Thursday, August 21, 2008

Opposing Gay Marriage Take 2



This sweet face says it all:) I had no idea I would have such heated comments on my blog! To be honest it's kind of exciting, now. To my new best friend Tom... thanks for the comments (no sarcasm). I almost feel like un-deleting the first one.

I am thankful because the Lord knew, as he heard me say a few times, "oh gosh the gay marriage is going to pass anyway. I don't feel like fighting a losing battle. I like to be on the winning team, but I'm not FOR gay marriage. I'll just sit this one out!"

Then I read my cousin's blog, thanks Krista, and thought I could easily copy and paste the article and that would be my contribution... and along came Tom:) Sweet Tom thanks for pushing me up on my feet. I love my friends that are homosexual, but don't think they should marry. That's all I have to say about that. Here's what Church leaders have to say and I agree.

Dallin Oaks:
"Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination."

Church article (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in case there was any question):
"When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children. Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide. Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment. By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring."

For the full article see click right here!

19 comments:

Tom said...

Wow - I'm glad I've had an impact!

Now, a few things.

First, you'll want to change the title of this post to "Opposing Gay Marriage Take 2," not Apposing. (You hit my blog, so you know I'm a writer, and attuned to these sorts of things.)

"But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices."

Of course you don't have to abandon your standards. And tolerance shouldn't affect your opinion of public policy choices -- but LOGIC should.

"Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide. Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment. By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring."

This is such a big one. Let's take the bits one at a time.

"Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act"

I agree 100%. So does my (soon to be) husband.

"legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life,"

It's also legally protected because the stability it provides -- even when it's just the two adults in the marriage -- delivers benefits to society. When I marry my husband, I will be legally bound to assume any debts he takes on during the marriage. This is going to motivate me to keep an eye on him and make sure he makes wise decisions. Same thing for any married couple -- when you are watching out for each other, it's less likely the state will have to step in and take care of you.

"Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment."

Again, it's not about self-fulfillment, it's about mutual support and caring.

"By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring."

So are many heterosexual marriages. One of both of the partners can be infertile -- for any number of reasons. Yet we do not deny marriage to post-menopausal women, or women who have had a hysterectomy, or men who have lost their testes due to testicular cancer.

On top of that, some gay couples (us included) are raising children. Don't our children deserve the benefits that come from civil marriage? If my husband died, wouldn't my daughter benefit from the extra income that we would get from Social Security? The children of heterosexual couples get that, why not us?

I wish you and your family only the best.

I will close our conversation with a true story that gives you some of the impact of marriage inequality on real people's lives:

I had an uncle-in-law who was a gay man. A descendant of handcart pioneers, he lived with his partner for more than 35 years. They were a loving, committed couple. They worked hard, they paid taxes, they did lots of volunteer work. They treated their nieces and nephews very well and were “favorite uncles.” He even used to play the organ at the Tabernacle in Salt Lake. (When he was a young man.)

He and his partner also did all they could legally to formalize their relationship, but of course they could not marry.

When my uncle-in-law died of lung cancer, his surviving partner did not receive Social Security survivor benefits — as they would have if they had been married.

In addition, the surviving partner had to pay a hefty inheritance tax on the 50% share of their house my uncle-in-law had bequeathed to him. Legally married spouses are exempt from this tax.

Finally, the property tax basis on the house rose dramatically — again, something that wouldn’t have happened if they had been able to marry.

These three things combined made it impossible for his surviving partner to be able to afford to stay in the home they had shared for more than three decades.

Does this seem fair, or equitable to you?

Please maintain your standards of religious marriage, but for civil marriage, which -- though it may upset you -- is simply a civil contract, vote for equality. A "no" vote on 8 is the right thing to do.

The Gage Cage said...

AWESOME quotes Liz! I have another article on my blog that perfectly describes the current situation.

Pollock Family said...

I felt funny about "Apposing", but was in a hurry to get my post out between juice and snack requests. Bummer.

Some of the points you brought up were addressed in the article. The one standing out to me was:

"The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference."

Love the "uncles", stinks how it turned out! I read a story in the Ensign a few years ago about a gay man in the church. He explained a little of the struggles he had being a member of the church, yet totally NOT being attracted to women. Nothing like attending church and having busy bodies (myself included) say, "I know this cute girl I'd like to set you up with."

Point is I don't know what it's like to live in such a world. I don't know the challenges gay couples face and I don't know why the Lord created same sex... tendencies if you will. But I know he doesn't approve marriage except between a man and a woman. Is that standing or still sitting the fence? I've recently come to the realization I might have been a fence sitter in the war in heaven! I NEVER thought I was... hmmm. Time will tell.

The Gage Cage said...

Seriously read the new article on the War of Words. It is dead on. I hope it isn't received with a contentious spirit because it isn't intend that way. It is however a warning to us in these latter days not to be deceived by cunning arguments.

