Prop 8, Overturned & Still Discussed. Duh.

I was very excited to see that Prop 8 in California was overturned by the courts this week.

Very happy. Anyone who saw my Twitter feed knows!

And of course with any hot topic the pendulum swings both ways.

A lot of people in this country [unfortunately] were not pleased with this news.

I am not writing this to be argumentative.

Just to share some thoughts and opinions...

And while I rarely keep myself up-to-date with MBP these days...

I was inspired to "reply" to Calvin's Proposition 8 post.

*PLEASE NOTE*

Some of Calvin's post is directed toward the Mormon theology,

but I am only going to stick with the generals.

 I am not Mormon.

I am not versed in the LDS denomination.

I am not planning on 'versing' myself in the foreseeable future.

Please don't ask me to.

A'ight. Let's do this... 

y

"Finally, the State of California is doing the right thing." Actually, no. The people of California voted twice and both times voted against allowing gays to marry. ONE SINGLE JUDGE overturned the ruling. Not the State of California.

Actually until the November 2008 election, did the majority vote to ban same sex unions/gay marriage. Prior to, it was legal in California who was one of the first states to declare it so (if not the first). e.g. Ellen DeGeneres is legally wed to Portia, etc.

"I'm just happy that people born gay will be able to get married."Born gay? So if a person is born with gay tendencies, that makes it ok? Cause there are people born every day with tendencies toward a myriad of sins, but we're taught that the natural man is an enemy to God. We should always be trying to overcome temptation to sin. It's unfortunate that some gay people are attracted to their own gender, but that doesn't mean it's not a sin to engage in that type of behavior.

The original definition of 'sin' is from archery and it meant to miss the center. So as Jesus being the center of the target (or perfect), the rest of us fall around the 'sin' area as imperfect human beings.

Again among my personal beliefs, I do not believe that homosexuality or bisexuality is a sin against God, etc. Sexuality is not a conscious choice, it is a part of human nature. The only conscious choice is to 'come out' with your natural sexuality. 

"As long as it doesn't affect me, let them do what they want." So what happens if gays are allowed to marry? Won't school teachers be forced to include gay relationships as legally accepted forms of marriage in classrooms? During the sex-ed talk in 5th grade, are they going to start including gay butt sex? I mean, it's legal and socially acceptable now, right? They should probably talk about it so our 11-year-old's are completely clear on that kind of stuff.

As far as this is concerned, I responded on the Facebook note:

"What sex education? Due to the strong influence of many different religious denominations, the extent of sex Ed in public schools boils down to: reproductive organs, Abstain!!!! & ps. Here are all the ways Sex can kill you... If a child is lucky they will also be introduced to the idea or even examples of contraceptives.. I personally did not follow any faith in high school and I wish that when I DID make sexual choices with my boyfriend I knew more than 'go buy condoms' which was from his older brother!!! I wish I knew that they could expire ( some how I missed that lesson from Grease ) and other such facts. I feel blessed that He was watching out for me then because today I am 24 and still not ready to be the mother I hope to be someday."

Therefore, as most schools barely explain the act of sex/intercourse between a male and female, I highly doubt gay anal sex or lesbian* stimulation and simulation will be brought up as well.

"Okay... but other than that, it doesn't affect me." For arguments sake, let's pretend that they legalized gay marriage today. Then tomorrow two gay men approach their Mormon bishop and request to get married. The bishop doesn't agree with gay marriage so he refuses to perform the ceremony. Those two gay men can now sue the church for discrimination. A person who has the power to marry two people has been accused of discriminating against a gay couple. You don't think that affects you?

In Colorado, a few local elections back Referendum I was on the ballot to legalize civil unions between both straight and LGBTQ couples and in the referendum it stated that while the state would recognize these unions, it would not require individual religious organisations to recognize the union. 

I voted in favor of this because it reflects my feelings on Church vs and State. I feel that church/denominations should have the right or honor or deny any union.

"Gays being allowed to get married is inevitable. What's the point in trying to stop it?" I actually agree that gay marriage will eventually be legal in the entire country and possibly the entire world. But just because I think it's probably going to happen doesn't mean it's okay for me to sit back and let it happen. It's my responsibility to do everything in my power to stop it.

Sadly it isn't inevitable or else this would have been covered with biracial couples were "allowed" to wed and woman were "given" the right to vote.

Other acts of inequality that I am thankful came to pass by my lifetime.

"I don't know why people are making such a big deal out of this."Maybe it's because some of us are afraid that legalizing gay marriage will open the door to other types of things.

The laws of a society are derived from the common moral thread through-out a society. These moral threads are shaped largely by one's religious background.

"Other types of things" are most-likely not going to suddenly be okay'd. As well as, depending of the "types of things" we are discussing, CONSENT is a more important issue.

