An Analogy

celerysticks

An Analogy:

A man walks into a restaurant. He goes up to the counter and without looking at the menu orders a double bacon cheeseburger.

The woman behind the counter smiles pleasantly and says, “Oh, I’m sorry. This is a vegetarian restaurant. We don’t serve meat here. However, there is a restaurant next door that does and one across the street that does as well. Also, just around the corner there is a restaurant that serves a bacon double cheeseburger that has been rated as the best in the whole state.”

The man is irritated and says, “But I want to have one here. How can you judge me for eating meat?! You are discriminating against me for my choice to eat meat!!”

The woman says, “No, I am not judging you at all. I feel that we all have the right to believe whatever we want. However, I feel that it is wrong to kill animals for food. I recognize that not everyone believes this. I have no problem with people who choose to eat meat, nor do I try to force my opinions on them. I have no desire to take away other people’s right to eat meat. I have simply made the decision that I will not serve meat at my restaurant. After all, I have spent a lot of time and money building up my restaurant. I feel that I should have the choice as to what I serve here.”

The man is very angry. Red faced he leaves the restaurant yelling, “I have the right to eat meat!”

One week later the man comes back to the vegetarian restaurant. He has a court order forcing the woman to serve the man a bacon double cheeseburger, even though she does not believe in eating meat.

“What about my right to believe that eating meat is wrong?” asks the woman, incredulous that she is being forced to do something that goes against her beliefs. “It doesn’t harm this man for me to believe that, and I have given him several other options of places that will happily make him a cheeseburger.”

You may think this story is silly and absurd. Of course nobody would ever force a person who has a moral belief against eating meat to cook a cheeseburger for them!

1) Isn’t a society more diverse if it has people who believe entirely different things but have a mutual respect for one another? Yes. Diversity does not mean that we are all forced to eat the same thing or live the same way. It means that we create an environment where we can appreciate and love each other in spite of our differences. We can work together in the areas we are like-minded, and agree to disagree in the areas where we are not.

2) Just by the fact that the woman chooses not to cook the man a cheeseburger, does that mean that she hates him? Does it mean she wants to force him to stop eating meat? No. She understands that she has a different belief, and she knows that there are many places he can get a cheeseburger, which she is fine with. She is not trying to force the restaurants that serve meat to close their doors.

3) Shouldn’t the woman have more tolerance for the man by cooking him a cheeseburger? According to http://www.dictionary.com, Tolerance is defined as “a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one’s own.” This means that the woman should be tolerant of the man’s beliefs and desires by permitting him to have a cheeseburger elsewhere. Likewise, the man should be tolerant of the woman by permitting her to serve only vegetarian food in her restaurant. If there is nowhere for the man to get a cheeseburger, then we have a problem. If the woman is forced to cook cheeseburgers, then we have a problem. We need to foster an environment of mutual tolerance. That means tolerance for BOTH sides of the issue. Not a one-sided tolerance where the attitude is, “if you don’t believe what I do you are foolish, hateful, mean, intolerant, etc…”

So it is with the marriage debate. I should not be forced to compromise my deeply held views because of yours. Thanks to Lisa for this post… http://lisalongll.wordpress.com/2008/10/20/an-analogy/

About these ads

66 Comments

  1. karisa said,

    November 14, 2008 at 10:51 pm

    Not silly at all. Nail on the head.

  2. standingfortruth2008 said,

    November 14, 2008 at 11:55 pm

    Great post, again. :)

    Thanks to Lisa as well for the truth.

    http://standingfortruth2008.wordpress.com/

  3. beetlebabee said,

    November 14, 2008 at 11:59 pm

    Yeah, you know, I just love that picture too, it’s so…clean. I needed a break from the burning and the weeping, wailing, gnashing of teeth pictures.

    Plus, It is refreshing to me to hear the argument from another angle. It removes some of the stigma and bias from the sides and plays with it a bit. Lisa did quite an excellent job on it.

  4. lahona said,

    November 15, 2008 at 12:59 am

    Good post Beetle. Your right we needed a breath of fresh air… err… vegetables or whatever… :)

  5. amy said,

    November 15, 2008 at 3:50 am

    That’s a great idea! Let those who want to be joined as same-sex couples come up with a definition all to their own, a nice juicy cheeseburger that they can enjoy and own for themselves.

