I've changed the names of the friends he was talking with:
- Brett Partridge Just throwing this out there. . . equality cuts both ways. I believe that children have an equal right (one far too often denied them) to be parented by a loving mother and father. I believe in equality, but I also believe that some things are earned and not inherent rights. I am okay with taxes, properties, and other civil ownerships being equal regardless of sexual preference. Bearing children is set up by God, nature, big bang whatever you want to call it as a process done by 1 man and 1 woman, period. I don't believe that those working outside that framework should have the right to such a sacred blessing. It isn't fair to the children, it sounds harsh but it's truth.
- Stevie: So Brett you are saying that you are against cloning and that's about it. If the chief complaint is about having one mother and one father (biologically) how is that any different than if gays are allowed to be married or adopt or anything else? The child will still have one mother and one father, only in this case there will be one mother and one step mother, or one father and one step father.
Or am I wrong in the scene that you are against adoption, or single parent homes. Or homes that have no parents? I just do not understand your argument. You either support the idea of two people the same sex raising a child or you do not. If you do not then should we remove children from homes and put them with a different family or should we force one person out of the household? Is a single parent OK or should we force a single parent to get married?
I think you need to work out your argument a bit more, or just admit that you find homosexuals ikky. If it is against your God, then you are not in favor of freedom of religion, if you want only one of each sex to raise a child then you are against single parents and widows. I don't mean to be rash but what are you really trying to say? - Brett Partridge Wow. . . "Stevie" there are so many holes in what you just said let me try to be clear and concise. I am 100% pro freedom to choose how one wants to live their life. I am also 100% pro consequences for certain choices. Do I find homosexuals ikky? Absolutely not, I have friends that deal with same gender attraction. Do I find acting on the feeling of same gender attraction wrong, absolutely without question. Let's be clear though about the distinction between objecting to a person and objecting to a person's actions. I find smoking "ikky" but I have not ill feelings whatsoever who chose to use their agency to smoke. We seem to buy into this notion that because it's "love" it doesn't hurt anyone, it does, it hurts the individuals, their families, their community. They are not bad people, nor am I for my vices which I have not overcome and indulge in.
- Brett Partridge Whoops, premature send.
My heart goes out to the many many single parents in this country and world who struggle and give everything they have to provide a good home, and love and harmony to their children. But that situation is fundamentally different than a gay couple adopting a child. Should a single person be able to adopt, no. Should a gay couple be able to adopt, no. Should we take away children from single parents, no, that's absurd and not even relavent to the discussion.
I am completely in favor of freedom of religion. My very religion was almost wiped out in it's early days in this great country because of those not tolerant of differing beliefs. That does not however mean that I sit idly by while the truths I hold sacred and believe in go trampled about. So please explain how standing up for my believes is somehow contradictory to believing in freedom of religion. - Stevie: The explanation for how standing up for what you believe in is contradictory to believing in freedom of religion is quite simple. The edicts and "truths" that you get from your religion you are trying to impose on to someone else, thus denying them freedom of religion (specifically freedom from yours). Now do not get me wrong I am not saying that you can't say that homosexuality is wrong and filthy or ikky or anything else, that comes with the freedom of speech. What I am saying though is that if you think that it should be illegal with no argument aside from "my beliefs say it's wrong" then you are imposing your beliefs onto someone else and denying them that freedom. Now if you are in favor of legal same sex marriage but you just think that it is wrong, then I am very mistaken and you are right, so correct me if that is the case.
As for the "ikky" comment, I should rephrase, what homosexuals do is ikky (or for you wrong). I did not mean to suggest that you have a problem with a person, only what they choose to do.
What you did say speaks very loudly to me. You think that a single person should not be able to adopt, nor should a gay person. You are saying that if a child cannot have both a loving mother and father then they should have neither. I think that you are letting the perfect (in your mind) be the enemy of the good. There are many unadopted children out there and you would deny them a loving family (all be it different than how you choose to define family) because it is not what you want. I find this immoral and wrong. Yes, it may not be perfect but a child who is adopted by a single parent will still get love and a home, the same goes for two parents (gay in this case). When there are a shortage of children to be adopted then we can quibble about if a single parent home is worse than a dual parent home or even a male/female parent home, but until then why not let unadopted children be adopted by loving families? - Gary: I'm certainly with "Stevie" on this one (I know, surprise, surprise). The last paragraph of his last post sums up my feelings around adoption. But, I also reject the idea that a family with two parents of the opposite gender is in any way, shape or form inherently superior or preferable to a same-sex couple or single parent. Also, I reject the idea that somehow children have some kind of inherent right to be adopted by two opposite sex parents. The logic behind that “right,” while it may firmly held beliefs, is bigotry by definition. It is the idea that because of someone's sexual orientation, they are somehow less than someone else.
