post last night may have suggested otherwise, but I didn't mean it to. Second, thanks for answering my questions. I thought as I read through your other posts, and now as I read your response to my comment, that you seem to have thought this through more than anyone I've met before. I disagree with you on most points, but you obviously have thought these through very carefully and come to real conclusions of your own, which I find is sadly pretty rare.
I think your proposed solution is one of the best I've heard. I think that the current state of civil union rights is far too weak to be thought of as equal to heterosexual marriages. A gay couple can, in some states, and really only by some companies within those states, be viewed as a legally joined couple. My wife and I can go to anyone in any state and automatically be viewed as one single unit. I've found this to be extremely helpful, and now that we have children it's even more important to have this benefit. I think the only real way to apply that exact benefit to all couples is to flat out allow couples of any sexual orientation to be legally joined in the same way. If this is called "Marriage" and religions can have their own "Religious Marriage" concepts applied on top of this, then fine. If we call the two concepts "Arrangement One" and "Arrangement Two", that works too - as long as "Arrangement One" is the only thing considered in non-religious scenarios (like taxes, hospital visits, deciding on financial issues with lenders, etc.)
As far as I know, a church actually could refuse to marry certain races and have no legal consequences. I'm not sure though. In my humble opinion it seems to take too long for government to get involved in some situations where children, etc. are in harm but religious rights are an issue. I think homosexual couples are being harmed by not being viewed as completely equal to heterosexual couples. While I do feel religious organizations should have the right to recommend supporting something like Prop. 8, I simply disagree with any approach that involves directly or indirectly labeling the groups as superior and inferior. I think we should simply allow the Plain-Bellied Sneetches to come to our frankfurter parties.
I reserve the right to determine for myself (and my children) right and wrong behavior. I will continue to teach them to respect all people, regardless of race, religion, piercings, etc.
To get all preachy, as I often do, we are all technically sinners, without exception. Some of us have an easier time hiding our sins, some of our sins are legal ... I'm not here to say "you are bad because you do this," I'm supposed to love everyone, regardless of what they do. That doesn't require that I legalize everything that everyone wants to do; we all get to vote (rather directly or through representatives) on the limitations of freedom we want for society survive. I agree that forbidding homosexual unions equal protection makes no sense, is simply unfair. I'm relatively sure that the majority of Americans will continue to reserve the right to define marriage in a strict and religious way.
SOOOO.... stalemate.
Post a Comment