  6. Tim H said,

    November 15, 2008 at 4:28 am

    I take it Canada is the meat-serving restaurant next door. Are you saying you want all gay and lesbian people to move there, or just those who want to get married? And is Canada far enough away, or will you still feel we’re being intolerant of your beliefs if we’re on the same continent as you?

    This is not about intolerance of beliefs. Other people’s marriages don’t affect you or your beliefs in any way. This is about you imposing your will on other people. You have decided that you do not want gay people to get married. You could just as easily have decided that two people from different races should not be allowed to marry (and such a ban did exist, until California’s “activist” judges ruled it unconstitutional in a landmark case). Or that any marriage ceremony conducted by a different religion or denomination to yours, shouldn’t be treated as a real marriage. Or that any two individuals you happen to think aren’t suited to each other should be banned from getting married. I wonder which of these you will choose next time.

    Nothing was imposed upon you by the recognition of gay marriage. But you and everyone who voted for Proposition 8, voted to force others to live their lives by your beliefs. That’s not democracy. Democratic systems protect and enshrine the rights of all citizens, as California’s Supreme Court recognised back in May. What you did is mob rule, the tyranny of the majority. There is no tolerance in you seeking to dictate to other people what their status in society is and how they can and cannot live, or in telling them that if they don’t like the decisions you have made for them then they should find “another restuarant”.

  7. ivoteyesonprop8 said,

    November 15, 2008 at 4:59 am

    Well said! Thanks!

  8. jesurgislac said,

    November 15, 2008 at 6:00 am

    The woman behind the counter smiles pleasantly and says, “Oh, I’m sorry. This is a vegetarian restaurant. We don’t serve meat here. However, there is a restaurant next door that does and one across the street that does as well. Also, just around the corner there is a restaurant that serves a bacon double cheeseburger that has been rated as the best in the whole state.”

    So the vegetarian restaurant is California, and the other three restaurants are Massachusetts, Connecticutt, and …Canada?

    I suppose in global terms these states are “next door”, “across the street”, and “just around the corner”, but …only in global terms. It would be a better analogy if all the restaurant owners in town were telling the man “Get out, we don’t serve your kind here” – you know, the sunset town situation. After all, that’s what 52% of the vote just told the lesbians and gays of California: “Get out, we don’t serve your sort here.”

  9. November 15, 2008 at 9:29 am

    [...] 15, 2008 · No Comments There have been some great posts and articles around the web which show (in very simple terms for people like me) why I should not force a [...]

  10. Delirious said,

    November 15, 2008 at 11:49 am

    My only question is, why is “something wrong” if there is no place for him to get a cheeseburger. If the people of the State all voted, and agreed that this would be a vegetarian state, then the man should respect the democratic vote of the people. And if every other State in the U. S. decided to be vegetarian, then he must respect that vote.

    In the case of same sex marriage, we haven’t taken away a comparable substitute. We have offered Civil unions. If we use your analogy, we aren’t asking them to starve, we have offered them a substitute that will give them the same nutrition, without breaking the law of the land, and without revoking the voice of the people.

  11. jesurgislac said,

    November 15, 2008 at 12:16 pm

    Well, as a vegetarian, I see the analogy the other way round.

    A host is giving a meal, and has invited everyone they know. Let’s say the host is the government of California, and everyone – all the citizens and residents of California – is invited.

    The Yes-on-8 people say that, because this is a meat-eating state, the host ought to provide only a good meat meal for everyone. That’s equality – the same for everyone. That this means the Jews go hungry because it’s not kosher, and the Muslims because it’s not halal, and the vegetarians because we’d really rather have nut roast, is not relevant, say the Yes-on-8ers. In fact, they argue that for the host to provide a decent meal for everyone – make sure everyone can eat their fill – is “forcing vegetarianism” on them, even though no one’s asking them to tuck into a nut roast: they’re quite welcome to continue to eat their roast pork. Their’s, they say, is a good Christian diet, and it’s perfectly fair to enforce the same thing on everyone – it’s not their problem if the vegetarians sit there starving while everyone else is eating their fill.

