Well said.
http://www.ldsmag.com/article/1/14844
Friday, September 19, 2014
Sunday, June 22, 2014
Cool quote
"I am grateful that I belong to a church in which we do not attempt to convince God or our leaders that certain opinions in our society are correct, and God’s are not. Society changes its mind quite frequently. I do not believe that God changes his mind, however. When society is telling me something new, even when it has assembled powerful reasons and powerful people on its side, I do not ask society whether it is correct. I ask God."
From http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2014/06/clayton-christensen-and-same-sex-marriage.html
From http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2014/06/clayton-christensen-and-same-sex-marriage.html
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Why the gay marriage argument annoys me
The way the gay marriage argument is framed bugs me.
Saying that gay couples are equal to straight couples is essentially a religious argument because it places value on behavior, something that government should not be involved in.
If the government is going to enforce (legally) this equality, then they are becoming a state-run religion and trampling on my (and a bunch of other people's) freedom of religion.
The argument should completely avoid assigning value to a gay relationship or a straight relationship but instead should stay neutral. Instead, the argument should be that person A should be able to decide who visits them in the hospital, and where their social security money goes after they die, etc.
As far as discrimination, government should be in the business or protecting people's ability to say "I don't like that behavior" rather than forcing them to accept it or else.
Discriminating against someone because of how they were born should be illegal. Discriminating against someone because of what they do should be a protected right.
Saturday, January 11, 2014
Followup to last post
Pete responded (thoughtfully I might add) to my last post. I appreciate his remarks and am going to reply to them in a new post.
Pete says
1) Saying God's rules trump mankind's rules is dangerous territory. You think in your case it is okay because you believe you know God, but I _guarantee_ the people committing suicide to kill thousands of innocents are also beyond convinced that they know God. Their God's rules trump mankind's rules as well -- in this case the rules dictate the murder of innocents. Women in the middle east are heavily oppressed by our western standards, again in the name of religion. I'm guessing you don't approve of either of those things, in which case I would ask why their conviction is not as important as yours or why their God's rules should not trump mankind's rules as well? Freedom of religion is important, but this country is not a theocracy nor should it be.
The suicide bombers' convictions are equally as important as my convictions. The key difference is that I obey the law when applying my convictions whereas they break the law.
I am not saying that I alone should be the one who decides what the law should be because I alone say that God's rules are such-and-such. What I am saying that if enough people (ie more than 50%) loosely agree on a particular moral standard (regardless of whether this moral standard comes from their understanding of God's law), then it is perfectly appropriate for this to became a law. If this strikes you as wrong, think about where society's current moral standards come from. How did society come to decide that murder was morally wrong? Was it because of some mathematical equation? Some scientific research? I think not. More likely it was because a large majority of the society didn't want it to be a part of society (even if a few people potentially did) and so they made a law saying that no one could do it without big punishments. Same with theft. Who decided that it was illegal for an adult male to wander around naked in public (hehe) ? Was it science? More likely it was because a large majority of the people (including a lot of mothers) didn't want it to be part of society, even though clearly there are those who wish it was legal (hehe). Was this majority motivated by their understanding of God's laws on the subject? Most definitely. Was it appropriate for them to form this law even though it was motivated by religious knowledge? Absolutely.
What I am saying is that it's a nice idea that church and state really can be completely separate and that any person should theoretically be able to live however they choose and have legal protection, in practice this utopia scenario can never be fulfilled because people simply have to live with and interact with each other and therefore, society needs SOME kind of common moral standard that loosely agrees with the majority's views. That means the nudist at heart is going to be constantly "discriminated" against unless he goes to a special private location to be with other like minded people.
I guess what I am trying to say is we shouldn't try to figure out why a person has convictions or how they arrived at them (and whether they are valid). We should just assume that everyone's convictions are valid and then figure out how to best give everyone what they want, preferring the majority's will in cases where there is a conflict. I can frankly think of no fairer way.
This is why I think it's wrong for gay activists to question the validity of Utah's majority in defining marriage; it's also why I think it's similarly wrong for a judge to say that the law has no rational basis.
The correct way to advance the cause of increased same-sex rights is to CONVINCE the majority. Going behind the majority's back is the big problem here. If same-sex rights is the Right Thing, then it should not be hard to convince the majority. Using judges and lawsuits is not the answer.
Pete says
2) I disagree that you are putting yourself in opposition to God by saying gay marriage is equal to traditional. The issue here is some people have civil rights granted by the state and others don't. Simply, this is unacceptable.
