This is something that I've thought a lot about.
Gay Marriage: Where I stand on it, why, and how I came to that conclusion.
First off, I'm mostly for it being legal. But mostly, I want to ban marriage as a government institution and put in it's place Civil/Legal Unions. These things can have the same basic legal benefits as a current marriage. I'm okay with that.
Why? Because though marriage is a sacred institution(to me) between a man, a woman, and God(This being the most important part) Marriage is recognized as a basic right for all humanity in the United States of America. As such, I feel we do not have a legal right to object to gay marriage as a legal institution. BUT I very strongly feel that marriage is sacred. This is where disallowing marriage as a governmental institution comes in. Government interference has long deteriorated the sanctity of this holy ordinance. From making it easier to get divorced and now for the legal battle of whether gays have the right to be married.
(On the divorce thing, I have not done enough research and I don't know enough to say whether or not it's better or worse in the long run but it has definitely cheapened what marriage is in society's view)
Continuing on: I personally feel and there are studying backing this up that children have the best chance of success throughout their lives if they have both a father and a mother in the home. In theory, having 2 parents is better than 1 whether or not they are of the same sex. This is why I would rather see marriage as it is today be allowed for a homosexual couple than completely disbanded as a legal institution with no legal benefits for having a committed partnership. I feel it is better for society in the long run to encourage coming together to form a family rather than single parenthood.
(Don't get me wrong, I know some amazing people that have come from single parent households)
Marriage as a holy institution can and should live on. I have grown up in the Mormon church, we have always held special wedding ceremonies that specifically seal the husband and wife not just to each but to God. It is my belief(not a fact, just an assumption) that most Christian and non-Christian religions already do this. That is why they get married in churches. They want God in their relationship. People already get married in a courthouses or without religious intent this will not change that AT ALL; but here's the thing. In order for this to work there needs to be legal safety for a church to deny performing any marriage in their building. This is scary ground because it does allow the possibility of all kinds of discrimination. Because you have to allow for the right to deny anyone to allow for the sanctity of the marriage in the eyes of not only the couple, but frankly, also the parishioner who performs the marriage.
Here's the problems that I see. There's a lot of semantics involved here. Basically, gay rights activists will have "won." Which some people will have a problem with. Like I said, I feel that legally it has been defined as a basic right so as such cannot be denied.
Gay rights activists might feel like other party wins because we are redefining the legal definition of the words marriage. So technically...they aren't getting married.
My assumption is that the gay couples that wish to invite God into their relationship(which is weird to me but I'm sure it's bound to happen) will find a place that will accept them into their congregation and wed them. If not...well that could be a problem.
Is there anything else that I didn't see? Is this totally crazy? Is it too much of a compromise for both sides? Is it possible it could be deemed as a win win? I would really love feedback here. Share it with whomever you think would find this proposition interesting. It's not perfect, but it works in my head. With my views on life and my compassion for all people to find happiness and success in this life this is what I've come up with; so please, once again, talk about this with me, tell me if I'm crazy. Tell me if I'm smart(this is something I truly approve of)
This is something I've thought about while going along my Grand Adventure.
Gay Marriage: Where I stand on it, why, and how I came to that conclusion.
First off, I'm mostly for it being legal. But mostly, I want to ban marriage as a government institution and put in it's place Civil/Legal Unions. These things can have the same basic legal benefits as a current marriage. I'm okay with that.
Why? Because though marriage is a sacred institution(to me) between a man, a woman, and God(This being the most important part) Marriage is recognized as a basic right for all humanity in the United States of America. As such, I feel we do not have a legal right to object to gay marriage as a legal institution. BUT I very strongly feel that marriage is sacred. This is where disallowing marriage as a governmental institution comes in. Government interference has long deteriorated the sanctity of this holy ordinance. From making it easier to get divorced and now for the legal battle of whether gays have the right to be married.