The truth behind that position can't be evaded by this line of reasoning around choosing actions - that “it's ok to be gay, and being gay itself isn’t a choice, but you choose to act on it, and it’s those actions that are bad.” If getting married, falling in love, having sex, starting a family are all natural, expected and encouraged results of being heterosexual, it’s counterintuitive to say none of that is ok if you’re homosexual, but it’s not the sexual orientation itself that’s the problem, it’s only the actions. The only difference is the sexual orientation, so the core of what that says is being gay is wrong/bad, which again, is bigotry – it’s judging someone because of an inherent trait – when it’s used as a basis to deny someone a civil right afforded to someone else (marriage, adoption, etc.).
It's a difficult position to discuss, and I appreciate your willingness to do it. And I say that with respect and knowing that you truly mean well and don't think anything you said was with malice. And I think that's what makes this debate so mind boggling for those of us who would agree with that I said.. We see things like what you wrote, again I’m sure you didn’t mean it with malice, and react with horror. For example, you said "friends who struggle with same sex attraction." In my opinion, the only reason people "struggle" is because of the environment of bigoted moral judgment that is thrust upon them, which makes them feel like bad people because of who they are. That in and of itself is wrong. Again, I truly understand you and others mean well and are coming from a construct of right and wrong that you believe in and believe is good almost by definition, but the idea that we as a society should use government to prevent gay couples in loving, consensual relationships from having the same rights granted by government to opposite sex couples can’t be anything but discrimination. It’s inequality under the law at its most basic level. - Brett Partridge It definitely is a difficult topic, I don't take any offense to you calling me a bigot, but I think you should look up the definition. I have not acted with hatred or malice in word or deed to anyone based on their gender, race, sexual orientation or any other manner of segmentation we place on ourselves in society. One problem I have is this, it's hailed as a great a noble thing to post a red equals sign on a facebook status but as soon as someone has a differing opinion they are a bigot, therein lies some inequality in this debate. But all that aside, let me hopefully give some perspective that will help you understand my point of view a little more clearly (though I have no intention to debate or try to convince in a simple facebook thread). My only purpose is to shed a little more understanding so that you don't misunderstand my meaning or feelings on the matter.
- Brett Partridge RELIGIOUS FREEDOM:
Freedom of religion is the unfettered right to believe as one wishes, to worship as he chooses, to preach that religion in a peaceable way. There are many things we hold as a society to be right and wrong which fall in line with my personal beliefs. Let's take murder, we all can agree that murder is wrong. Well that's a normally accepted thing and so making a law to prevent it is okay, why is no one crying out that it's a religious belief? Why is no one crying out that we are restricting someone's freedom of religion with such laws because they believe that human sacrifice is a good and honorable thing? I'm using hyperbole on purpose here. So, to answer your question, it's not solely because my church teaches that homosexuality is a sinful practice. The real question is why do we teach that it's wrong? I am opposed to gay marriage not because I want everyone to fit a cookie cutter model, but rather because we have separate and very distinct by nature parts to play in the evolution of mankind. One of the basic most fundamental factors in survival (let alone thriving) is reproduction. The notion that it's acceptable for two men or two women to be married flies in the face of nature itself. It degrades our ability to function as true family units (you can argue till the cows come home that it's "my definition" of a family, but it's not mine, it's science's). We decay morally and walk down a path as a society where what once was very clear and right and wrong is now very gray and confusing. Some label this as progressive, I view it as very regressive and destructive and dangerous for our communities, our country. Now let me be clear, I'm not saying that people who are gay are dangerous or shameful or anything hateful like that, I'm saying that a societal acceptance of an unnatural practice is dangerous for that society. - Brett Partridge SAME GENDER ATTRACTION:
This is where some perspective is needed. I believe that murder is essentially the greatest sin we can commit in this life. It may surprise you but 2nd to that (and I mean this in all seriousness) is sexual sin. Adultery, fornication, homosexuality, they are all grevious sins in my mind. So let's be a little fair here and understand that to me the act of homosexual activity and adultery are on the same level. Why is this significant? Because sexual addiction is a very real and destructive affliction, it destroys lives, marriages, and families. I used the example of smoking before, to me this is also an affliction that people have. We all have afflictions, some are being too stubborn, too prideful, too wealthy, too poor. . . they are all afflictions and we have to learn to overcome them regardless of religion to be truly happy in this life. Same gender attraction is one of these