I can appreciate that you seem to think that this is an obvious fact. But I don't see this and I've never seen it. In my mind, every person has the exact same rights and always has regardless of their chosen behavior. A gay man can always (and has always been able to) marry a woman at any time and partake of these rights. This is the exact same right that everyone has. So it actually really bothers me that same-sex rights advocates use this argument because it is full of logical holes.
And if we start to explore more of what this argument means, it becomes even more confusing.
I assume that a same-sex marriage advocate would say something like "Well, giving a gay man the right to marry a woman is not fair because it isn't what the gay man needs or wants. It's an empty right that is not fulfilling." I AGREE! However, that is NOT what the complaint is. The complaint is that the CIVIL RIGHT is available to SOME but NOT ALL, which is NOT TRUE (I hope I've explained why hehe).
Perhaps the complaint should be amended to "The CIVIL RIGHT is available to ALL but only meets the needs of SOME." I'd be much happier to hear this type of complaint because it is much less manipulative, divisive and contentious.
So let's explore this. Is the law always required to meet every person's needs? In the case of the nudist, no, it is not, and I think I've explained why. So I submit that it is not a requirement for the government to meet every single need that every single person has. To attempt to do so would be impossible.
Now, it's possible that my interpretation of the spirit of the complaint is wrong. It could be that the complaint is actually something more along the lines of "I was born gay and therefore I must be in a gay relationship in order to be happy. And this need is so fundamental that the government must protect it." I actually think this is exactly what some gay activists are saying.
The problem with this assertion is that it contradicts so many other precedents that are always extremely well established in life. I'm talking about the assertion that one must comply with one's natural inclinations in order to be happy.
Alcoholics Anonymous teaches that alcoholics are naturally inclined to drink alcohol. It also teaches that in order to be happy, they must completely fight against this inclination.
Smoking cigarettes is legal, yet the government itself buys ad space on large billboards to preach (yes preach) against the practice of smoking.
Many people are inclined to eat unhealthy foods. Yet, there are lots of organizations openly teaching people that if they want to be happy, they need to fight against these urges and gain control.
Most man are inclined to engage in sexual activity that is far beyond the bounds of the law of chastity, whether they be straight, gay, whatever. Some men are born with the inclination to be attracted to young children. Are we bad people because we have these (sometimes arbitrary) urges? No. Will it make us happy to comply with these urges? Usually, no! I know from own experience that if I want to have a happy marriage, then the price I MUST pay is to continually deny my body from most of its natural sexual urges for the REST OF MY LIFE. Most married men are in the same boat. We aren't happily married because we are giving our body exactly what it wants, we are married because we are constantly telling our body "no".
My point is, the assertion that a person born gay MUST be in a gay relationship in order to be happy is FALSE (I hope I've shown why) and it disturbs me that I see so many people state this as if it's an obvious fact. The obvious (to me) fact is that if one wants to be at peace with oneself, one must tell one's body "no" a lot in life.
Now, this doesn't mean that I am trying to force my values/beliefs upon someone who willfully chooses to be in a gay relationship.
In fact, as I mentioned, I have gay friends, and as far as I know, they are actively in gay relationships. And you know what? I RESPECT THEIR CHOICE. I think they are good people. And dangit, they deserve to find happiness how they see fit just as much as the rest of us. I also respect (and get along great with) my friends who consume large amounts of coffee (There are quite a few), my friends who drink, and my friends who father children without being married. Yes, it is possible to disapprove of their chosen behaviors and still be GREAT friends. I wish society at large understood this better.
I believe that there is room to abstract the laws to allow two people form a legal partnership. But be warned that this still "discriminates" against polygamists so it is hypocritical to think that this is somehow making everyone equal. Rather, it now places a two person partnership as having greater value than a 2+ person partnership. Have we really solved anything or just made ourselves feel better until the next lawsuit?
Pete says
3) The children argument has always confounded me. Do you really believe that putting a child who needs a home into a same-sex home is worse than leaving that child without a home? Or, better yet, putting or leaving the child in an abusive or disfunctional home with straight parents? I'll admit I didn't read your link, but in my eyes unless a gay household is always worse than any of the alternatives, I don't see why this is even an issue. Unless I'm confused and we live in a utopia where we can find every single child an ideal loving straight couple. Surely there are more important world issues we can focus on than the dangers of having children grow up with two loving same-sex parents.
