The battle for Prop 8 just went beyond protecting marriage and the disintegration of our society and public schools for me. Yes, even beyond that, it is about protecting free speech and freedom of religion.
I just saw this video put out by a No on Prop 8 group, and I simply can't believe the lies and slander they stoop to.
http://www.kutv.com/content/news/topnews/story.aspx?content_id=e1f83189-843f-41d7-84c4-2029fbd9a2ce
This is the response put out by the Yes on Prop 8 campaign:
http://protectmarriage.com/tell
Swiping signs is one thing. Although despicable just the same, it happens on both sides of the prop 8 campaign, and for many candidates as well. Vandalism, slander, and hatred is another thing entirely, which we see almost exclusively on the No on 8 side (while all the while they scream for tolerance).
Call me a coward, but I was honestly afraid to put a Yes on 8 bumper sticker on my car this year. I simply can't afford a new paint job. What happened to America? Prop 8 needs to pass. If nothing else to show that we will not be swayed by fear tactics and hatred.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Yeah the intolerance shown by people screaming for tolerance is absolutely ridiculous. We are not being intolerant by not letting gay couples marry - I am not a "homophobe", I don't hate gays or curse them or hope they have unhappy lives - that would be intolerance. (in fact I have some good friends who are homosexual). What they don't understand is that marriage is not a RIGHT. It's not about "rights", because marriage is simply not a right. Dad put this very well in the petition he wrote and emailed to everyone, so I'm sure you've all read it. Furthermore, if you open up marriage to any gender because it's a RIGHT, then that opens it up to any number, species, age, etc. Why can I not marry my dog if I am deeply in love with him if marriage is my RIGHT? Or more than one person, or a 7 year old boy, if, after all, I have a RIGHT to marry whoever I want?
After watching the video that Hyrum posted with the Mormon missionaries I was disgusted by level that the “No on 8” campaign would stoop to. Then I watched the second video highlighting the intolerance demonstrated by some individuals that are against prop 8. This morning as I walked away from the polls after voting yes on 8 I passed a couple of people holding “No on 8” signs. I actually had hard feelings against them as I walked by, partly because of the videos that I had just watched. I don’t know if the person holding the “No on 8” sign could sense my indignation (I didn’t try to give him a mean look or anything), but he quietly and politely said “thanks for voting”. His simple gesture touched me because he didn’t know whether I voted for or against prop 8 he simply acknowledged that I was helping to keep democracy alive by voting. It reminded me that the vast majority of the “no on 8ters” are not intolerant jerks who beat people up and steal signs; they are people just like me and you that may have a different viewpoint. I think it is important to remember that people are basically good and not let a few radical examples make us distrust others that have a different viewpoint than ours.
In response to what Ruth said, there is a huge difference between the idea of marrying someone of the same gender and marrying a dog or a child because in one case you’re talking about two consenting adults and in the other both parties don’t consent. I also think this argument is insensitive to homosexuals. Because of the ramification that marriage has on education and adoption I voted yes on 8 to protect children, not to prohibit gays from marrying.
It's good that you pointed out that many people support no on 8, but wouldn't harm anyone. The thing that scares me is that there are so many that do. This isn't just an isolated incident of some San Francisco radicals.
Myself and many people that I know personally have been assaulted verbally, and their personal property vandalized. Almost every time I drive down the street I see signs that are left standing but torn to shreds, as if to send the message of their indignation for all of us "bigots". And this is in "conservative" San Diego. The persecution is much worse in places like Oakland, where there are demonstrators shouting obscenities at the temple. I'm sure there are prop 8 opponents that think very poorly of these people, but the fact that there is a collective movement of so many really bothers me, and I think is enough of a reason alone to vote yes on 8.
Honestly, I am a gay man and I do NOT care about marrying my significant other. My flack with the whole issues lies in the fact that there are same sex couples who have devoted 30, 40, even 50 years to one another and they one ask the same equality as their heterosexual counterparts. Is that such a base desire to want equal rights? AND as far as these religious zealots and whoever else wants to join their bandwagon, I will say this: I chose to be gay the same day you chose to be straight, plain and simple. "Lifestyle", "choice", "preference" are not the words of which to label another individual's life.
