First of all, please do not call me a bigot. It seems that this should be the common ground for any group looking to improve the human condition and should be an easy thing to ask.
I realized this morning that I have been exposed to at least 21 different ways (13 English, 2 Spanish, 6 Arabic) to describe someone who is attracted to other members of their gender, and I will never use more than one or two of them, and those because they are the most neutral and non-judgmental ways to make this distinction when it a description is required. I have colleagues I respect, friends I appreciate, and people that are practically family whose sexual orientation can be described as homosexual and whenever I see someone holding a sign declaring that "God hates [fill in the blank]" I just shake my head in disappointment. I've been told straight to my face on multiple occasions that I was going to go to hell for who I am. I was a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a lot of people hated me and what I did.
While I have my own theories about how sexual identity is formed, they are essentially beside the point. If someone who feels attracted to their own gender says they didn't choose to be 'that way,' I have no reason not be believe them. I have very strongly rooted religious beliefs, and when it comes to the final destination of souls, judgment, justice, and mercy are in God's hands and I will never presume to tell someone something that only God can know. I do believe that the way I live is based on truth and is the best way to obtain happiness in this life and invite anyone and everyone to try it if they wish to. If they don't want it, this should make no difference in my relations with or how I treat them. According to my system of belief, marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, and this unit is responsible for the creation and raising of families. In our temples and churches marriage is performed under this overarching principle.
Do I care if two members of the same sex wish to file their taxes together, or buy a house, or be able to see each other in the hospital, or any number of rights and privileges afforded to heterosexual couples? No. In and of themselves, these legal aspects effect no one but the couple themselves, but they do raise a number of fundamental questions that require answering. If we leave the traditional concept of marriage, it becomes a fairly arbitrary concept that is fluid enough to afford potential change with regard to number of individuals involved or any number of other factors. "Ironic," you might say, "coming from a Mormon.. *polygamy* *cough*.." Apples and oranges. Life in the era you are referring to was significantly different than life today. Most people aren't refugees of a minority religion fleeing from oppression and a situation in which many family members were killed by mobs and harsh living conditions. There is a doctrinal aspect that follows along with this, but this is a subject for a different day.
There are innumerable issues with traditional marriage and the family unit today - single parent homes (usually single mothers) are abundant, there are many marriages in which living conditions are poor and emotional issues are rampant, and there are many couples that forgo marriage prior to starting a family. The saddest but most apt example I've come across in prints is from Chuck Paluhniuk's "Fight Club," where Tyler refers to his father as essentially being a producer of family franchises as he moves from marriage, divorce, to marriage and another divorce leaving fatherless offspring in his wake. I have yet to hear anyone claim to be happy to have never had a good mother or good father. While I do not oppose divorce, I do believe that a lot of marriages (read: solid parenting) could be saved if both members agreed to respect each other and their children. Now, the question of whether it is better to be raised by two mothers or two fathers rather than a single parent - I do not know. We need to colate more data as the phenomena and sample size of the population is still too small to be adequately observed. Some people claim that because so much of traditional marriage is in shambles, we should just do away with this antiquated structure. I am disinclined to believe that. Have any of you marveled at an old cathedral, or mosque, or castle, or other ancient edifice built from the elements and lasted, albeit partially, throughout the centuries? Should we tear the rest down because the roof is gone or only a single wall is left and build a new structure there? No, as it would be a crime against art and history. Where this analogy fails us is this: the old abbey is beautiful, but it can no longer support its original function; successful traditional marriage still does.
These previous points are important, but the real reason that I do not support gay marriage is because of freedom of religion. If it ends up that it is better for children to be raised by a loving homosexual couple, then so be it. From my experience, the vast majority of gay marriage supporters mean to help society better itself. I can appreciate their points of argument and the place where they are coming from. However, I have no faith that this movement in its entirety would suffice to simply 'live and let live,' or 'love and let love' as they claim. The powers that move this great machine contain elements that will not suffice with the legal union of two partners in a court of law. A vast majority of the movement would be satiated were marriage legalized, but there is a contingent that will continue on the attack. It takes very few people with enough funds to bring businesses and churches to their figurative knees in a courtroom. This is where gay marriage and abortion find a common theme, which is forcing religious factions to violate what they hold sacred, i.e. violating religious freedom. Were all hospitals required to perform abortions, religiously based hospitals or hospital staff would be required by law to break what they see as an agreement between them and God or suffer the consequences of legal retaliation. Think universal abortion and gay marriage is too much of a stretch? Certain religious adoption agencies have lost their ability to provide their services, businesses run by individuals who are religiously opposed to gay marriage have been bankrupted, and this is with the few states that have already legalized the practice. It's the equivalent of forcing kosher or hilaal venues to work with and sell pork, pork chops, and pork ribs. Depending on the degree of their religious observation, this could be completely forbidden to them (treif or haraam, respectively) and forcing them to do this is forcing them to break their religious vows or face a penalty.