You weren't a fence sitter BTW.
D & C 158

53 The Prophet Joseph Smith, and my father, Hyrum Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and OTHER choice spirits who were RESERVED to come forth in the fulness of times (THAT'S US) to take part in laying the foundations of the great latter-day work,
54 Including the building of the temples and the performance of ordinances therein for the redemption of the dead, were also in the spirit world.
55 I observed that they were also among the NOBLE and GREAT ones who were CHOSEN in the beginning to be rulers in the Church of God.
56 Even before they were born, they, with many others, received their first lessons in the world of spirits and were prepared to come forth in the due time of the Lord to LABOR in his vineyard for the salvation of the souls of men.
57 I beheld that the faithful elders of this dispensation, when they depart from mortal life, continue their labors in the preaching of the gospel of repentance and redemption, through the sacrifice of the Only Begotten Son of God, among those who are in darkness and under the bondage of sin in the great world of the spirits of the dead.
58 The dead who repent will be redeemed, through obedience to the ordinances of the house of God,
59 And after they have paid the penalty of their transgressions, and are washed clean, shall receive a reward according to their works, for they are heirs of salvation.
60 Thus was the vision of the redemption of the dead revealed to me, and I bear record, and I know that this record is true, through the blessing of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, even so. Amen.

Anonymous said...

Liz,

I'd recommend against entertaining tom and his endless banter(seriously Chatty Kathy). The endless lies of this won't harm you, and respect my beliefs. Satan has always had his ways of calling good evil and evil good. The scriptures clearly state what Heavenly Father believes by destroying Sodom and Gomorrah. The most wicked places usually start with a call for fairness for all, then Kill those they disagree with in the name of equality then plunge their people into suffering and squalor. Cuba, China, and Cambodia to name a few. What a wonderful cultural revolution they had. Today they are demanding we accept them for who they are, after that then what? How about ban religion because they tell them they are sinning. In the world there are winners and losers. Those who won't return to Heavenly Father and those who will. Would a loving Heavenly Father keep people out of Heaven? Actually no, but plenty of people have made choices that will keep them from returning. Is it OK to discriminate? Well yes actually. would you leave your child with a hobo or one that would do them harm? Making choices is what it comes down to and the question is should we worry about what man may say or what Heavenly Father would say?

Cousin Paul

Ben said...

Maybe it's my turn to chime in. I'm sure there will be more to come.

"One of both of the partners can be infertile -- for any number of reasons. "

Not to be sarcastic or rude, but I think you are looking for the word "or" there Mr. Writer. I have those pet peeves too. I'm sure I will have some of the same flaws as well.

Well, my opinion is probably obvious to most everyone that will read this blog. I am 100% opposed same-sex marriage. "Hmm surprise surprise" is probably going through your head right now. Well, try not to sound too boastful in your thinking. That's not very "tolerant" now is it?

My opinion is this: Marriage is not a political issue. The idea of changing the definition of marriage is a moral issue. What's the difference? The difference is: I don't care about for whom or what you vote, I don't care about your stance on taxes or even off-shore drilling. What I care is the moral implications same-sex marriage may have. Do we really understand the importance of marriage?

Now obviously, this will inevitably turn to a religious tune. Well why shouldn't it? We want to be open minded don't we? Let's not tune out others' strongly held beliefs. (I find it interesting that those who have very little respect for religion or Christianity are commonly people who cry out intolerance) Why should this decision NOT be religious at its roots?

To respond to Mr. Tom, I truly am sorry if you feel that the "bigwigs" in the LDS church feel as though they have a monopoly on the will of God. I'm sorry if you feel that we are now neglecting the poor and needy. I truly am. If this is the case, you may not have grasped the true purpose of the church of Jesus Christ. Christ Himself did take a moral stance or two in His life, if I am not mistaken.

The truth of it is, IF (and for those who have sincerely prayed and ponder these points, this is not a question of if) these "bigwigs" are truly who they claim to be, they have a great responsibility to do exactly what they are doing, that is, expressing and declaring the will of the Lord.

That is where it all lays. Are these men truly apostles and prophets? I would suggest honestly praying, without preconditions and without having already conjured up your response, to know the truth of such a declaration.

To say that we are hiding behind our religion is quite the compliment. I hope that is exactly what I will be found doing all of my life. I know these men to be inspired. No, I was not manipulated into thinking this or even brainwashed. If you wish to make that claim, please check your pride, ignorance, and arrogance at the door. You don't know my life, any more than I know yours. What I do know, I know. This is a very important moral issue, and the Lord has already made His views more than clear.

Logic? Logic leaves no room for emotion, and that, my friend, is the difference between us and the animal kingdom. Logic is good, but it is not your savior.


(this is not an attack post and not meant to be extremely sarcastic, even if that is the way it may come across. if you feel personally attacked in any way, I apologize. Unfortunately, as attacking or offending was not my intent, offense is a personal issue.)

Tom said...

"Not to be sarcastic or rude, but I think you are looking for the word "or" there Mr. Writer."

Typo, dude.

"The idea of changing the definition of marriage is a moral issue."

Not when we're talking about the definition of CIVIL marriage.

Ben said...

"Not to be sarcastic or rude, but I think you are looking for the word "or" there Mr. Writer."

Typo, dude.