    In effect, in May, the courts ruled that it was perfectly acceptable for a vegetarian to be able to get the food they wanted at a state restaurant. But the Yes-on-8ers just passed a Constitutional amendment to say no, get out of town, your right to have a vegetarian meal means you’re forcing vegetarianiam on the rest of us because we have to watch you eating it!

    (And yes, I’ve met non-vegetarians who get exactly as het-up over my choosing the vegetarian option – as if it’s personally insulting to them – as I see anti-marriage people do over same-sex couples choosing to get married, as if it’s anything to do with them who their neighbour chooses to marry.)

  12. { Lisa } said,

    November 15, 2008 at 3:30 pm

    All in all same sex marriage is wrong and it goes against the word of God. I saw a couple signs from gays saying “God is love” well how in the world did they miss the scripture that says men are not to lay with men as they do women? or that homosexual behavior is a sin and an abominaton to that same loving God? I guess not only are they gay but also cherry pickers. If all you gays out there want to “marry” each other then go have a ceremony in your backyards and have your friend marry you, or a gay supporting “preacher” cause if all you cared about it marrying that other person you wouldnt need the states approval. What you are trying to do is shove your twisted ways onto people and make it normal for the world to do as you do. Well its not normal, it is disgusting and twisted.

  13. jesurgislac said,

    November 15, 2008 at 4:07 pm

    I guess not only are they gay but also cherry pickers.

    So are you, unless you’re telling me you obey completely all of the 613 commandments in Leviticus, not just the part about a man not lying down with a man as he would a woman. Do you? And if you think that anything against any of those 613 Commandments is wrong because it’s “against the word of God”, why aren’t you out there protesting against McDonalds cheeseburgers and baconburgers?

    All in all same sex marriage is wrong and it goes against the word of God.

    …which is no reason to prohibit same-sex marriage by the law of the land, unless you think that the law of the land should also make it illegal to eat a cheeseburger.

  14. { Lisa } said,

    November 15, 2008 at 7:24 pm

    well I responded earlier but its not here so I will again..

    I am not out protesting meat because eating meat is not a sin, it says in the bible who are we to say that something is not good enough for us to eat, that all foods are for us so it depends on which one you want to go with on that issue.

    And we are not talking about any of the other laws or commandements you mentioned we are talking about homosexuality. When you are having an argument with someone over something you dont go on rabbit trails, you stick to the main trail you are on. so since we are talking about gay marriage then we will talk about that:)

    It is a sin like no other for a man to be with a man like a man should be with a women because the word says that all other sin is outside the body and sexual sin is against the body (aka temple). God created woman for man period. His intent was for marriage to mirror Him, and to glorify him and to help replenish the earth. It is an abomination to God for people to live this way. And we are to stand up for what is right and not allow such vile acts to go on like it is normal.

  15. jesurgislac said,

    November 16, 2008 at 2:47 am

    I am not out protesting meat because eating meat is not a sin, it says in the bible who are we to say that something is not good enough for us to eat, that all foods are for us so it depends on which one you want to go with on that issue.

    Yes, in the Acts of the Apostles, Saint Peter receives a vision from God in terms of how he can eat unclean food, which Peter interprets (wisely, most Christians would now think!) as not rejecting people whom his Jewish faith would call unclean. (Explained at more length here: The Abominable Shellfish.

    And we are not talking about any of the other laws or commandements you mentioned we are talking about homosexuality.

    Ah, but you accused these women of being “cherry pickers” because you hold to the Levitical purity laws. So now I’m asking you: do you cherry-pick the Levitical purity laws? And it appears, yes, you do: you do not claim to obey all 613 of them, so you cherry-pick the ones you want to obey.

    It is a sin like no other for a man to be with a man like a man should be with a women because the word says that all other sin is outside the body and sexual sin is against the body (aka temple). God created woman for man period. His intent was for marriage to mirror Him, and to glorify him and to help replenish the earth. It is an abomination to God for people to live this way. And we are to stand up for what is right and not allow such vile acts to go on like it is normal.

    Fine. But you can’t use the law of the land to enforce your religious faith: so while you are welvome to do a Fred Phelps and stand outside people’s weddings waving a big sign telling them they’re going to hell for being happily married (well, not welcome, but certainly free to do so!) you may not, according to the principles of freedom of religion which underpin American law, use your faith as a reason why they shouldn’t get married.