For Mormons, the most sacred place to them are Temples, special buildings set apart and consecrated for the purpose of serving out our religious rites. To enter one of these buildings after they've been dedicated, you need a 'temple recommend,' basically a permission slip from the local church authorities affirming that a) you are a member in good standing (i.e. you are living the promises that you made to God), and b) the the statement that you are trying to uphold the spiritual commitments that you've made with God. Perhaps this is ridiculous to some of you, but it is important to those of us who live it, and we appreciate your respect.
Now that we've described the purpose and meaning of temples in the Mormon meta-narrative, let's rewind back to polygamy for a moment. These marriages were performed in the temples, beginning at a time when it was still legal (which, by the way, was a right being practiced by contemporary Jews and Muslims). After polygamy was made illegal, the federal government made moves towards placing agents in our temples to ensure that such marriages were no longer performed. This would be a massive breach of our faith. Fortunately, the church discontinued the practice.
The federal government in the past has threatened to violate our freedom of religious expression before (our temples) and given the direction of the political debate, it is not unreasonable that we do all we can to prevent it happening.
"Nonsense," you might say, "your freedom of religion wouldn't get violated. They just want to get married and you're being paranoid." Unfortunately, there is an example from last year that illustrates the direction things are going in. On June 7, 2012, telegraph.co.uk reported that"Gay Danish couples win right to marry in church - Homosexual couples in Denmark have won the right to get married in any church they choose, even though nearly one third of the country's priests have said they will refuse to carry out the ceremonies."
While there is a clause that allows for preachers to substitute out for a different preacher that does is not religiously opposed to the practice, the fact remains that no church can refuse to participate.
This small but influential component that I've referred to earlier has no respect for other peoples' faiths.
Were there some way we could appease both sides, I would be in favor of it. As it stands, I am defending my rights and the rights of others who are or will be in the line of fire.
Please, do not call me a 'hater' or a 'bigot.' I do my best not to hate anyone and respect people for who and what they are. Please do give me and others like me the same courtesy.
I realized this morning that I have been exposed to at least 21 different ways (13 English, 2 Spanish, 6 Arabic) to describe someone who is attracted to other members of their gender, and I will never use more than one or two of them, and those because they are the most neutral and non-judgmental ways to make this distinction when it a description is required. I have colleagues I respect, friends I appreciate, and people that are practically family whose sexual orientation can be described as homosexual and whenever I see someone holding a sign declaring that "God hates [fill in the blank]" I just shake my head in disappointment. I've been told straight to my face on multiple occasions that I was going to go to hell for who I am. I was a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a lot of people hated me and what I did.
While I have my own theories about how sexual identity is formed, they are essentially beside the point. If someone who feels attracted to their own gender says they didn't choose to be 'that way,' I have no reason not be believe them. I have very strongly rooted religious beliefs, and when it comes to the final destination of souls, judgment, justice, and mercy are in God's hands and I will never presume to tell someone something that only God can know. I do believe that the way I live is based on truth and is the best way to obtain happiness in this life and invite anyone and everyone to try it if they wish to. If they don't want it, this should make no difference in my relations with or how I treat them. According to my system of belief, marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, and this unit is responsible for the creation and raising of families. In our temples and churches marriage is performed under this overarching principle.
Do I care if two members of the same sex wish to file their taxes together, or buy a house, or be able to see each other in the hospital, or any number of rights and privileges afforded to heterosexual couples? No. In and of themselves, these legal aspects effect no one but the couple themselves, but they do raise a number of fundamental questions that require answering. If we leave the traditional concept of marriage, it becomes a fairly arbitrary concept that is fluid enough to afford potential change with regard to number of individuals involved or any number of other factors. "Ironic," you might say, "coming from a Mormon.. *polygamy* *cough*.." Apples and oranges. Life in the era you are referring to was significantly different than life today. Most people aren't refugees of a minority religion fleeing from oppression and a situation in which many family members were killed by mobs and harsh living conditions. There is a doctrinal aspect that follows along with this, but this is a subject for a different day.