(On the divorce thing, I have not done enough research and I don't know enough to say whether or not it's better or worse in the long run but it has definitely cheapened what marriage is in society's view)
Continuing on: I personally feel and there are studying backing this up that children have the best chance of success throughout their lives if they have both a father and a mother in the home. In theory, having 2 parents is better than 1 whether or not they are of the same sex. This is why I would rather see marriage as it is today be allowed for a homosexual couple than completely disbanded as a legal institution with no legal benefits for having a committed partnership. I feel it is better for society in the long run to encourage coming together to form a family rather than single parenthood.
(Don't get me wrong, I know some amazing people that have come from single parent households)
Marriage as a holy institution can and should live on. I have grown up in the Mormon church, we have always held special wedding ceremonies that specifically seal the husband and wife not just to each but to God. It is my belief(not a fact, just an assumption) that most Christian and non-Christian religions already do this. That is why they get married in churches. They want God in their relationship. People already get married in a courthouses or without religious intent this will not change that AT ALL; but here's the thing. In order for this to work there needs to be legal safety for a church to deny performing any marriage in their building. This is scary ground because it does allow the possibility of all kinds of discrimination. Because you have to allow for the right to deny anyone to allow for the sanctity of the marriage in the eyes of not only the couple, but frankly, also the parishioner who performs the marriage.
Here's the problems that I see. There's a lot of semantics involved here. Basically, gay rights activists will have "won." Which some people will have a problem with. Like I said, I feel that legally it has been defined as a basic right so as such cannot be denied.
Gay rights activists might feel like other party wins because we are redefining the legal definition of the words marriage. So technically...they aren't getting married.
My assumption is that the gay couples that wish to invite God into their relationship(which is weird to me but I'm sure it's bound to happen) will find a place that will accept them into their congregation and wed them. If not...well that could be a problem.
Is there anything else that I didn't see? Is this totally crazy? Is it too much of a compromise for both sides? Is it possible it could be deemed as a win win? I would really love feedback here. Share it with whomever you think would find this proposition interesting. It's not perfect, but it works in my head. With my views on life and my compassion for all people to find happiness and success in this life this is what I've come up with; so please, once again, talk about this with me, tell me if I'm crazy. Tell me if I'm smart(this is something I truly approve of)
This is something I've thought about while going along my Grand Adventure.
I totally agree.
ReplyDeleteThe role of government is to enforce contracts. In my mind, marriage is a religious institution, but it is also a legal contract between two individuals. The government's role should only be to enforce that contract.
I think that if two individuals want to file their taxes jointly, or visit each other at the hospital, they should totally be allowed to do that.
My concern comes when redefining the definition of marriage changes religious liberty in many ways. You brought up the issue of churches that don't want to marry homosexuals in their buildings. It actually gets much bigger than that. One big issue that really bothers me is that a Catholic adoption agency was basically forced to close by the government because they didn't want to allow gay people to adopt.
That one is close to my heart because we are currently trying to adopt through LDS services.
Your solution solves this problem but allows gay people to have a contract between each other just like everyone else.
Of course, today government is too entrenched in marriage. Government is too big in many areas. I don't think this solution could be implemented tomorrow, but I do think it makes a lot of sense.
Oh yeah, and you're smart. :)
Jeff - Here's my question for you. You brought up the Catholic adoption agency that was forced to close because they wouldn't allow gay couples to adopt. I understand why that would upset you... and...
DeleteMany years ago, the government had to get involved so that businesses would stop discriminating against black people. There were many agencies that would not allow an interracial couple to adopt a baby. A lot of the reasons for racism were because the Bible said. God supported them, and they didn't want to give up their beliefs.
Now, we look at the government getting involved and forcing the changes as a good thing. It was wrong to discriminate... So, my question is: Is this situation any different? Is this discrimination any different than what this country faced in the 1950's?
Jen - Yes, it is very different. There is a very big difference between a lifestyle and a skin color. When you realize how many potential adoptive parents are available, it makes a lot of sense for an organization to discriminate based on what is best for the child.
DeleteI don't know the specifics of the Catholic agency, so I'll talk about the LDS agency. They require that a couple be married in the temple, maintain a current temple recommend, show that their finances are sound, have a doctor sign that they are healthy enough to raise a child, etc.
This excludes gay couples, single parents, non-members, and even members who choose not to maintain a temple recommend. Is this discriminatory? Yes, it is. If a church believes that certain requirements will provide a better environment for a child, they should be able to discriminate.