I'm just saying. We obviously both share that same pet peeves.


"The idea of changing the definition of marriage is a moral issue."

Not when we're talking about the definition of CIVIL marriage.

You know, I honestly don't see the difference between civil and non-civil MARRIAGE. Sorry.

Tom said...

"You know, I honestly don't see the difference between civil and non-civil MARRIAGE. Sorry."

Then you see no difference between temple marriage and one that takes place in a Vegas strip mall overseen by an Elvis impersonator?

Anonymous said...

There were no fence sitters... there were those that followed Lucifer and those that followed Christ.... There were a 1/3 and 2/3 there were no other group of fence sitters.

Ben said...

"Then you see no difference between temple marriage and one that takes place in a Vegas strip mall overseen by an Elvis impersonator?"

Let's give another extreme example, shall we?

Temple - Vegas
I (a normal citizen) gives you a moving violation because you were speeding down the freeway. A legitimate reason to write a ticket? Yes. Valid beyond my notepad? No.

My brother-in-law (an officer with the California Highway Patrol) gives you a moving violation for speeding down the freeway. A legitimate reason to write a ticket? Yes. Valid beyond the notepad? Yes.

Difference: Authority.


Traditional Marriage - Same-Sex Marriage

I (a normal citizen) gives you a moving violation because you were washing your car on the lawn. A legitimate reason to write a ticket? No. It still involves a car, but nothing to do with breaking the law.

My brother-in-law (an officer with the California Highway Patrol) gives you a moving violation for washing your car on the lawn.. A legitimate reason to write a ticket? No. It still involves a car, but nothing to do with breaking the law.

We see, from the second example, the law has stepped beyond its bounds.

Overly simplified example? Maybe.

The point is (at least from the LDS point of view) that marriage is more than just a civil act or even benefit, it is essential to the Plan of Salvation. Said plan would include where we came from, who we are, why we are here, and where we are headed after this life. Marriage plays a much larger role, and has a far greater purpose. To refrain from "preaching", I will end with that. It's far more to me than giving tax breaks, benefits, privileges, and the such. It's not just about this life on earth.

Tom said...

Ben -

I'm just not sure what you're trying to say here.

In both my examples (Temple marriage and Vegas/Elvis marriage), BOTH are legally binding. One is both civil and spiritual, the other is simply civil.

"marriage is more than just a civil act or even benefit, it is essential to the Plan of Salvation."

Which is fine for those of you who believe in said plan, but it makes no difference to we heathens.

If a civil marriage has no effect on salvation, why are you concerned about what happens to it?

Pollock Family said...

Opps Tom! (yes I have been reading the comments back and forth and thoroughly enjoying them I might add) I don't think he said civil marriage has no effect on salvation, but said marriage is MORE than just a civil act. I believe you would agree there. If not you would have no need to be married yourself. Though the goals are in a different direction, I see both of you are strongly convinced marriage is VERY important and more than a "civil" act.

But I just want to know, what makes the gay activist so intense on changing the meaning of marriage now?!

Tom said...

"I don't think he said civil marriage has no effect on salvation, but said marriage is MORE than just a civil act."

How could civil marriage have ANY effect on salvation?

"But I just want to know, what makes the gay activist so intense on changing the meaning of marriage now?!"

Actually, the meaning of marriage changed on May 15th. I'm hoping to keep it from changing again.

And I don't think it's just activists who are intense. I think lots of gay people are deeply involved in this fight, and for pretty obvious reasons. For the first time, civil marriage is available to us and we want to hang on to it. There are important rights associated with it -- important enough that we are willing to take on the associated responsibilities.

Ben said...

"How could civil marriage have ANY effect on salvation?"

It has more effect than I think you are willing to understand. I guess that realization comes after you understand the other basic elements. Really, I don't think you are interested in finding out because you are curious, my bet is that you are just looking for another talking point - one I am not willing to give.

Tom said...

"It has more effect than I think you are willing to understand."

Really. Try me.

I honestly have no idea how a civil contract of marriage could have an effect on one's salvation. (If that's the sort of thing you believe in.) From your point of view, I can understand the importance of temple marriage, keeping commandments, etc. But being party to a civil contract? Blogger, please.

Ben said...

"Blogger, please."

wow.

". . .my bet is that you are just looking for another talking point - one I am not willing to give."

Tom said...

So you still refuse to engage. That's cool. Just says a lot about the validity of your position and your confidence in it.

Ben said...

"So you still refuse to engage. That's cool. Just says a lot about the validity of your position and your confidence in it."

So I don't feel like fueling the flame of someone who is "interested" for the wrong reason. That's too bad.

So you still like to take cheap shots and assume you know everything. That's cool. Just says a lot about the validity of your position and your character.

I am amazed that, because I refuse to "engage" in your game, having already voiced my opinion, I must be ashamed of my stance, or, my views are inherently wrong. And I thought I was the one that made irrelevant connections.

Some of us are not here just to argue. And yes, I said argue. Trying to disguise it as some kind of innocent intellectual quest for further understanding is pretty cheap.

Thanks for that.