When Americans as a whole will stop evaluating everyone else's lives and begin to evaluate their own, perhaps we can take another step forward to looking more like the "United" States rather than the "dis-United" States. If a same sex marriage or a civil union doesn't involve YOU as a concerned party, then get out of the way and allow others the right to be happy.
And for those who want to drag out their bibles and thump others over the head, how about reading a little further in the book of John 8:7? "So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone." Or how about Matthew 7:1 "Judge not that ye be not judged." Or perhaps a little further in Romans 2:1 "Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things."
Why has such an issue caused such an eruption through the American population? Why can't Americans live and let live?
I'm sorry Ruth, but I find it incredibly offensive when people compare gay marriage to bestiality and pedophelia. This argument is incredibly flawed. One scenario involves two responsible, consenting adults. The other two involve children and animals who would never be capable of consenting. If you want them to be tolerant of you, don't compare their sincere desires for their relationship to be acknowledged as equal, to the sick and perverse desires of pedophiles.
I understand your frustration, and the ad was ridiculous!
Also, there have been cases of violence and hate speech against No on Prop 8 people as well. Last week there was a gay man who was attacked, beaten and choked by a Yes on 8 protestor. I've seen video footage of Yes on 8 protestors yelling things like "God hates fags".
I'm not trying to downplay the ugliness coming from the other side. I just think its important to realize that this is an incredibly heated issue and there has been wrong done on both ends.
I loved Sparrows description of his experience at the polling place. Hopefully now there can be a little bit more peace in all of your lives out there. I personally am grateful I don't live in California and didn't have to deal with all of this intensity.
I'm sure Ruth can clarify, but I didn't read that she was comparing homosexual relationships to bestiality and pedophilia. The point is that marriage is not a right in all cases, which is a very important distinction. For perhaps a more relevant example, polygamy is not legal, marrying a sibling or first cousin is also not legal.
Why?
Well, for the same reason that my free speech rights don't extend to screaming "fire!" in the middle of a crowded theater. As a people, we decide democratically what is allowed and what will harm others directly or indirectly by degradation of society. Marriage in our society is a legal issue. There are a lot of legal ramifications that are built around it, such as adoption, public school curriculum, tax code, religious practices, ect. In the case of siblings getting married, it wouldn't be fair to their children because they would have compromised genetics. For homosexual adoption, it may compromise the child's upbringing.
Polygamy is more interesting though. Polygamy is not legal because it would compromise the definition of marriage, and thereby the societal norms and legal ramifications that are attached. Defining a homosexual relationship as marriage would have similar effects. See this article for good examples:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191
(by the way, this is the same article that Phil included in his comments about our last debate on this issue). See "I don't care how California defines marriage" posted by Sparrow May 2008. We go into a lot of detail in this debate there.
jplbama, thank you for your comments, but if bring the Bible into this debate, you loose. It is true, Jesus did teach that we do not judge one another. I try not to judge you or any other homosexual, but that does not mean that I will allow laws and society to be shaped around your choices. The Mosaic Law, Jesus, and the early Christian churches taught very clearly against homosexuality, and where possible shaped their laws around such premises. The Apostle Paul prophesied in his letter to the Thessalonians against homosexuality practiced extensively in our time and warned: "From such, turn away". (Sorry I don't have a Bible with me, I'll have to get back to you on the exact reference.)
True Ruth did not directly compare homosexual marriage with pedophilia or bestiality, but she did compare them indirectly by implying that one shouldn’t have the right to one if they didn’t have the right to the other. That is what I found offensive.
I like how jplbama put that “I chose to be gay the same day you chose to be straight, plain and simple.”
This is a difficult issue for me and I did not make the decision to vote yes on 8 lightly. What scares me about allowing gays to marry isn’t whether being gay is right or wrong, because I don’t believe that the government should encourage one person’s morality over another. What scares me is that many aspects of the gay rights movement try to FORCE straits to accept homosexuality as normal.