Keep in mind, I don't think the government should disallow gay adoptions by force. I think the government should allow people to be free to make their own choices. Adoption agencies should be free to choose their clients based on what they think is best for the child, and gay couples should be free to work with agencies that feel that they will provide a good home for the children.
I understand you see it as a lifestyle, but I have met way too many people that are gay for me to see it that way. They don't choose to be gay any more than a person that is black chose to be black or you chose to be straight. I get really passionate about this... so... you can stop reading and tell me to bugger off at any moment.
DeleteBut just think for a moment how you would feel if I told you that your love for your wife is a lifestyle? That people have a right to discriminate against you because you love her and not a man? What if your choices were to a)love (and be with) a man or b)to be alone? I feel frustrated when people that are straight and have government and church sanctioned relationships dismiss other people's situations. They have never had to face anything like what gay people have to face.
The reasons for discrimination then are a lot of the same reasons people give now. (Forty years ago, the LDS agency could have discriminated against black couples. Because the LDS standard would have said they weren't "worthy" based on their skin color.) I am very glad that the government stepped in. The supreme court overturned the majority in order to allow interracial marriage. It didn't ruin the country (like many said it would).
And I agree with you. I actually believe agencies should have the choice who they send children to. That said, I don't believe an agency should get government funding if they are being discriminatory... LDS Family Services would never be shut down for being discriminatory, unless they were getting government funding. No church would be forced to marry anyone they didn't want to... all churches can discriminate against whoever they want. (They all have their standards they judge people by.)
See, for me, the thing is is that religious liberty is as important to who I am as any civil liberties because it IS a civil liberty. I feel the right for me to hate anybody for any reason I want is important. It's also important that it's against the law to act on those hatreds.
DeleteThe things here is, the parent needs the opportunity when putting they're child up for adoption to maybe choose a lifestyle they would desire for their children; and yes, that includes if someone wants to ensure their child does not got to a gay couple, a black couple, or an interracial couple, or a poor couple or maybe for some reason a rich couple. It's the government run or aided agencies that shouldn't allow that but forcing someone to shut down because they won't conform with your beliefs is tyranny. That goes to both sides of this argument.
Jen - You are welcome to be passionate. It doesn't offend me or make me unhappy in the least. :)
Delete"But just think for a moment how you would feel if I told you that your love for your wife is a lifestyle?" I guess, I don't really understand where the problem with that is. My love for my wife is a lifestyle. For 27 years of my life, I was celibate. That was a choice I made, that lead to that lifestyle. Then, I made a decision to marry Robyn. My lifestyle completely changed. Having lived both lifestyles, I can't understand how someone could possibly suggest that neither one is a lifestyle. That would imply that the style of how my life was lived did not change at all.
"That people have a right to discriminate against you because you love her and not a man?" They do have that right. I will fight my whole life to preserve that right. No one has ever exercised that right against me personally, but that right exists for them. I absolutely believe that if an organization believed that me being married to a woman was a bad thing, they have the right to discriminate. What if an adoption agency opened up that only wanted to serve gay couples? They would be discriminating against straight couples. I would have no problem with that. However, if we applied your logic, that would be something we should fight against. But I would stand shoulder to shoulder with that agency and fight for their right to discriminate.
Justin - I agree that people should have the right to hate, because they should have the right to think whatever thoughts they want. However, I think it should be noted that there is a difference between choosing not to place a child with a couple and hating them.
Interestingly, as we've been going through the adoption process they tell us what kind of things to put on our profile. They've mentioned that we shouldn't put pictures of us travelling too much, or with too many big toys because birth mothers actually do discriminate if they think you look too rich.
I realized last night (round about 3 AM) that my passion is not about rights. I agree with you and Justin - everyone has the right to discriminate.
DeleteI have no desire to force a church to accept gay couples... But I do want them to understand what they are saying. To see things from a different perspective. (The thing that changed my perspective was to read the reasons why people fought against black rights and interracial marriage. The reasons given then were the same reasons given now. They were wrong then, so it started me searching to understand, Could they be wrong now?) But, what I get really passionate about isn't rights. Heavens... I don't even believe in marriage, so why would I fight so hard for other people to have the right to do something I don't want for myself?