afflictions, I can't say whether it's a choice, a preference, something someone was born with, or just what . . . I simply don't know. But having afflictions or temptations is not in and of themselves wrong. I don't know all your feelings or background with regard to the Savior, but even Jesus Christ was tempted multiple times in his life. It would be hypocritical to claim that He was the only perfect Man to live if I believed that temptations or afflictions made us bad people or less than anyone else. It is in the actions that we cross that line into sinful behavior. So it is not counter-intuitive to say that what is right under one set of conditions is okay and that it's wrong under a different set of conditions. Driving 75 mph is just fine in a 75+mph zone, but doing it in a residential neighborhood is reckless and criminal (I believe that one is actually a felony in some places). What I'm saying, and this will be hard to swallow, is that those who are attracted to their same gender (be it their choice or not) should not act on it, but should know that many of us are here standing ready to love and accept them and help them to learn to cope with it and yet live according to nature's heterosexual way. So call me a bigot if you like, but I would be the first one in line to reach out a hand and help someone struggling with these emotions and feelings. I would never intentionally make some feel like they are a bad person, I wouldn't make the adulterer feel like he's bad, nor the alcoholic, nor the smoker, nor even the murderer. I would (and very literally do in many case) reach out to them and do all I can to help them in whatever way I know how. I don't expect this to change your mind, but hopefully you will understand a little better that your right it is a moral judgment, but we make those judgments all the time in every action we take. It's only viewed a bigoted because it differs from your moral judgment. But let me assure you that I make mine out of just as much love and affection as you do. - Brett Partridge ADOPTION:
We'll have to agree to disagree here, I believe that it is a human right to be reared by a loving father and mother. If this were not the way nature intended, then we would be able to reproduce asexually. So please let's at least acknowledge the fact that the ideal setting for a child is in the care of a loving set of parents who worked together to create that life. Now, that's the ideal, that's not the reality in many cases. This is a right all too often denied the child through a parent's death, divorce, a father's greed, a mother's selfishness, and so on. I respect and honor those who stick to their responsibility as parent regardless of what curveballs life throws them. But with regards to adoption, should we not seek first and foremost for the ideal? A home with a single parent or homosexual parents cannot provide the kind of stability that an already traumatized orphan needs desperately. The claim that the choice is between gay parents or no parents is unfair and based on false assumptions. We don't have a surplus of children waiting to be adopted with a shortage of good parents, it's not that simple. We have a surplus on both sides of that equation. Our society's process for this is expensive and broken. But let's be clear there are many many married couples who want nothing more than to have children and would love the chance to adopt. Are there more kids than homes to be placed in, probably. . . but let's clean up the system first and shoot for the ideal. Let's give these kids the best chance they have the way nature set it up to be. Then when we've exhausted all our efforts to that end, let's discuss other options. Until every hetero married couple that qualifies and truly wants the responsibility of parenthood has been given that chance I cannot in good conscience support anything less than nature's definition of a family. - Brett Partridge I appreciate you both. I've had many conversations on this topic with a lesbian friend of mine (who by the way was raised LDS). I love and appreciate her, I have no ill will or hard feelings toward her. I do not accept her lifestyle choices as right, but that to me is irrelevant as I can love the person and treat them with dignity and respect but dislike and even loathe the actions they take. To me this is not a fight for tax rights or equal societal status, it is a fight about what is right and wrong as clearly as a discussion on murder would be. To me this is not about my religion versus other's "progressive" ideas. It is about fighting for our society to not walk down a path that is destructive because we beginning calling right wrong and wrong right.
- Gary: I am not using the word bigot to imply hate, I don't think you hate anyone. I'm using it as a word for intolerance, which does seem consistent with the definition. I can just use intolerance instead, but it doesn't convey the same passion
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot
- Gary: Religious freedom: I too think people should be able to believe what they want to believe. But if someone wants to vocalize intolerance for a group (which I have been terming bigotry), the same freedom that protects a person's right to say that protects another person's right to tell them they're being intolerant/bigoted. Freedom to expression goes both ways. I don't support any kind of legislation that would tell religions how to define marriage, but I also don't support the government discriminating against a group by using sexual orientation as the basis for giving out civil rights (tax breaks, rights to property, visitation, guardianship of children, etc.).