(see http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191)
For example in Michigan homosexuality was taught to young children in schools as being normal, children have not reached an appropriate level of maturity to determine ones sexuality. The same thing applies to children who grow up in a homosexual family due to adoption (see the discussion “I don’t care how Califorinia defines marriage” for an excellent argument regarding this by Phil). I know that there are some homosexual families that are better for children than some heterosexual families but all things being equal a heterosexual family is better for a child because they have the advantage of a mother and a father. Adoption decisions that are made on a child’s behalf should be made with the child’s best interests in mind, not so that the parents can be “more fulfilled”. This is why adoption agencies try to place children with couples of the same race, not to discriminate but because it’s in the best interest of the child. I don’t see why that same argument can’t be continued to say that children should be placed in a home with parents of the same sexual orientation. Since it is much more likely that the child’s orientation is strait (assuming that being gay is never a choice (big assumption)) all children should be placed in heterosexual homes.
Jplbama, I have no problem with your homosexuality, it is your business not mine, but I do have a problem with gay adoption so banning gay marriage for me is a pre-emptive strike.
Not to completely exhaust this subject, but while campaigning for prop 8, I had the opportunity to speak with several homosexuals, and one recurring subject is bothering me.
Many of them claim that homosexuality is not a choice. They say "Why would anyone choose to be homosexual?", and then describe the battle that they went through, finally giving up and conceding that they were gay. My question is, if not a choice, what else could it be, keeping in mind these three facts:
1. Statistically, children from homosexual homes more often turn out to be gay then children raised in heterosexual homes.
2. There are a lot more homosexuals today then there were 10,20,30 or 100 years ago, even taking in to account the ones that were "in hiding" back then.
3. If there was a "homosexual gene", then the process of natural selection would have eliminated that mutation thousands of years ago (It would rarely be passed on).
The only other two options that I can think of is a choice, or a mental disorder brought about by some emotional or physiological factor.
Am I missing something?
That's why I think it is incorrect to label this is a civil rights issue. If it is a disorder, it should be treated as a disorder. If it is a choice, then one reaps the consequences of ones choices, and should accept the fact that others may not want their choices perpetrated further.
I thought I'd throw my 2 cents in here, while we're on the subject:
I agree with the LDS church's official position on homosexuality, which basically doesn't try to answer the question of whether people have homosexual tendencies because of choice, or whether they were born that way, making that particular question irrelevant. Where a "choice" comes in is when a person decides to act on those tendencies, by having sexual relations with a member of the same sex, or, for a straight person, with someone of the opposite sex when they are not their spouse. The church only requires of its members that they avoid the above choices. That applies to everyone, so no distinction is made between those who are homosexual and those who are straight - all are required to follow the same criteria. Those who are homosexual for their entire lives are treated no differently than those who remain single for their entire lives. A difficult road for many, but there alot worse things that some people go through in life. And in the hereafter, if we are faithful, everyone is assured the same promises regardless of their sexual orientation they had in mortality, as long as they remain faithful to their church covenants.
Also, as stated previously and copiously by many in their postings here, the LDS are encouraged to love everyone, but that doesn't mean that we have to agree with all their choices and actions. If someone chooses to have sexual relations outside of marriage, or with a member of the same sex, we have a right to call that an unwise decision, and should not be forced to accept it as something that a member of our church can do and still remain in good standing, unless they change and repent, in which case they will be accepted back with open arms. We don't go around screaming for the general public to repent, like many "bible thumpers" might do, we only require that our members follow certain guidelines and that is an integral part of religious freedom. The LDS church only got involved in this issue because of the potential threat to this very freedom. It saw the legalization of same sex marriage as going down a one way road which would very likely result in a conflict between that religious freedom and the newly defined legal definiton of marriage, with all the baggage that being defined as legal entails.
Wow I didn't check the blog for a few days and I find a some discussion about my comment when I do! First of all, I did not mean to offend anyone, and I apologize to those who misunderstood me and/or that I stated my opinion in an offensive way. All I meant was that it is incorrect to define marriage as a right, and doing so can lead to a broader and broader definition of marriage. I admit I was too extreme in my examples of minors and animals and that there are some holes in those arguments, but the point I was making is that marriage is not a right, and according to the Declaration of Independence, the government does not define rights, God does. For this reason the word "right" can be found no where in the US Constitution, because the gov't does not create rights. (if you would like more detail, ask me for Joseph Andrews short essay on this).
