Tuesday, May 15, 2012

In response to...

K, here's the deal. Once upon a time my sister wrote a post on her blog about how she feels about marriage equality. That can be found here http://stillme-thejourney.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-i-came-to-support-marriage-equality.html This is how I feel on the subject. This is a response, but I think it properly states how I feel on the subject. It raises my concerns and responds to some of Jen's concerns.(My sister) "First off Jen, I know your opinion on the "sanctity of marriage" is that it's non existent, I get that. I don't believe that. I feel children SERIOUSLY need a male and female role model in their lives to become productive citizens. If they don't have both, it's a hurdle but not an impassable barrier. Homosexuals can most definitely be great role models for children. I know many that I love, respect, and admire. Divorce sucks, I frown on it in about 90% of the cases. You've asked me about that before in discussions about this. That's how I feel. Someone else's divorce is NEVER my call on whether or not the reasons were strong enough that this was better than working through them. Growing up in the church I never ever heard anything about interracial relationships. I've had to overcome racism in myself though, that's a fact. When I was in Hairspray I hard a time making friends with the black cast mates. They were different it was weird. That's more just the fact that I wasn't friends with any. It was strong enough that I was uncomfortable the few rehearsals I was in the minority. Now, loving homosexuals as themselves IS the right thing to do. That doesn't mean I feel I need to let them attack the sanctity of one of the holiest things on this earth. For me, marriage is ordained by God between a man and woman, why does a homosexual couple need that? Personally I feel that the government should not support it, but I don't feel right disallowing it either. The difficulty and battle here is that the government has institutionalized a religious and holy practice. I wish a compromise could be made where the homosexual couples can seek the recognition they deserve from their government entity, but that still doesn't mean that they have to be married. I would be offended if a homosexual couple asked to be married in an LDS chapel. It's not the appropriate place for it because I feel that is a place dedicated to God, that would be a defamation of marriage as ordained by Him. Now comes to MY big issue. Jen, the minority should not be limited by the majority, I believe that, but why should I sacrifice for them? My religion has fought long and hard for every little scrap of recognition they've received. I'll admit it much longer than it needed to because of how many mistakes it has made throughout its existence. The majority has made so many concessions to minorities that people like me are suffering for it now. I'm so incredibly average that life is much more difficult for me now than it would have been 20 years ago. In short, loving them as they are is a beautiful thing. They're human beings that have so much amazing potential to do good in this world. They have every right to live their life as they desire, but why do I have to give up something I hold as sacred as life? Is it not possible for them to receive the recognition they desire without assaulting my beliefs and what I stand for in my life? Is their lifestyle, whether chosen or not so much more important than one of my core values? I know I'm atypical(probably) but I personally feel that's the core of the issue. A minority that's screaming for its voice to be heard and rights to given and majority that is frightened and tired of letting go of something that is dear to them, frightened by if they let this go, where else will they turn? If they surrender now, will it stop? Will they continue to be assaulted until they're a minority with no rights at all? Hell, what if they're a minority with no rights at all? That's why I feel that homosexual couples should be denied marriage." Please respond with questions and feelings of your own. I want to know whether you think I'm smart or stupid. Crazy, racist, or whatever, but please respond with reason. Simple concurrence is appreciated or simple rejection is okay too. I would prefer to know why you think that way, but even more than that I want to know WHAT you think. Sincerely me, a simple adventurer on this grand adventure called life. Justin

5 comments:

  1. Very well written. I respect your honesty. I too believe that government should recognize same sex couples but I am afraid that if they are given a "constitutional" right to be married, this will impose on my religious rights. Once this is a constitutional right, can they say that our church is being discriminatory by not allowing their temple attendance? What about the pastor that got sued by preaching that homosexuality is wrong? What about the person that didn't want a homosexual roommate and so the judge fined her? What about the group of people that are trying to make the bible deemed as hate literature? Where do we draw the line to protect ourselves? I think by giving civil unions the same benefits as marriage should be enough so that it protects all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. My thoughts: at this point we are arguing semantics and drawing lines in the sand.

    I feel like I'd be denying someone their agency ( Something my religion has fought for over and over again) if I were to come right out and say that same-gender couples should not be allowed to be married.

    They should! They should be allowed to choose who they want to spend the rest of their lives with! Love, in any form, is sacred to me. I may not agree with their decision, but it is theirs to make.

    But, why are we calling it marriage?

    Marriage has always been a religious institution. The government had no part in it for a long time. Only recently has marriage required a certificate from a government body. As of they were giving us permission to wed!

    Then, marriage was in a church or some such place performed by an agent of god. Be it minister, pastor, bishop, etc...

    Nowadays you can skip the religious ceremony altogether and get married at the justice of the peace! (For a small fee!) These civil ceremonies were given the name marriage, even though they do not at all represent a covenant before God.