What I'm fighting for, and I get really passionate about is understanding.
When I say think about it, I mean think about what it would feel like to be a gay man in this society... It's not just about sex. It is being told everyday by pretty much everyone that you are not as good as your peers. Your love is not as good. Your desire for a family isn't important. You are perverted and disgusting. Think about how you would feel if you were told you were supposed to be with a man? Could you do it? Would you be with a man so that you could do what God said you should?
Hearing those messages all the time degrades a person. It HURTS.
I get really passionate about this, because I know what it's like to feel like I'd rather die (and my family would rather I die) than I be me.
I want people to understand that feeling...
I recognize my discussion isn't the one Justin started (Sorry Jus!) Justin's idea is a great compromise that gives everyone equal rights. I don't think the government will ever get out of the marriage business - but I also don't think that anyone has to worry about a church being forced to marry a gay couple. Churches still can't be forced to marry an interracial couple, so I don't see how they could be forced to marry a gay couple.
Oh and I would just like to say:
DeleteIt feels freaking AWESOME to be having this discussion with you, my brothers, So, thank you.
I completely support advocating understanding. I will fully admit, that I don't understand, and can't imagine what it is like to be gay in our society.
DeleteAlso, on that same issue of understanding, for it to be successful it needs to go both ways. It is frustrating to be labeled a bigot and a hate monger because I believe in religious freedom. (I'm not saying you have given me, or anyone else that label, but that is applied generally by the homosexual community to Christians, and has been applied specifically to me by others.) When I saw a group of gay men brutally attack a homeless man because he had the gall to sit on the sidewalk and read the Bible, it didn't make me want to understand them. When I watched news reports of groups of protesters surrounding the LA temple and intimidating people to the point where they were afraid to enter the temple, it didn't make me want to be compassionate towards the gay community.
I'm not saying that is representative of all gay people. I also recognize that regardless of what they do, the right thing for me is to still show compassion. But, it is sure frustrating to feel like no one on the other side is seeking to understand the importance of freedom of religion, to those who are frightened that it is being threatened. So, I support and will try to be more understanding, I just hope that understanding can come from the other direction as well.
On the issue of forcing churches to marry: I hope you're right. I hope that freedom of religion is never stripped away to that point. However, considering that the United States government threatened to seize all property of the LDS church when the Church wasn't performing marriage to the liking of the rest of the nation, maybe you can possibly understand why I get skittish when I think about the government using its heavy hand to redefine marriage.
I'm happy to have this discussion with you as well. I think I am probably just about as passionate about freedom of religion as you are about gay advocacy. I'm glad that we can discuss our passions and allow it to still remain civil.
I agree that violence from either side is NEVER the answer... and understanding needs to come from both sides. I am not going to justify a man beating another for ANY reason... but to say that doesn't want to make you understand is EXACTLY what they are feeling.
DeleteFar more gay men (and women) have been beaten, killed, spat upon, degraded, damned, etc. than ANY Christian in this "fight". I get why you wouldn't want to understand THAT person, but I don't think anyone is asking you to.
I also feel frustrated.
For a long time, there has been only one point of view. Only one message being broadcasted. It gets exhausting to be the one on the other side who has done all of the listening for years, and still told to be quiet and try to understand. ESPECIALLY, when they are not asking for anything but what you already have. They want to be equal - nothing more and nothing less.
I was at the LA temple on the day of the protests. I did not feel intimidated. Their protests (combined with the way the church had already handled Prop 8) was the beginning of my journey to search things out. Their protests worked on me - I wanted to find out for myself.
And on the issue of polygamy. I personally am VERY grateful that the government stepped in. The ONLY reason the church changed their polygamy practice was because the government stepped in. It was the goal of the GOP to get rid of both "barbaric practices of slavery and polygamy."
They were stepping in to help the weak. The women and children who were being harmed by the practice. What if the government hadn't gotten involved? How would your life be different? Would you want to go back to living that way? Does it make the change any less inspired??