Yes, I'm not sure I've read it. Where is his short essay on this?
To Hyrum's points about homosexuality being a choice:
1. That is interesting because the data I have seen on this states otherwise. There is no statistical difference in whether or not a child will be gay because he/she was raised with homosexual parents. In the studies I've read, the only significant difference between children raised in a gay home or not is that they are more accepting of homosexual lifestyles. But there was no difference in the percentage of them that ended up being gay.
2. I don't think there is any legitimate way that you can make this claim. First of all, the fact that the majority of them were "in hiding" as you put it, is not something that can be dismissed. There seem to be more homosexuals now because we have a more accepting society so more of them choose to come out of the closet. Also, there have been many societies in the past where homosexuality was rampant, such as with the Greeks where it was actually considered a higher love than could be attained with a woman. I think the degree to which we see homosexuals in society is based on the degree of their acceptance. But they are there, probably in the same numbers, either way.
3. I don't know enough about genetics to argue this point.
It is probably clear at this point that I adamantly disagree with you that homosexuality is a choice. I think if you really knew anyone, particularly a faithful member of the church, who is homosexual you would quickly change your mind. I know so many men in the church who struggle with this, who desparately want what the rest of us do. They want to be married, they want to have children. But they cannot force themselves to be attracted to women if they are not. Many of them remain faithful in the church and lead celibate lives, many of them marry women anyway. But I just can't believe for even a second that a believing member of our church would ever choose this! Especially when the things they want in life are exactly the same as the things that you and I desire.
In addition to that, I don't believe for a second that a man can suddenly decide to be attracted to other men. How could they suddenly change the triggers for arousal from breasts etc. to other? It just doesn't make sense, I don't think sexuality works that way.
Anyway, I know my ranting here probably won't convince you, and I know that even within the leadership of the church there are differing opinions on this, so it is probably something we won't have an answer to for a very long time.
Excellent post Rachey. I think you hit it right on the head. It would be very hard to be homosexual, especially in the church. I don't see how it could be a choice. How could someone just decide to be attracted to a certain gender? I have the upmost respect for gay Mormons who remain celibate (talk about will power and a strong testimony). I also can't blame Mormon homosexuals that fall away because I don't think I would have the strength to remain celibate for my entire life if my sexuality was outlawed.
If you take the view that it’s a disorder then it’s a pretty crappy disorder to have because gay people can try to like the opposite sex (as most of them do at some time) but many times they don’t succeed. I don’t think we can blame them because it isn’t a choice that they’re attracted to the same sex.
Since the family is the center of a healthy society I think that heterosexual lifestyle should be preferred by society (which it almost always is) so that bi-sexuals will choose to be hetro but homosexuals shouldn’t be judged harshly or ostracized. I would not want to be in their position.
Here is a link to a REALLY good article I just read on this subject:
http://www.mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/
laura_m_brotherson/?id=4942
It is on the www.mormontimes.com site, and sums up pretty well the LDS view on this whole subject, and agrees pretty well with the conclusions many of us have come to, such as homosexual tendencies being a combination of "nature" and "nurture". I highly recommend reading the article. It is called "Reflections on the Protection of Marriage".
Rachey, thanks for your comments. I actually was and am not convinced that it is a choice, but trying to make the facts add up. Your post actually prompted me to do some more research on the subject, and to comment on or revise my three original points:
1. My original first point was based on a long conversation that I had with a woman that had just married her lesbian partner. She had spent the last many years of her life in a homosexual circle, (attending college with gays, her social network, ect.) She had told me that in her experience, children that grew up in homosexual homes turned out to be gay about 50% of the time (much higher than the average normal home).
Although a very well qualified opinion on the matter, since this was an unscientific anecdotal opinion, I should not have jumped to that conclusion so quickly. Upon further research it seems that the current ethnographic studies don't show proof of a correlation between homosexual homes rearing homosexuals. Some studies have shown that those raised in homosexual or transsexual homes do end up having more confusion about their sexual identity and often "experiment" more than one raised in a heterosexual home. Of those studies that show there is absolutely no difference, many are done by homosexual individuals and are under criticism for bias due to hand picked families, or very small sample size. On the other side of the coin, studies show disadvantages of not having the benefit of a mother and father in the rearing of a child, but evidence is lacking that children raised by homosexuals turn out homosexual.