I'd love to respond but I am going to insist that you read my link first. I really think the context is worthwhile before continuing our discussion.
Pete says
1) Saying God's rules trump mankind's rules is dangerous territory. You think in your case it is okay because you believe you know God, but I _guarantee_ the people committing suicide to kill thousands of innocents are also beyond convinced that they know God. Their God's rules trump mankind's rules as well -- in this case the rules dictate the murder of innocents. Women in the middle east are heavily oppressed by our western standards, again in the name of religion. I'm guessing you don't approve of either of those things, in which case I would ask why their conviction is not as important as yours or why their God's rules should not trump mankind's rules as well? Freedom of religion is important, but this country is not a theocracy nor should it be.
The suicide bombers' convictions are equally as important as my convictions. The key difference is that I obey the law when applying my convictions whereas they break the law.
I am not saying that I alone should be the one who decides what the law should be because I alone say that God's rules are such-and-such. What I am saying that if enough people (ie more than 50%) loosely agree on a particular moral standard (regardless of whether this moral standard comes from their understanding of God's law), then it is perfectly appropriate for this to became a law. If this strikes you as wrong, think about where society's current moral standards come from. How did society come to decide that murder was morally wrong? Was it because of some mathematical equation? Some scientific research? I think not. More likely it was because a large majority of the society didn't want it to be a part of society (even if a few people potentially did) and so they made a law saying that no one could do it without big punishments. Same with theft. Who decided that it was illegal for an adult male to wander around naked in public (hehe) ? Was it science? More likely it was because a large majority of the people (including a lot of mothers) didn't want it to be part of society, even though clearly there are those who wish it was legal (hehe). Was this majority motivated by their understanding of God's laws on the subject? Most definitely. Was it appropriate for them to form this law even though it was motivated by religious knowledge? Absolutely.
What I am saying is that it's a nice idea that church and state really can be completely separate and that any person should theoretically be able to live however they choose and have legal protection, in practice this utopia scenario can never be fulfilled because people simply have to live with and interact with each other and therefore, society needs SOME kind of common moral standard that loosely agrees with the majority's views. That means the nudist at heart is going to be constantly "discriminated" against unless he goes to a special private location to be with other like minded people.
I guess what I am trying to say is we shouldn't try to figure out why a person has convictions or how they arrived at them (and whether they are valid). We should just assume that everyone's convictions are valid and then figure out how to best give everyone what they want, preferring the majority's will in cases where there is a conflict. I can frankly think of no fairer way.
This is why I think it's wrong for gay activists to question the validity of Utah's majority in defining marriage; it's also why I think it's similarly wrong for a judge to say that the law has no rational basis.
The correct way to advance the cause of increased same-sex rights is to CONVINCE the majority. Going behind the majority's back is the big problem here. If same-sex rights is the Right Thing, then it should not be hard to convince the majority. Using judges and lawsuits is not the answer.
2) I disagree that you are putting yourself in opposition to God by saying gay marriage is equal to traditional. The issue here is some people have civil rights granted by the state and others don't. Simply, this is unacceptable.
I can appreciate that you seem to think that this is an obvious fact. But I don't see this and I've never seen it. In my mind, every person has the exact same rights and always has regardless of their chosen behavior. A gay man can always (and has always been able to) marry a woman at any time and partake of these rights. This is the exact same right that everyone has. So it actually really bothers me that same-sex rights advocates use this argument because it is full of logical holes.
And if we start to explore more of what this argument means, it becomes even more confusing.
I assume that a same-sex marriage advocate would say something like "Well, giving a gay man the right to marry a woman is not fair because it isn't what the gay man needs or wants. It's an empty right that is not fulfilling." I AGREE! However, that is NOT what the complaint is. The complaint is that the CIVIL RIGHT is available to SOME but NOT ALL, which is NOT TRUE (I hope I've explained why hehe).
Perhaps the complaint should be amended to "The CIVIL RIGHT is available to ALL but only meets the needs of SOME." I'd be much happier to hear this type of complaint because it is much less manipulative, divisive and contentious.
So let's explore this. Is the law always required to meet every person's needs? In the case of the nudist, no, it is not, and I think I've explained why. So I submit that it is not a requirement for the government to meet every single need that every single person has. To attempt to do so would be impossible.