Murder isn't considered a religious issues because it has nothing to do with religion. It isn't illegal because of thou shall not kill, it's illegal because murder means you're depriving a person of the right to life without cause.
As for family, how does allowing same sax marriage in any way impact people in opposite sex marriages' ability to procreate? I can't see that it has any impact at all. For that matter, if procreation is the reason for marriage, then we shouldn't let people who are sterile or over a certain age marry because they can't have kids. I just don't see what danger it poses to anyone. Let's say same sex marriage is legal tomorrow, what is it specifically that will happen to society as a result? - Brett Partridge Where do we draw the line on who/what can get married? If natural law isn't good enough why can't a man marry a horse or dog? Those would fit the same rationale you listed above.
Murder is as you correctly pointed out wrong because its denying life. Sexuality outside a marriage between man and woman is wrong for the opposite reason, it is tampering with the powerful ability to create life.
A homosexual couple does not impact yours and your wife's ability to bear children. But it obviously impacts their ability. It was one of many reasons, not a sole stand alone argument to be taken alone and throwing out the rest. Of course the ability to bear children isn't the sole criteria for what should constitute marriage. (Though an interesting side note is the law on AZ's books, or at least used to be there that made it illegal to have sex for any purpose other than to conceive). - Gary: Same gender attraction: Here is where you and I depart somewhat - respectfully, in my view, things stand or fall on their own merits and because something has been said to be divinely inspired doesn't hold much weight for me because that is a massively inconsistently applied idea. Every culture and society has said God said this or that, and they're all absolutely sure they're right, but they can't all be right. So I have a hard time with that whole line of reasoning.
That being said, I don't question your motives or think you're acting out of hate, and I respect that you're acting from positive intent. However, that doesn't change my own belief that the immorality of homosexuality is misguided and my own morals demand that I actively oppose that belief.
And I don't make those statements without having some reason behind them. I've read the Bible (though admittedly only the old testament and new testament, I have never read any of the new testimonies used by the LDS Church). Do you mind if I ask a somewhat Bible-based question (this is a sincere question because I don't understand this)? I don't know if you feel like you would be someone who believes in a literal reading of the Bible, but maybe you can help me understand how some of the more religiously minded folks see this issue. You may have seen this "letter to Dr. Laura" that's been passed around for years. Below I linked to a Snopes article trying to authenticate its author, just for reference to the text of the letter. But basically, there are all kinds of things that the Bible says are bad (eating shellfish, working on the Sabbath, etc.) or that you can do (like own slaves), but those groups aren't petitioning the government to force people to do all those those things (or not to do them). So if those things can be ignored, why is so much emphasis placed on the few passages that condemn homosexuality, especially when some of those things appear in the same book of the Bible as the references to homosexuality do? And most translations of the Leviticus passage most cited to condemn homosexuality calls for homosexuals to be killed, but I don't know of any mainstream religious groups calling for homosexuals to be put to death. So that part seems to be ok to ignore too. It just seems like there's a lot of inconsistency there, and I wonder what makes the issue of homosexuality (or the sexual sins you mention) stand out above the rest.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp
- Gary: A person can't marry a horse or a dog because animals can't legally consent. It's the same reason you can't marry a child. It isn't because of natural law, it's because of civil law.
But if I were to marry a man, it doesn't tamper with my ability to create life. I can still do it, it just means I'm choosing not to do it. What you're saying is that I'm under some kind of moral imperative to have kids? What if I choose not to get married at all? Is that morally wrong? Maybe I just don't want kids. - Brett Partridge In truth, yea it is morally wrong to me to not want to have kids. I believe that the commandment given to Adam and Eve to multiple and replenish the earth and to have joy in their posterity is still in effect. Some may wonder why Mormon's have so many kids often. It is because we firmly believe that it is a commandment and blessing from God to get married and have children (to put it plainly). That is not to say that those who can't bear children for whatever reason are shunned or less blessed, though it can come across that way. Be believe in marriage for eternity and that those who follow God's laws will continue in that marriage after death and will continue to have posterity.
- Gary: Adoption: Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree. I can agree that all children deserve a loving home. I fundamentally disagree with the idea that opposite sex couples make more inherently ideal parents than same sex couples. That's simply not true. I want children to have a loving home regardless of who the parents are, I'm not interested in and I reject the idea that there's some kind of hierarchy based solely on the gender of the parents or if there are one or two. That, like what I mentioned before, is something I find morally wrong and based on a mistaken and misguided ideology. Again though, I don't attribute it to hate though, I understand that if you believe in that hierarchy, of course you'd want to use it. I just disagree with the very basis of it.