2. Regarding my second point, I have been thinking that part of the problem in addressing this issue is that there are so many different kinds of people that could all be thrown into the "homosexual" category. For example, on one extreme there are church members with homosexual feelings that choose to stay celibate (probably no choice involved). On the other extreme, there is a girl Tiffany and I knew that was extremely content with her boyfriend and a other males, but decided that she was not experiencing life to it's fullest and ended up dumping her boyfriend and getting a girlfriend (completely by choice). After a lot of drama, the last I knew she had a boyfriend and a girlfriend (neither of them knew about the other), and seemed to be content with both. Between those two extremes there is probably every shade of gray that you can imagine. In High School I knew several people that decided to "experiment" with it. Some turned out homosexual, some turned out gay, and some turned out bisexual.
The article that Phil posted made a good point about alcoholism and depression, which have genetic correlations. Obviously no one would chooses to be a alcoholic or depressed. People usually seek medical or therapeutic support to help overcome depression problems because it is not desirable. Some people choose not to hang out at bars or try alcohol and thereby never get into a situation to become alcoholic.
What about homosexuality?
From what our society tells you, if one has any inkling of a homosexual thought, they might as well throw in the towel and just admit that they are gay. From that perspective it make sense to me that there are so many homosexuals today then there way in years past.
So it seems that it is definitely a mixture of nurture, nature, mixed with environmental and societal factors. But the more society tries to accept it as another racial minority instead of something that should be worked through and dealt with in every way possible, I think it just ends up hurting everyone involved. The heterosexuals and the ones that "could go either way" because of the demoralizing effect on society. The gays because they are no longer empowered with the support and faith to overcome an undesirable condition. There have been many cases where homosexuals have led healthy, normal heterosexual relationships though a lot of therapy and a lot of work.
I agree with your revised points. I am aware that there are some who experiment with sexuality and wouldn't go so far as to say that it isn't a choice for any of them. I do think the majority of them are born with those feelings, but for many there is a combination of factors like those you listed.
It’s good to be back! Great comments Hyrum, as usual you leave me with a lot to think about.
After reading Phil’s post where he mentioned Americablog.com and all the ranting and raving that was going on over there I decided to check it out. I even went so far as to post my ideas (in a polite way) about why I voted yes on 8. Immediately I there were a handful of ad-homonym personal attacks, and a few more rational posts as to why I am wrong. The whole reason why I posted on that blog was not to tell them they were wrong but to try and understand where they were coming from with an exchange of ideas. Much to my surprise when I tried to counter reply my post was quickly deleted. That’s right I am no longer able to post on that blog because I respectfully disagreed with their propaganda. I can’t believe that they would leave my original post up letting everyone punch holes in it and not even give me the opportunity to respond, at least have the decency to delete my original post! Then I created a new user name so I could leave a post letting everyone know that the Americanblog did not let new ideas enter, so they were just regurgitating the same tired crap over and over again. I compared their blog to Iran where freedom of ideas are not welcome. Needless to say my new post was quickly deleted as well. That would be like if we kicked jplbama off this site wrote a bunch of mean things about his post, and then didn’t give him a chance to respond. We don’t do that because this is a blog of ideas, not propaganda!
Anyways, the lesson I learned is that some of these no on 8ers aren’t interested in trying to persuade the majority of Californians the old fashioned way, you know through an exchange of ideas. They just want to bash on yes on 8ers as a bunch of bigots and supress our right to express our point of view. Which is why they steal "Yes on 8" signs from private property. It also scares me because on the blog many of these close minded people talk about “going on the offensive”. A good example of that was what happened to some missionaries in Hillcrest today. A mob of people attacked them and swarmed their locked Corolla for 15 min until cops came and rescued them. I can’t agree now more about what Phil said in his post about how uncivil these people are!