  16. Liz said,

    November 16, 2008 at 2:59 am

    Here’s a thought. Perhaps the “other restaurants” are civil unions and domestic partnerships, where all the same rights are available, but with a different name (meat lovers). That’s how I read this analogy. Not that gays should move to Massachusetts, Connecticut, or Canada. Just that gays should stop demanding the word marriage and start working for the federal rights they so desire under a different name.

  17. standingfortruth2008 said,

    November 16, 2008 at 3:10 am

    Whoa, there, Nellie! I mean Tim H. :) What you are stating is that unless we accept everyone, and everyone’s beliefs, then we are discriminating.

    Question for you Tim. Do you accept polygamy for a Muslim? After all, that is his belief and his right, no? Are you also OK with Open Relationships, in which Gay (or Straight) couples can be married but also have as many partners as they want?

    Hmmmm…if we could actually see each other, I woudl wager that you are either wavering here about how much you sustain the right for ALL types of relationships, or, barring that tactic, that you may not agree that everyone has rights.

    After all, is it OK for a 40 year old man to be with an 18 year old man? OK, how about a 17 year old young man? 16 year old boy? 15 year old? WHat makes the “norm” or standard?

    Tim, the point is that we, the people, establish the standard and this is a morally conservative country. Look up the polls and question your neighbors. Think about it, Come back, let’s talk more.

  18. standingfortruth2008 said,

    November 16, 2008 at 3:21 am

    jesurgislac –

    OK, trying to follow your logic here. You want a vegetarian meal (which I also enjoy, as long as it is really a Veggie meal, and not symbolic of a homosexual act, that is not for me, but if you want to, go ahead). Bob wants a pork BBQ sandwich. We vote and agree that we can only serve meat.

    It’s a little hard to follow as you can skip the meat part of the meal and just eat the veggies. Are there no veggies at all in the meal? What is someone came to the restaurant and wanted a meal made of human flesh (yes, I mean cannibalism) and we all said, no, that is not OK.

    We are then discriminating against him (or her), correct?

    What if cannibalism was pedofilia? And it was a 40 year old man who wanted to have a relationship with his 17 year old “friend”? or 16 year old?

    Society sets the norms for behavior, and we are a conservative society socially.

    Maybe, we should have a different analogy.

  19. jesurgislac said,

    November 16, 2008 at 3:56 am

    It’s a little hard to follow as you can skip the meat part of the meal and just eat the veggies.

    Sure, and plenty of confirmed carnivores have told me to do just that, just as plenty of people have recently been telling LGBT people that they should just skip the marriage part and be content with “separate and unequal” civil unions, because if a restaurant serves a full vegetarian meal, that’s somehow “forcing vegetarianism on all those confirmed carnivores who eat there and don’t want to be compelled to see a vegetarian tucking into a tasty plate of mushroom kasha while they’re eating their turkey.

    Trying to compare this to “cannibalism” – dude, you’re reaching, aren’t you?

  20. jesurgislac said,

    November 16, 2008 at 3:58 am

    Liz: Not that gays should move to Massachusetts, Connecticut, or Canada. Just that gays should stop demanding the word marriage and start working for the federal rights they so desire under a different name.

    *shrug* Given the homophobic reaction to civil partnerships in the UK, if LGBT people in the US did start working to invent a “separate but equal” relationship in the US, with all the rights of marriage but not the name, the anti-gay movement would just start attacking that. It’s the equality, not the name, that the anti-gay movement finds offensive.

  21. beetlebabee said,

    November 16, 2008 at 5:16 am

    I think I vote for the Liz interpretation. Separate but equal has a bad connotation because of it’s use in the civil rights movement, but there are lots of every day examples of separate but equal that work just fine.

    For instance, Childbirth vs. Adoption. I have three sons who joined our family by adoption and a daughter who is biological. Both ways of adding to our family are equal but unique. When I brought my sons home, I did not demand it be called childbirth, it wasn’t childbirth, it was adoption. Are my sons second class family members? Absolutely not.