"You're not gonna talk about humans trying to marry animals are you?" No. I'm not. I don't think that hypothetical argument is very feasible. I will, however, mention that polygamy or maybe adult siblings wanting to get married is extremely likely to come up as a result of legalizing gay marriage. In both of those examples we have consenting adults wanting to marry each other. Why would we allow two guys to get married, but not a brother and a sister?

That is a valid point but it's juxtaposition is a nightmare.

[side note: isn't that a great word!]

The issue would then be 'sibling marriage' which isn't completely illegal or legalized itself.

It is a separate issue. I don't see a huge election battling it out either way in the national/global public's eye. Could one be a gateway to the other? Maybe.

But in the case of incestuous relationships, the argument has more of a scientific backing.

"Because that's just gross. And they'd have deformed kids." What if they could prove they were unable to reproduce and they only wanted to get married because they loved each other dearly and wanted all the rights that come with marriage?

Science has not progressed to the complete isolation of genes. Currently there is a substantial amount of historical proof that inbreeding lead to serious problems. e.g. The royal families not wanting to 'taint' the royal blood line until the biological line was so polluted that everyone began to rethink that thought process.

 And if it has or will the courts/governments will have to deal with the legality of that first before it is applied to children conceived from incestuous relations. And unfortunately the other debate will be over a sexuality 'cure.' [which is bullshit in itself. I am saying that now.] Gays and families would have to wait that one out for this point to even matter.

[Random religious ps. that has always bothered me a bit--

How the hell did Adam and Eve populate this huge planet?

-- but not enough for me to look it up myself]

"Now you're just being stupid." I have a feeling that 2o years from now when the world is comparable to Sodom and Gomorrah, we're gonna look back at gay marriage and think, 'That's where it all started'.

The only thing I know about Sodom and Gomorrah is from Jack Black's movie, Year One. Hence me sitting this one out.

Except 20 years? Really? I'd love it if my possible future gay/les/trans child could marry whom ever. Sadly, this is where Calvin has more faith in the system than I do accidentally.

But I would love to be pleasantly surprised.

"But forcing gay people to live the same morals as we do sounds a lot like Satan's plan. Didn't he try to force everyone to obey the commandments? We can't take away their agency." So... why do we have any laws then? If murdering someone is against the law, then we're taking away their freedom to do what they want, right? Of course not. People still have the agency to do what they want... it's just that we impose certain consequences on those actions. Not allowing gay people to get married isn't taking away anyone's agency.

Huh? I don't know if I even get the bold section as far as intent and terminology. Agency?
So taking from Calvin's response: I reiterate that the laws of a society are derived from the common moral thread through-out a society, etc.

"Yes it is. It's taking away their right to marry a member of the same sex." Well, I don't have that right, either. A gay man can't marry another man... and neither can I. So really, what gay people are requesting are additional rights. They want a right that I don't have.

Does this mean "additional rights" in the same way women and voting occurred? Just sayin.

Heterosexual men and woman have the right to marry their heterosexual counterparts. So unless you consider bisexuality as hetero (which I don't), the issue isn't a heterosexual wanting the right to marry a homosexual...

It is the right to have the state honor the union and hopefully letting each church sect choice what and how these unions are honored.

For example: Catholic gays/les/etcs:
if the Pope say's no, either leave and find true happiness or suck it up and deal.

Your call, not the governments.

"But us Mormons believe that unless it's a temple marriage, it's not a 'real' marriage anyway (as in, not for time and all eternity). So what's the difference between a marriage outside the temple vs a gay marriage?" A man and woman marrying outside the temple still have the option available to them in this life or the next, to accept the Gospel and spend eternity together. Two men will never have that same opportunity. Ever. Two men will never be able to be sealed for time and eternity. Ever. No matter what.

I'm hands off. This one is all Mormon.

[side note: the last half makes me want to cry.]

"How can you say that? At one point in Mormon history, God didn't allow blacks to hold the Priesthood. I'm sure back then, some ignorant Mormon said the same thing about blacks never ever ever being allowed to have the Priesthood. And today... they have it." Are you honestly trying to tell me that at some point in the future, God is going to allow two gay men to co-habitate in the Celestial Kingdom and create worlds together? I'm assuming you think they'll just be allowed to spiritually adopt spirit children from the heterosexual couples chillin' with them in the CK.

Again, this one is all Mormon.

[side note: I believe that God allows it now where I am planning to go so... yeah.

ps. I am not planning on going to Hell. Although I have always looked great with a tan. Jokes.]

"I think that gay couples deserve to be happy. If they want to adopt and raise children, I think they should be able to." You think they should be able to raise a child in a homosexual environment as long as it makes them happy? Does the welfare of the child come into play at all in your mind or are you only concerned about what make gay couples happy?