I'm not sure what the government could do... maybe threaten tax exempt status?? (I don't know if that's even a possibility, but that is all I can think of.) Maybe be sued for discrimination, but if that's the case, most states already have an anti-discrimination law that includes sexuality. (The Catholic charities case was an example of that. Marriage laws wouldn't change anti-discrimination laws.)
Lots of thoughts going through my head... now it's your turn. :)
Jenfer, I look at the world and I'm seeing ALL sides FORCE their views on the world. No matter who you are or where you are or what side you view yourself in, that is tyranny. Are Christians guilty of being Tyrannical, of course, despite the fact that they preach mercy and turning the other cheek. Peacefully utilizing your resources to make the world you live in more comfortable for you and those that share your opinions, views, or beliefs is not tyranny.
DeleteFrom my point of view, of what I know, about polygamy was it's original purpose was for men to take care of women who were unable to take care of themselves(That's just how the world worked back then, women WERE descriminated against they would not necessarily be able to provide for their children without the help of polygamy) Another "celestial" reason, is the belief that frankly God has more daughters than sons worthy to enter the kingdom of heaven and in order to provide for that possibility without changing the rules entirely he has provided the possibility for men to marry multiple women for time and all eternity.
Jen, does it change the way you feel at all that the Church falls somewhere between sponsored and endorsed Salt Lake City's law the includes sexuality in discrimination? The government can do A LOT of crap to the church because of the fact that religious liberty is weakening because it is becoming the minority to be religious. People are forcing their way of lives upon the religious, just because one group was tyrannical in the past does not give precedence or permission for that act to continue. You've often talked about how society is evolving, but it's not it's repeating itself with a different group of people at the top. It's just becoming more okay for hate and harassment to go the other way now.
There can be no defense of anyone that pursues violent and forceful manners to inflict their will upon someone. In this world where I sue for peace I find no one willing to compromise, is a person meant to lay there when all they see as holy is brought forth for ridicule and desecration? Or is a person to run and hide? History's only answer for two sides that are unable or unwilling to communicate is war. Do we turn to war or do we sacrifice who we are for peace? As I view it there is a war against MY way of life, against MY peace. I will plead forever for a peaceful compromise but who will grant my wish?
Jus - I do like that you are thinking about this, and the work you put into this. I agree with Jeff: "you're smart. :)"
ReplyDeleteNow that I've caught up I wanna pipe, although I feel you guys have tried way harder to prepare your thought than I have but I'm ok with that.
ReplyDeleteSO, firstly, Justin I agree change from the government side of things needs to happen your proposal is a good start but not quite the real answer, as Jeff has pointed out. Secondly all 3 of you seem smarter on your blogs then in person, except Jeff he's always like that, is this because I'm shallow so when I see you in person your shallow with me? JK your good
Now my actual thoughts. There is far too much anger from both sides, side 1 being christian churches side 2 being homosexual activists. I know many christians who don't feel at all that gays should not be allowed to marry, I know many organizations that very loudly declared their concerns, to be honest only what Jeff has told me. Then I know a few gays who have quietly cried in a corner wishing for a better tomorrow and I know many gays who have verbally assaulted myself just because I'm a mormon and many more who have done much much worse, again what Jeff has told me.
My point is the issue is only being discussed by those with anger, or as far as the media is concerned, and that makes me sad. I have loved reading this back and forth cuz you 3 have only wanted to share, understand, and be understood. A side point, neither side seems to be going through the "proper" channels to seek the right kind of change both are just angry at the other wanting the other to give in again makes me sad.
To be gay today is a strange puzzle was I born this way, did I choose to be this way, can I change, should I change. Delta has read a few blogs and shared them with me and they have blown my mind. One where a LDS man is married has a few children and is gay. He says he's happy, he says his wife is happy, he says there are times when it's hard to keep the marriage that way but they work together with God to keep it that way. Is this right I don't know but from what I understand of his life and my own THAT is what marriage should always be. If you don't believe in God there in only the government saying you should get married and that is lame.
I'm smarter when I write - always have been. It's one of the reasons I like blogging so much.