    In my opinion, we lost the sanctity of marriage when we allowed them to call such legal unions a marriage. We should have made a stand then to protect the sacred name of marriage.

    But, we didn't. Now, marriage is consider a LEGAL union between TWO PEOPLE. Not a RELIGIOUS COVENANT between a MAN, A WOMAN, and GOD.

    This just complicated what should be left uncomplicated. But, since we already mislabeled marriage, perhaps they should be allowed to cash in on our error. Let them be civilly married. Let them go to courthouses and get that piece of paper that says they are legally tied together.

    But, we must make it clear that they cannot begin to hope that they will be allowed to be married in our churches, our temples, our synagogues.

    Also, why would they want to? If I were loving my life against the teaches of my religion, I would not wish to married in their places of worship.

    Is that long-winded enough?

    ReplyDelete
  3. So.... Since you said this was in response to the other Blog. I decided I would read that before responding. All I can say is that that Blog feels me with remorse & anger. I will try & respond to yours without letting any of the passion the other Blog brought up in me, out.
    God does not make mistakes, there is nothing that needs to be changed. I think it takes courage & wisdom to recognize yourself and admit what you see & what you have chosen to believe. I think that this is a good Blog for all to read in this time of struggle for the nation.
    As it is Americans do need to accept & work together. But I do not feel they (Americans) need to continue to give up all rights to others so none is left for us.
    Not too long ago a school got sued (rightly in my mind) for turning down people simply because they aren't enough of a minority. The school wanted positions there saved for minorities instead of letting others in who were qualified (and often more qualified).
    As far as Marriage goes. It is a sacred thing between a man & woman. It should not be same-sex. I'm sorry but if Same Sex marriage should be allowed they would be able to have kids. The genders need each other for so many reasons! Can't people see that! I'm sorry, I know this is a controversial subject but it isn't to me. Nor is it as new as many want to believe.
    The only thing that same-gender marriage is being denied is the right to have the formal document. They get insurance together, get to live together, & get to file taxes together. They adopt together. They are usually good people. I get it. I love many people who have decided to mate with someone of the same gender. I also love many people who like to get drunk, who do drugs, who have violent tendencies, and so on. I love them, not their decisions. I'm trying hard to teach my LittleOne to love people, and that its decisions that are bad. Not usually people.
    Satan knows we need each other, gender wise, and will fight to none other to make us believe otherwise. I will not give into it. You choose to do as you will but "as for me & my house we will serve the Lord"!!
    I care not if I offend. But I love you Justin, & I love that you can recognize your own weaknesses and can stand for what you believe.
    I understand others want to fight for their rights. But keeping marriage in the sacred form of between man & woman is protecting more rights than allowing all to have that contract. I do not feel like this imposes on anyones agency. We aren't stopping any of their choices.
    I am impressed with you Justin, I'm not saying you feel as strong as I do. I don't know. But marriage IS sacred. And people shouldn't be handed things just because they are a minority.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Justin, you're awesome bro.

    And I have a little insight about the majority of the people that have replied to your comment on your sister's post: The people who speak the loudest usually have a hearing problem. :)

    You rock my socks off man.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm glad you posted this here. I wanted to comment and tell you how I thought your response was very insightful and well though out. I was quite impressed with it. :) But I wasn't sure if I wanted to get involved with the discussion over at Jen's blog due to the extremely cranky people there. (I still might, but we'll see.)

    That being said, I just have a few other thoughts to add. I totally agree with Aubstar. Marriage is a religious institution. I don't really understand why non-religious people are really interested in it. I think it should never have become a government institution. But, honestly, I don't care what consenting adults do with each other as long as I don't have to hear about it.

    The problem is that if we change the definition of marriage to include homosexual unions there are religious liberty issues. Several people have brought up the issue of temple marriage. Who knows whether the government will shut down temples or force churches to allow homosexual weddings inside. But, rather than speculate on that, I'd like to bring up something that has already happened.

    In the state of Illinois the Catholic church is completely closing the doors on all of their adoption agencies and foster care programs. It's estimated that 2,000 kids will not get the help they need to be placed in good homes. The state ended their contracts with the church because they refused to provide adoptions to gay couples.

    LDS Family Services offers an adoption program that makes adoption affordable and accessible for many LDS couples. That program may completely disappear because it could be made illegal by the homosexual agenda.

    I don't care what people do in their homes. I don't care if a man wants to declare another man his next of kin. I don't care if he wants that man to visit him in the hospital or file his taxes jointly. I do care very much that the first amendment will be virtually wiped away and churches will be forced to choose between denying their basic beliefs or to stop giving essential services to those most in need.

    ReplyDelete