Now, it's possible that my interpretation of the spirit of the complaint is wrong. It could be that the complaint is actually something more along the lines of "I was born gay and therefore I must be in a gay relationship in order to be happy. And this need is so fundamental that the government must protect it." I actually think this is exactly what some gay activists are saying.
The problem with this assertion is that it contradicts so many other precedents that are always extremely well established in life. I'm talking about the assertion that one must comply with one's natural inclinations in order to be happy.
Alcoholics Anonymous teaches that alcoholics are naturally inclined to drink alcohol. It also teaches that in order to be happy, they must completely fight against this inclination.
Smoking cigarettes is legal, yet the government itself buys ad space on large billboards to preach (yes preach) against the practice of smoking.
Many people are inclined to eat unhealthy foods. Yet, there are lots of organizations openly teaching people that if they want to be happy, they need to fight against these urges and gain control.
Most man are inclined to engage in sexual activity that is far beyond the bounds of the law of chastity, whether they be straight, gay, whatever. Some men are born with the inclination to be attracted to young children. Are we bad people because we have these (sometimes arbitrary) urges? No. Will it make us happy to comply with these urges? Usually, no! I know from own experience that if I want to have a happy marriage, then the price I MUST pay is to continually deny my body from most of its natural sexual urges for the REST OF MY LIFE. Most married men are in the same boat. We aren't happily married because we are giving our body exactly what it wants, we are married because we are constantly telling our body "no".
My point is, the assertion that a person born gay MUST be in a gay relationship in order to be happy is FALSE (I hope I've shown why) and it disturbs me that I see so many people state this as if it's an obvious fact. The obvious (to me) fact is that if one wants to be at peace with oneself, one must tell one's body "no" a lot in life.
Now, this doesn't mean that I am trying to force my values/beliefs upon someone who willfully chooses to be in a gay relationship.
In fact, as I mentioned, I have gay friends, and as far as I know, they are actively in gay relationships. And you know what? I RESPECT THEIR CHOICE. I think they are good people. And dangit, they deserve to find happiness how they see fit just as much as the rest of us. I also respect (and get along great with) my friends who consume large amounts of coffee (There are quite a few), my friends who drink, and my friends who father children without being married. Yes, it is possible to disapprove of their chosen behaviors and still be GREAT friends. I wish society at large understood this better.
I believe that there is room to abstract the laws to allow two people form a legal partnership. But be warned that this still "discriminates" against polygamists so it is hypocritical to think that this is somehow making everyone equal. Rather, it now places a two person partnership as having greater value than a 2+ person partnership. Have we really solved anything or just made ourselves feel better until the next lawsuit?
Pete says
3) The children argument has always confounded me. Do you really believe that putting a child who needs a home into a same-sex home is worse than leaving that child without a home? Or, better yet, putting or leaving the child in an abusive or disfunctional home with straight parents? I'll admit I didn't read your link, but in my eyes unless a gay household is always worse than any of the alternatives, I don't see why this is even an issue. Unless I'm confused and we live in a utopia where we can find every single child an ideal loving straight couple. Surely there are more important world issues we can focus on than the dangers of having children grow up with two loving same-sex parents.
I'd love to respond but I am going to insist that you read my link first. I really think the context is worthwhile before continuing our discussion.
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Is there room for compromise for gay marriage in Utah?
Full disclosure: I have several good friends who self-identify as being gay. I consider these guys brothers and feel like our friendship is good enough that we can have frank talks about our views on this subject without offending each other. Unfortunately, it seems that the world at large does not have this same benefit and that is what I am hoping to help change with this post.
Same-sex marriage is a controversial subject and in the world at large there seems to be a lot of shouting and contention and not very much listening and understanding of opposing points of view.
Recently, a federal judge overturned Utah's 66% voter approved state amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. From what I have seen of the initial reaction, the loudest voices are pretty polarized on the subject : Either it's 100% the right call or it's 100% the wrong call.
I believe that it's a lot more complicated than this. And I believe that if both opposing sides took more time to listen and understand, we'd be a lot better off.
Part of the reason we are in this mess in the first place is that marriage (for many of us) is defined by both religion and government. This presents an inherent conflict which some of us (including myself) have been oblivious to because traditionally the government definition has represented a mostly compatible subset of the religious definition. However, if one's religious definition of marriage is not compatible with the government's definition, this creates a problem, the very problem that so-called "gay activists" are trying to solve. If for example, one's personal "religious" definition of marriage is that marriage is a commitment between two loving consenting adults (regardless of gender), then the traditional government definition of marriage may feel like an oppressive institution because it _excludes_ (or even _discriminates_) by forcing an individual to choose between living their life how they choose (aka "practicing their religion *") or getting government benefits that they are supporting by being a tax payer.