There are innumerable issues with traditional marriage and the family unit today - single parent homes (usually single mothers) are abundant, there are many marriages in which living conditions are poor and emotional issues are rampant, and there are many couples that forgo marriage prior to starting a family. The saddest but most apt example I've come across in prints is from Chuck Paluhniuk's "Fight Club," where Tyler refers to his father as essentially being a producer of family franchises as he moves from marriage, divorce, to marriage and another divorce leaving fatherless offspring in his wake. I have yet to hear anyone claim to be happy to have never had a good mother or good father. While I do not oppose divorce, I do believe that a lot of marriages (read: solid parenting) could be saved if both members agreed to respect each other and their children. Now, the question of whether it is better to be raised by two mothers or two fathers rather than a single parent - I do not know. We need to colate more data as the phenomena and sample size of the population is still too small to be adequately observed. Some people claim that because so much of traditional marriage is in shambles, we should just do away with this antiquated structure. I am disinclined to believe that. Have any of you marveled at an old cathedral, or mosque, or castle, or other ancient edifice built from the elements and lasted, albeit partially, throughout the centuries? Should we tear the rest down because the roof is gone or only a single wall is left and build a new structure there? No, as it would be a crime against art and history. Where this analogy fails us is this: the old abbey is beautiful, but it can no longer support its original function; successful traditional marriage still does.
These previous points are important, but the real reason that I do not support gay marriage is because of freedom of religion. If it ends up that it is better for children to be raised by a loving homosexual couple, then so be it. From my experience, the vast majority of gay marriage supporters mean to help society better itself. I can appreciate their points of argument and the place where they are coming from. However, I have no faith that this movement in its entirety would suffice to simply 'live and let live,' or 'love and let love' as they claim. The powers that move this great machine contain elements that will not suffice with the legal union of two partners in a court of law. A vast majority of the movement would be satiated were marriage legalized, but there is a contingent that will continue on the attack. It takes very few people with enough funds to bring businesses and churches to their figurative knees in a courtroom. This is where gay marriage and abortion find a common theme, which is forcing religious factions to violate what they hold sacred, i.e. violating religious freedom. Were all hospitals required to perform abortions, religiously based hospitals or hospital staff would be required by law to break what they see as an agreement between them and God or suffer the consequences of legal retaliation. Think universal abortion and gay marriage is too much of a stretch? Certain religious adoption agencies have lost their ability to provide their services, businesses run by individuals who are religiously opposed to gay marriage have been bankrupted, and this is with the few states that have already legalized the practice. It's the equivalent of forcing kosher or hilaal venues to work with and sell pork, pork chops, and pork ribs. Depending on the degree of their religious observation, this could be completely forbidden to them (treif or haraam, respectively) and forcing them to do this is forcing them to break their religious vows or face a penalty.
For Mormons, the most sacred place to them are Temples, special buildings set apart and consecrated for the purpose of serving out our religious rites. To enter one of these buildings after they've been dedicated, you need a 'temple recommend,' basically a permission slip from the local church authorities affirming that a) you are a member in good standing (i.e. you are living the promises that you made to God), and b) the the statement that you are trying to uphold the spiritual commitments that you've made with God. Perhaps this is ridiculous to some of you, but it is important to those of us who live it, and we appreciate your respect.
Now that we've described the purpose and meaning of temples in the Mormon meta-narrative, let's rewind back to polygamy for a moment. These marriages were performed in the temples, beginning at a time when it was still legal (which, by the way, was a right being practiced by contemporary Jews and Muslims). After polygamy was made illegal, the federal government made moves towards placing agents in our temples to ensure that such marriages were no longer performed. This would be a massive breach of our faith. Fortunately, the church discontinued the practice.
The federal government in the past has threatened to violate our freedom of religious expression before (our temples) and given the direction of the political debate, it is not unreasonable that we do all we can to prevent it happening.
"Nonsense," you might say, "your freedom of religion wouldn't get violated. They just want to get married and you're being paranoid." Unfortunately, there is an example from last year that illustrates the direction things are going in. On June 7, 2012, telegraph.co.uk reported that"Gay Danish couples win right to marry in church - Homosexual couples in Denmark have won the right to get married in any church they choose, even though nearly one third of the country's priests have said they will refuse to carry out the ceremonies."
While there is a clause that allows for preachers to substitute out for a different preacher that does is not religiously opposed to the practice, the fact remains that no church can refuse to participate.
This small but influential component that I've referred to earlier has no respect for other peoples' faiths.
Were there some way we could appease both sides, I would be in favor of it. As it stands, I am defending my rights and the rights of others who are or will be in the line of fire.
Please, do not call me a 'hater' or a 'bigot.' I do my best not to hate anyone and respect people for who and what they are. Please do give me and others like me the same courtesy.