Yes. And yes. But the welfare of the child has nothing to do with a couple's sexuality. It has everything to do with parenting. I have a hard time thinking that I am going to educate my children on sexuality and reproduction by letting them come into the bedroom and witness me going at it with my future spouse... Just saying.

"What do you mean 'welfare of the child'? There are thousands of heterosexual couples who are horrible, abusive, neglectful parents. If gay couples provide loving environments for children, that's all that matters." You can't compare the best possible gay marriage to the worst possible hetero marriage. That's not fair. Let's look at it this way: If you had a child you were putting up for adoption and you had it narrowed down to two couples, one straight and one gay, which would you choose?

Again, juxtaposition! Horrid hetero-parents cannot be compared to amazing homo-parents just as horrid homo-parents cannot be compared to amazing hetero-parents. The allegations and praises go both ways.

I wouldn't choose it based on a gay vs straight. How about not the druggies. Not the ones who think jumping out of an airplane parachute-less is a good weekend activity. Or not the ones with one parent convicted or even rumored about child molestation, which of reported cases is statistically heterosexual adult males. Followed by heterosexual adult females. Again reported. Which again, goes both ways.

"That depends on a whole lot of other things." Let's pretend you could see into the future and you knew that both couples would provide an equally loving home for 50 years. I'm asking you straight out which couple you would choose to care for your child.

I like the way bold (Devil's advocate Calvin?) thinks. But saying both couples could provide an equally loving home fore 50 years? I wouldn't care. Or if you put a gun to my head, the gays. Because then I'd know that no matter the sexuality of my child, I know they will not be persecuted in their own home. Right? Ha or is it again both equally loving families.

"Fine. Fine. I'd choose the straight couple." Did you choose the straight couple because you don't want your kid to get made fun of at school or do you honestly believe that the best environment for raising a well-rounded child is in a home with a father and a mother?

#facepalm.

But I know that if my child is ever caught making fun of another child, their ass is grass! Or at least grounded. And "well-rounded, one mother, one father" homes barely exist, regardless of sexuality! GAH! This is the age of diversity.

Besides, it takes a village to raise a child and I pray for those (single or otherwise) parents out there who lack the support system... Two people just can't do it alone anymore.

Please stay-at-home parents out there, how the heck can you afford it?!?!?!

"All I know is that I think the Mormon church leaders were wrong when they didn't let blacks have the Priesthood and I think they're also wrong about this." So what your saying is that you're planning on disagreeing with the Proclamation to the Family and our First Presidency including the Prophet of God because you think at some point down the road, they're all gonna change their minds. If they changed their minds once (ie blacks and the priesthood) then they might do it again... so you're gonna go in the complete opposite direction of the Mormon Church and it's counsel.

Huh, wha? Yep. More Mormon-ese.

"The Church isn't allowed to tell me how to vote. I'm super pissed that the Church has chosen to become so involved in this obviously political issue." Sure. Gay marriage is a political issue. And I recognize that churches aren't allowed to tell it's members how to vote or else they'll lose their tax exempt status. But the Church isn't doing that... no matter how bad you want to blame the Church for disagreeing with you... they aren't doing anything they're not supposed to do. They are simply expressing their opinion and reiterating their (our) beliefs. Don't you remember how often we are counseled by our church leader to "vote with your conscience"? Just because a church says, "Marriage between a man and woman is the bedrock of society." doesn't mean they are telling their members how to vote. Get over it! If you feel guilty about voting against the church, that's your problem. Quite blaming the church for reminding you about your own beliefs. Stand up for yourself. Own up to it. Admit that you think our church leaders are old-fashioned hypocrites who need to get with the times and start being more accepting of the sins of others.

Once again, this one is not my denomination.

But reading it, sure I think that both the LDS leaders and the Catholic leaders and the leaders of other zealot secs are old-fashioned in some areas, out of line in some areas and simply irrelevant in others.

I am happy in my beliefs.

If you want to discuss my personal faith with me, let me know in the comments or by email.

Otherwise my official stance on MARRIAGE:

The legal rights that heterosexual couples share are currently being denied to many homosexual couples, both nationally and globally.

I, personally, deserve the right, as a U.S. citizen to be legally married to the one person I fall in love with and then love to the extent that I want to have a 'happily ever after' with.

Past that, where we celebrate our union should be dependent on us, our shared faith, the officiant and possibly our families.

*footnote:

Lesbians were never brought up in Calvin's post

 unless he generalized with 'gay' and 

that is only if he even thought about it that way.

[To see my original posts about the Trial click here and here. Ta!]

*Chipotle Counter [33]*