* When I say religion, I realize that the reader might say "Hey, I don't have a religion, this is just my personal non-religious opinion." Or the reader might say "Hey, I don't have a religion, this is how I was born." Please bear with me on this; for the purpose of this article I am going to assume that all personal definitions of marriage are religious because by my logic, any definition of marriage that contradicts my religious definition of marriage MUST logically also be an alternative religious definition. I hope that makes sense.
As one of my gay friends pointed out to me, there are legitimate problems with the government system where someone who self-identifies as gay and wants to live a "gay lifestyle" can't decide where their social security money goes to should they die, can't get hospital visitation rights, can't file joint taxes, and can't get family health insurance coverage for their partner. As he explained this to me, I nodded in agreement with him. For example, I think that if I am paying into some kind of long term fund (like social security, life insurance, whatever) that I absolutely should be able to decide whom my beneficiary is.
It is for this reason that I think it is legitimate that the current government system of "marriage" can and should be tweaked to accommodate our brothers and sisters who have their agency and want to use their agency to find happiness in the best way they see fit.
How this tweaking takes place, however, is quite unclear and I think requires a lot more dialog in the public square than the loud finger pointing that we have going on right now.
A common theme I hear and read is that the concept of changing the government's definition of marriage can't possibly affect anyone negatively, so anyone who is against it is just being a religious bigot and hating/discriminating against gay people.
I feel sad and misunderstood when I hear/read things like this.
In fact, changing the government definition of marriage presents some fairly major problems for me personally (and I am sure for many others). I will try to illustrate.
To me, marriage is a deeply personal and religious concept. It is an institution created by God and has virtually nothing to do with taxes, governments, hospital visitations rights, insurance, or inheritance; it is all about very serious covenants with God and spouse, putting God's will before one's own will, and thereby denying oneself of one's physical appetites in order to increase one's spiritual power and growth.
- If the government defines marriage as something that is somewhat compatible with my own definition, I can live with this. This is how it's traditionally been.
- If government defines marriage as something that contradicts my own definition, this creates _confusion_ because now if people are talking about marriage, are they talking about the government definition or the religious definition? It's confusing. Not a deal breaker, but confusing.
- However, if I am forced to prioritize the government's definition of marriage over my personal religious definition of marriage or get sued/intimidated/boycotted, then this becomes a major violation of my freedom of speech and freedom of religious rights.
You may say "But Matt, you would never be forced to prioritize government's definition of marriage over your own personal definition!" Sadly, we've already seen this happen:
Religious liberty and gay marriage collide as New Mexico photographer loses case
Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy
Sweet Cakes By Melissa, Oregon Bakery That Denied Gay Couple A Wedding Cake, Closes Shop
Let's look at the Chick-fil-A CEO's comments:
"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage'. I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about."
The reaction that he received to this remark is particularly alarming to me because to me, what he is saying is pretty similar to what L. Tom Perry said in General Conference:
"For man to substitute his own rules for the laws of God [..] is the height of presumption and the depth of sin." ( see citation )
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that a person should be able to say that God's rules trump mankind's rules and that for man to substitute his rules in place of God's rules is arrogant. So what exactly did the Chick-fil-A guy say that warranted such a swift condemnation from some? I really am baffled here and I think it's troubling to say the least.
This is what scares me. It seems like the whole gay marriage movement isn't just about fixing broken government policies, but for some, it's about silencing anyone who says "same sex marriage is contrary to God's plan for His children." Shouldn't making thoughtful and frank statements like this be the absolute right of all rights guaranteed by the constitution?
Here's another reason I am concerned:
It's pretty common to hear buzz words like "marriage equality" or the concept that a same sex marriage is equivalent to a traditional marriage, a concept that the courts seem to be latching onto.
This may seem harmless at first. After all, "who am I to judge" right?
What I don't think many people realize (and I certainly don't hear this talked about) is that if I proclaim that same sex marriage is equal to traditional marriage, I am in effect placing myself in opposition to God. It's a pretty easy logical path to reach this conclusion:
1 - God has revealed through prophets that His ultimate plan for His children is that husband and wife be not only married on earth, but sealed for time and all eternity in holy temples so that their family relationships can live beyond the grave and into the next life. He shows us how serious He is about this by promising that only those who actually enter into this marriage covenant _and_ endure to the end will obtain His highest and choicest blessings.