DeleteThe first blog you're talking about is Josh Weed.
I agree that his marriage (or what he tells us about his marriage) is a great example. Here's my question for you: If the roles were reversed, could you create that kind of relationship with a man? If you were told that the only right way was to live in a homosexual relationship, could you create that kind of intimacy with your husband? Could you ever love a man the way you love Delta?
Dann and I have talked about Josh's blog a lot. We didn't like that people were now saying, "be like Josh." Although I am not gay, Dann has a bit of an understanding what it's like to be in a mixed-orientation-marriage. It takes a lot to make that kind of relationship work. There are people that a mixed-orientation-marriage, but most are disastrous.
I don't know the other blog you are talking about, but it sounds like the hundreds I have read. (The homosexual mormon blogs were a big deal for me, they kind of helped me figure out my voice.)
And you're right, I didn't have the ability to speak up for myself. No voice. No ability to even find the words to describe anything. How could you (or anyone) understand, because I couldn't speak? I thought I didn't have a right to speak up.
This is one of the big reasons I get so passionate about this: I know what it's like to have no voice. I CAN talk now, so I kind of feel like I need to speak up for the people that haven't found their voice yet.
And again, thank you all for letting me talk. My voice is still very new to me, and I definitely don't share this side at family dinners much.
Jen, YES I could love anyone like that because the only difference between my love for you, Zack, my friend Zack, and the love I had for Hannah was the fact that I thought she was hot. We had that physical intimacy that clearly I don't have with any one of those I previously mentioned.
DeleteIt takes a lot to make ANY relationship work, to be honest and true. It takes even more to make a marriage work. Just because there are problems inlaid with being a mixed-orientation marriage does not make it wrong, unnatural, or more difficult; because all relationships with someone that you want to spend the rest of your life with are difficult. My relationship with myself is difficult. No two sides are the same and as such you have to find your place in the other person's lives despite being devoted to one another. For happiness it needs to be an equal devotion, yes, but that doesn't change whether it's best friends, husband-wife, gay husband-wife, or same sex couple.
Jen, the same reason you get passionate about this is the same one I get passionate. I'm mostly just a bystander in those whole thing. I may never get married, if I get married there is the possibility I'll never have children. Chances are, I'll never have sex. Yet, I fight for it's sanctity between an equally devoted husband and wife(which, I'm sorry to say from my knowledge you never experienced) For a husband and wife to share their love in a way that is holy and known only to themselves. An act which will bring forth another child of God into this world for you take love and learn from and that will help you become more Godly in your time so that one day you may achieve your own Godhood and be ready for it.
Another blog, he WAS LDS and gay and now is not and is very angry at the church cuz of alot of the things Jen has said, IE "what it would feel like to be a gay man in this society... It's not just about sex. It is being told everyday by pretty much everyone that you are not as good as your peers. Your love is not as good. Your desire for a family isn't important. You are perverted and disgusting." He got the short end of the stick on that one. He received anger from friends parents and bishops. Like Jen I wish this guy had my understanding and my courage to tell people they are wrong about something and what ever ability I have that made them listen, it doesn't happen too much but when ever it has mattered it has worked for me on bishops, missions presidents, parents, and once or twice teachers. I'm not saying Jen you don't have my courage I think I'm an ant sometimes but you never had the ability to be understood until recently, I think, if I'm wrong sorry but I think you'll agree with me on that.
ReplyDeleteI have tried to understand others on this issue and it has made me sad for them and hope for better, but I mostly agree with Jeff I have only felt like those who have tried to understand me are not the ones the really should be trying. Like Jen you don't really believe in marriage at all but here you are communicating openly and without malice but every gay I have shared these thoughts with have "listened" only long enough to yell at me later and misquote me or misrepresent what I was trying to say, mostly just get ignored or not taken seriously though but that could be my fault I'm 95% goofy 4% jokeing so the 1% I'm not they may think is the other.
So I had no idea I'd say as much as I have, I hope it makes sense cuz i didn't really put any thought into how i was saying it just let it go and fixed typos as i went (=
apparently I had too much to say the website didn't like it but i found a way.
ReplyDelete