Here's dad's short essay I referred to in my previous comments:
Homosexual Marriage is Not a Right
Despite the financial crisis this nation now faces, the most important issue is the moral issue facing our state of California. The passage of Proposition 8 is essential for the well being of our children for generations to come. The traditional family structure is absolutely imperative for the continuance of our republic. Sadly, opponents to Proposition 8 have masterminded great deceptions to convince the voters of California against it. One of the greatest deceptions has been fostered by our own state political leaders including Debra Bowen (Secretary of State) and Jerry Brown (Attorney General). The official voter information guide published by the Secretary of State of California contains erroneous and incorrect information about Proposition 8. The proposition is falsely titled as: “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.” Homosexual marriage is not a right.
This falsehood about a homosexual marriage right is rooted in a misunderstanding of the origin of rights. Rights come from a divine source, not from government. This is very clear in our national birth certificate, The Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence contains the fundamental doctrines of government upon which the U.S. Constitution was designed. The Declaration states that everyone is endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights including life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. These rights must come from a higher source than human governments; otherwise they would not be unalienable. The text of the Constitution does not even contain the word right; this is because rights were already defined in its source document: The Declaration of Independence. Thus, in reality, what we call Constitutional rights are really the inalienable rights from the Creator defined in the Declaration. The duty of any government is to protect these pre-existing rights, not to invent or manipulate them. In summary, since rights come from the Creator, an alleged right must be traced back to the Creator before it can qualify as a right.
The Declaration of Independence also contains a formula for determining rights. It states that all law and authority come from the Laws of Nature and the Laws of Nature’s God. The laws of nature are all of the laws of the universe discoverable by man; the laws of Nature’s God all of the revealed laws in Holy Scripture. Thus, it is very clear that in order to qualify as a right, it must be demonstrated within the Laws of Nature or Laws of Nature’s God. Homosexual marriage DOES NOT qualify as either a law of nature or a law of Nature’s God; therefore it is not a right. Furthermore, since the Declaration is the blueprint for the Constitution; homosexual marriage is also contrary to the spirit of both the Federal and State Constitutions. Jerry Brown and Debra Bowen, supposedly law professionals, are ignorant of the most elementary principles in our organic founding documents: the origin of rights. Both should be recalled for this gross deception perpetrated upon the voters of California.
Joseph Andrews
The Center for Teaching the Constitution
www.teachconstitution.org
Rachey, I highly doubt we will never know what proportions of homosexuals fall in each category. No researcher would be non-politically correct enough to do an official study (if one could even accurately be done), and of course when prop 8 and other homosexual agendas come up, it is very unlikely that we will hear anything from the group that developed homosexual feelings through actions or choice. For the ones that do, it would be hard enough to admit to themselves that their choices or other life events influenced their sexual tendencies, let alone admit it to other heterosexuals.
Great post, Sparrow, I'm beginning to understand more reasons why the "silent majority" seems to be so silent. In your case, you were involentarily silenced.
Great posts, all. Sparrow, thanks for the informative infomation about your experience with the "americablog" (what a misnomer! - it should be called "tyrannyblog" or "loserblog"). I removed my original post on our blogger site that you referred to, a day or 2 after posting it, thinking that perhaps I was being too negative and critical of the no on 8 crowd, and wanting to be more upbeat, but after reading your post, I wish I'd left mine here. For those of you who didn't see it, I had posted information about the really nasty part of the "no on 8" crowd, who are downright scary in their hatred of religious people in general, and of Mormons in particular. It is reminiscent of classical mob mentality, which is basically what Sparrow ran into when trying to interact at all with this bunch. There is this guy named John Aravosis, who runs the vile americablog site, who has basically called for an all out attack against the Mormons and all who helped pass Prop 8. He makes no attempt to try to moderate his web site for any vile and mean comments about Mormons and other conservatives, in fact he encourages it, and like Sparrow said, conveniently removes those which are contrary to his extremely bigoted views. Sparrow, thanks also for sharing the experience about the missionaries. That's exactly the kind of thing this americablog attitude "inspires". That was also courageous of you to try to post on their site. I'll share that experience with other conservative bloggers if you don't mind - also the story of the missionaries.
Post a Comment