2 - Logically, this means that this "temple marriage" must be of greater value (in God's eyes) than any other committed relationship on earth, including a secular marriage (heterosexual or homosexual), a non-married heterosexual couple living together, and a polyamorous couple.
3 - Therefore, for a person such as myself who holds these believes to solemnly proclaim that same sex marriage is "equal" to temple marriage (for example) would be equivalent to me saying "God is wrong" or "God is a liar" or "God discriminates against gays".
At any rate, there is no good end game for me to be compelled (through courts, laws, boycotts or other forms of intimidation) to say that same sex marriage is equal to the my definition of marriage because it makes me a complete hypocrite before God. This is not the kind of position I want to be in!
Another troubling obstacle to the whole "equality" argument is a scientific one (at least, I think it's scientific hehehe):
Children who are raised by their biological parents have a significant advantage over children in other circumstances. And before you think I am being discriminatory, I am actually citing a scientific study. Check out Dallin H. Oaks talk about protecting children, the most vulnerable group in our society. Check his source in the footnotes, he cites a scientific study. For this reason, it may (MAY!) be appropriate for government to "discriminate" for the sake of children by having some kind of policy in place that incentivizes biological parents to raise their own children. I would hope that courts take the needs of children into higher consideration in the future before making their decisions. Thus far, it has seemed to me that children are the after thought.
------------------------------
I think we can come up with a compromise here!!!
By identifying each side's needs and goals, I think there is common ground we can find.
One idea of mine would be to strip the government of its power to define what marriage is and instead have the government rename what it calls "marriage" to something else, like "legal partnership". I personally don't think I would have a problem saying that I am "legally partnered" to my wife instead of "legally married." From what one gay friend tells me, this would go a long way to giving the gay activist camp what it wants and it would also would solve my dilemma of putting myself at odds with God. It is unfortunate that our society has splintered like this but based on where we are now, this seems like a Not Horrible Solution.
If anyone has any other ideas (aside from the "I demand unconditional surrender and won't even attempt to put myself in the other side's shoes") feel free to leave a comment.
Opposing view points are welcome as long as you are respectful, calm and thoughtful!
Same-sex marriage is a controversial subject and in the world at large there seems to be a lot of shouting and contention and not very much listening and understanding of opposing points of view.
Recently, a federal judge overturned Utah's 66% voter approved state amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. From what I have seen of the initial reaction, the loudest voices are pretty polarized on the subject : Either it's 100% the right call or it's 100% the wrong call.
I believe that it's a lot more complicated than this. And I believe that if both opposing sides took more time to listen and understand, we'd be a lot better off.
Part of the reason we are in this mess in the first place is that marriage (for many of us) is defined by both religion and government. This presents an inherent conflict which some of us (including myself) have been oblivious to because traditionally the government definition has represented a mostly compatible subset of the religious definition. However, if one's religious definition of marriage is not compatible with the government's definition, this creates a problem, the very problem that so-called "gay activists" are trying to solve. If for example, one's personal "religious" definition of marriage is that marriage is a commitment between two loving consenting adults (regardless of gender), then the traditional government definition of marriage may feel like an oppressive institution because it _excludes_ (or even _discriminates_) by forcing an individual to choose between living their life how they choose (aka "practicing their religion *") or getting government benefits that they are supporting by being a tax payer.
* When I say religion, I realize that the reader might say "Hey, I don't have a religion, this is just my personal non-religious opinion." Or the reader might say "Hey, I don't have a religion, this is how I was born." Please bear with me on this; for the purpose of this article I am going to assume that all personal definitions of marriage are religious because by my logic, any definition of marriage that contradicts my religious definition of marriage MUST logically also be an alternative religious definition. I hope that makes sense.
As one of my gay friends pointed out to me, there are legitimate problems with the government system where someone who self-identifies as gay and wants to live a "gay lifestyle" can't decide where their social security money goes to should they die, can't get hospital visitation rights, can't file joint taxes, and can't get family health insurance coverage for their partner. As he explained this to me, I nodded in agreement with him. For example, I think that if I am paying into some kind of long term fund (like social security, life insurance, whatever) that I absolutely should be able to decide whom my beneficiary is.
It is for this reason that I think it is legitimate that the current government system of "marriage" can and should be tweaked to accommodate our brothers and sisters who have their agency and want to use their agency to find happiness in the best way they see fit.