- Gary: These are all ending much in the same way.
I also disagree with the idea that choosing to or not to have kids has anything to do with morality. That's a choice based on a person's individual life goals, financial situation, etc. I have kids, so I did make that choice, but I have absolutely no moral problem with someone who chooses not to do that. This is another situation where I don't see why one ideology needs to be enacted into law. Since same sex marriage doesn't impact the ability of those who believe the way you do to have children, I don't see why we would use that as a reason to not let them get married. Let them choose their own fate and exercise their free will, then after death we can all figure out what was right. But it doesn't seem like it's in our best interest to force people, if the disagree with that moral standing, to go along with it. - Brett Partridge Laws are not to force people to do anything. I don't believe in forcing people or even enacting a civil law that we should all have children. Frankly many of us in this world are not prepared mentally or emotionally and would be better off not having kids until we're prepared. We all have our agency to choose and that is something I would fight to the death for, to let someone chose to act completely opposite to what I believe. I mean that in all honestly. That does not mean though that if the discussion is put on the table is X a good thing or a bad thing for this country I would stay silent just because my opinion differs from others.
- Gary: Well, let's agree to this, neither of us should ever stay silent, nor is that my objective (nor yours I would imagine).
- Gary: r Perhaps forcing people was the wrong phrase, but why should be use laws, like the ones current on the books, to prevent people for exercising their agency and choosing to marry someone of the same sex when it doesn't impact your ability to lead the lif...See More
- Brett Partridge Ok, for the biblical question and it's a good one. I can only answer from my perspective so here it goes. I'll be as succinct and preach-less as I can
The Old Testament is an account of Jehovah's dealings with the Israelites. They were brought out of Egypt and to their "Promised Land". Because of their disobedience and inability to understand God's higher laws (like love thy neighbor as thyself) they were given a lesser law. One which would help them be prepared for a higher law later. The books of the Old Testament describe that lesser law and the people's history up until a few hundred years before Christ was born. Many understood that the law of Moses (the laws given in Exodus and Leviticus) were simply a way to point them to Christ, but the majority did not understand this.
The New Testament is the record of Christ (the mortal name given to Jehovah) as He fulfilled the old law and did away with it, giving the people a new higher law. (Old Testament means old covenant and the New Testament is the new covenant).
So there are many good principles in the Old Testament but new scripture and revelation replaces old in importance. Marriage between man and woman is taught in the New Testament, chastity and sexual purity (meaning being faithful to your spouse) is taught there as well. It is also taught plainly in the Book of Mormon (a record of the ancient inhabitants of this continent) and the Doctrine and Covenants (revelations given in these modern days to living prophets including Joseph Smith).
So why is it okay to take some parts and not others, because the new law from Christ and His revelations since to His prophets have given us a higher law to live by (like don't stone someone for adultery, don't cast them out of your church, love them, help them repent, help them come back). - Gary: Thanks, Brett (sincerely). I appreciate the explanation. I'm not really on board, but I do now at least have an understanding of the thought process that I didn't before.
- Brett Partridge Oh but it does impact my life. There are moral truths, eternal truths and when we begin to ignore them and toss them aside we lose our ability to clearly distinguish right from wrong. So what will happen if gay marriage is legalized? We continue on the slippery slope we're already on. Suddenly things like polygamy (consensual) become okay, and then animal marriage ("how can you prove my dog isn't consenting, he loves me and clearly shows it"?). Not to get too religious but we will not prosper as a country when we are not on a clear moral path. We will lose the divine protection that I believe this land and country has been blessed with from God and we will be humbled through wars, natural disasters, infighting at an ever increasing rate. I know this all sounds preachy and apocalyptic but you asked !35 minutes ago via mobile
- Gary: A little, but yes, I asked. That too is helpful for me to understand. Again, I don't agree, but I do strive to understand. When we finally boil it down to certain fundamental beliefs that are unwavering but in opposition, I suppose that's the best we can strive to do.
- Brett Partridge BTW, I enjoy these conversations as well. While I'm admittedly conservative and obviously biased by my religious beliefs I really am tolerant of all people, races, creeds, etc. I believe that those who love each other and want to live together and have homosexual relations should be allowed to choose that life without recourse. I believe that they should be able to benefit from the same tax structure etc that we now give to traditionally married couples. I don't think we need to change the definition of marriage to do this.
No comments:
Post a Comment