How this tweaking takes place, however, is quite unclear and I think requires a lot more dialog in the public square than the loud finger pointing that we have going on right now.
A common theme I hear and read is that the concept of changing the government's definition of marriage can't possibly affect anyone negatively, so anyone who is against it is just being a religious bigot and hating/discriminating against gay people.
I feel sad and misunderstood when I hear/read things like this.
In fact, changing the government definition of marriage presents some fairly major problems for me personally (and I am sure for many others). I will try to illustrate.
To me, marriage is a deeply personal and religious concept. It is an institution created by God and has virtually nothing to do with taxes, governments, hospital visitations rights, insurance, or inheritance; it is all about very serious covenants with God and spouse, putting God's will before one's own will, and thereby denying oneself of one's physical appetites in order to increase one's spiritual power and growth.
- If the government defines marriage as something that is somewhat compatible with my own definition, I can live with this. This is how it's traditionally been.
- If government defines marriage as something that contradicts my own definition, this creates _confusion_ because now if people are talking about marriage, are they talking about the government definition or the religious definition? It's confusing. Not a deal breaker, but confusing.
- However, if I am forced to prioritize the government's definition of marriage over my personal religious definition of marriage or get sued/intimidated/boycotted, then this becomes a major violation of my freedom of speech and freedom of religious rights.
You may say "But Matt, you would never be forced to prioritize government's definition of marriage over your own personal definition!" Sadly, we've already seen this happen:
Religious liberty and gay marriage collide as New Mexico photographer loses case
Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy
Sweet Cakes By Melissa, Oregon Bakery That Denied Gay Couple A Wedding Cake, Closes Shop
Let's look at the Chick-fil-A CEO's comments:
"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage'. I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about."
The reaction that he received to this remark is particularly alarming to me because to me, what he is saying is pretty similar to what L. Tom Perry said in General Conference:
"For man to substitute his own rules for the laws of God [..] is the height of presumption and the depth of sin." ( see citation )
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that a person should be able to say that God's rules trump mankind's rules and that for man to substitute his rules in place of God's rules is arrogant. So what exactly did the Chick-fil-A guy say that warranted such a swift condemnation from some? I really am baffled here and I think it's troubling to say the least.
This is what scares me. It seems like the whole gay marriage movement isn't just about fixing broken government policies, but for some, it's about silencing anyone who says "same sex marriage is contrary to God's plan for His children." Shouldn't making thoughtful and frank statements like this be the absolute right of all rights guaranteed by the constitution?
Here's another reason I am concerned:
It's pretty common to hear buzz words like "marriage equality" or the concept that a same sex marriage is equivalent to a traditional marriage, a concept that the courts seem to be latching onto.
This may seem harmless at first. After all, "who am I to judge" right?
What I don't think many people realize (and I certainly don't hear this talked about) is that if I proclaim that same sex marriage is equal to traditional marriage, I am in effect placing myself in opposition to God. It's a pretty easy logical path to reach this conclusion:
1 - God has revealed through prophets that His ultimate plan for His children is that husband and wife be not only married on earth, but sealed for time and all eternity in holy temples so that their family relationships can live beyond the grave and into the next life. He shows us how serious He is about this by promising that only those who actually enter into this marriage covenant _and_ endure to the end will obtain His highest and choicest blessings.
2 - Logically, this means that this "temple marriage" must be of greater value (in God's eyes) than any other committed relationship on earth, including a secular marriage (heterosexual or homosexual), a non-married heterosexual couple living together, and a polyamorous couple.
3 - Therefore, for a person such as myself who holds these believes to solemnly proclaim that same sex marriage is "equal" to temple marriage (for example) would be equivalent to me saying "God is wrong" or "God is a liar" or "God discriminates against gays".
At any rate, there is no good end game for me to be compelled (through courts, laws, boycotts or other forms of intimidation) to say that same sex marriage is equal to the my definition of marriage because it makes me a complete hypocrite before God. This is not the kind of position I want to be in!
Another troubling obstacle to the whole "equality" argument is a scientific one (at least, I think it's scientific hehehe):
Children who are raised by their biological parents have a significant advantage over children in other circumstances. And before you think I am being discriminatory, I am actually citing a scientific study. Check out Dallin H. Oaks talk about protecting children, the most vulnerable group in our society. Check his source in the footnotes, he cites a scientific study. For this reason, it may (MAY!) be appropriate for government to "discriminate" for the sake of children by having some kind of policy in place that incentivizes biological parents to raise their own children. I would hope that courts take the needs of children into higher consideration in the future before making their decisions. Thus far, it has seemed to me that children are the after thought.
------------------------------
I think we can come up with a compromise here!!!
By identifying each side's needs and goals, I think there is common ground we can find.
One idea of mine would be to strip the government of its power to define what marriage is and instead have the government rename what it calls "marriage" to something else, like "legal partnership". I personally don't think I would have a problem saying that I am "legally partnered" to my wife instead of "legally married." From what one gay friend tells me, this would go a long way to giving the gay activist camp what it wants and it would also would solve my dilemma of putting myself at odds with God. It is unfortunate that our society has splintered like this but based on where we are now, this seems like a Not Horrible Solution.
If anyone has any other ideas (aside from the "I demand unconditional surrender and won't even attempt to put myself in the other side's shoes") feel free to leave a comment.
Opposing view points are welcome as long as you are respectful, calm and thoughtful!
Friday, October 25, 2013
More attacks on the family: Polyamory
I just read this article on cnn.
One quote stood out to me:
"We want to promote the idea that any relationship is valid as long as it is a choice made by consenting adults," he said. "In this regard, and as in most things, promoting public acceptance is the first step."
This idea that this gentleman wishes to promote is a false idea which contradicts God's clear laws on chastity and family. See https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation
One quote stood out to me:
"We want to promote the idea that any relationship is valid as long as it is a choice made by consenting adults," he said. "In this regard, and as in most things, promoting public acceptance is the first step."
This idea that this gentleman wishes to promote is a false idea which contradicts God's clear laws on chastity and family. See https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation
Friday, September 27, 2013
Broken politics contributing to moral decline in USA
I recently received this email from my senator, Mike Lee:
"I was honored to join my colleague, Senator Ted Cruz, in an extraordinary effort to bring the voices of the American people to the halls of Congress with one simple purpose: to make DC listen to the American people's concerns with Obamacare. Senator Cruz started speaking at 2:41 p.m. on Tuesday, and he spoke for 21 hours on the Senate Floor. I stayed up with him through the night, and I had several opportunities to share the concerns of the American people from the Senate Floor while also outlining the path Republicans can take to defund Obamacare."
I am bewildered that Mike Lee thinks that attempting to force congress to get rid of Obamacare in exchange for keeping the government running is a good idea.
Do you like to be forced? Do you know anyone who likes to be forced? I sure don't!
Why does Mike Lee think that trying to force anyone to do something is going to bear positive fruit? I am at a loss here.
From where I sit, it appears that the Democratic party in this country is the party taking the clear, thoughtful approach to government while the Republican party increasingly is looking disorganized, drifting, purposeless, and powerless.
Unfortunately, with the GOP traditionally being associated with religious conservatives, I fear that level-headed Democrats may continue to view most/all religious ideas as "bad" (as well as any other idea coming from the GOP) and continue to try to distance the country away from such ideas. This may mean that the moral standard of our country will continue to decline which will be bad for Democrats and Republicans alike.
"I was honored to join my colleague, Senator Ted Cruz, in an extraordinary effort to bring the voices of the American people to the halls of Congress with one simple purpose: to make DC listen to the American people's concerns with Obamacare. Senator Cruz started speaking at 2:41 p.m. on Tuesday, and he spoke for 21 hours on the Senate Floor. I stayed up with him through the night, and I had several opportunities to share the concerns of the American people from the Senate Floor while also outlining the path Republicans can take to defund Obamacare."
I am bewildered that Mike Lee thinks that attempting to force congress to get rid of Obamacare in exchange for keeping the government running is a good idea.
Do you like to be forced? Do you know anyone who likes to be forced? I sure don't!
Why does Mike Lee think that trying to force anyone to do something is going to bear positive fruit? I am at a loss here.
From where I sit, it appears that the Democratic party in this country is the party taking the clear, thoughtful approach to government while the Republican party increasingly is looking disorganized, drifting, purposeless, and powerless.
Unfortunately, with the GOP traditionally being associated with religious conservatives, I fear that level-headed Democrats may continue to view most/all religious ideas as "bad" (as well as any other idea coming from the GOP) and continue to try to distance the country away from such ideas. This may mean that the moral standard of our country will continue to decline which will be bad for Democrats and Republicans alike.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)