    Adoption didn’t used to have the good connotation that it has now, it had to be worked for. That was Elton John’s point earlier and I think it’s a good one.

    The only equality the word marriage gives that another word wouldn’t give is moral equality. But that isn’t something that’s truly attached to the word anyway. You could give same sex unions the word marriage and we could adopt another and they’d still be unhappy because they’re not morally equal.

  22. lizziejane99 said,

    November 16, 2008 at 5:17 am

    “Given the homophobic reaction to civil partnerships in the UK…”

    Well, well. Comparing us to the UK, huh? What about the whole, “We’re not Massachusetts” argument? Does the same not hold true for the UK? That’s convenient.

    “…the anti-gay movement would just start attacking that. It’s the equality, not the name, that the anti-gay movement finds offensive.”

    I am not anti-gay. I am pro-marriage. So, I’d be thrilled with an alternative that would make both sides happy, and equal…without subjecting children to indoctrination. Because, let’s be honest here, the whole idea behind procuring the word marriage isn’t equal rights, it’s equal acceptance. Homosexuals want the world to view their lifestyle in the same brilliant, blinding light that they see it. By getting “marriage” and, subsequently, education rights in schools, they effectively remove any barriers to the removal of their lifestyle’s stigma. So, gay people unite! Do the dance of solidarity! Be yourselves, but don’t expect me to roll over and accept a deviant lifestyle just because you want me to…so bad…please, please, please. No. I said, no. NO! I love gays. Honestly, I do. I just don’t love their chosen lifestyle and I don’t want my child to HAVE to learn to love it because his teacher says it is okay. But…that’s just me.

  23. jesurgislac said,

    November 16, 2008 at 6:10 am

    Well, well. Comparing us to the UK, huh? What about the whole, “We’re not Massachusetts” argument? Does the same not hold true for the UK? That’s convenient.

    Well, if you look at the various anti-marriage movement “arguments” against Proposition 8, most of them had nothing to do with protecting the word marriage. I posted a takedown of some egregious examples on my blog: you can see they used examples from states like Ohio where same-sex marriage and civil unions are denied legal recognition: they used examples that have nothing to do with marriage, anti-bullying education days in schools.

    But yes, I see no problem in comparing how the religious right behave in the UK where they were given what they claim they wanted – same-sex couples have all the rights of marriage without the name – with their behavior in the US, where bans on civil union recognition are almost as common as bans on same-sex marriage.

    I am not anti-gay. I am pro-marriage. So, I’d be thrilled with an alternative that would make both sides happy, and equal

    Good. Support equal marriage, then.

    I just don’t love their chosen lifestyle and I don’t want my child to HAVE to learn to love it because his teacher says it is okay. But…that’s just me.

    Regardless of what your child’s sexual orientation is? Regardless of the sexual orientation of your child’s friends? Family? Supposing your child is gay – wouldn’t your child be better off if, at school at least, your child learns that yes, regardless of what they say at home, it is possible to grow up gay, be happy, know that being gay means you can be as lovable, worthwhile, and good a person as if you were straight – even if your mother keeps trying to tell you that your sexual orientation is a “stigma” and you made a “choice” to be that way? Because even if your child is 100% heterosexual, this scenario applies to somebody’s children.

    There is also, you know, the point that the children of same-sex parents, and their friends, deserve to be treated with respect – no child should be taught that their parents have a “stigma”, that their family is somehow inferior or wrong.

    Regardless of the prejudices of their parents, all children – no matter what their sexual orientation or the sexual orientation of their parents – deserve to grow up regarding each other with respect, and regarding each other’s parents with respect. Yes, your child’s teacher ought to be teaching your child that it’s okay to be gay, it’s okay to have gay parents, because if you won’t, if you want your child to grow up thinking that it’s not okay to be gay, or that it’s not okay for their best friend to be gay – or to have gay parents – then someone must. Because otherwise, we run the risks of suicide, unhappy card marriage, misery, grief – bullying other children because of who their parents are – none of which are desirable outcomes.

  24. beetlebabee said,

    November 16, 2008 at 6:12 am

    You can teach your children about respect without teaching them equivalence. That’s the whole thing about morality. Not every action is equal. Not everything you may feel like doing….because of genes, choice, or circumstance….is right.

    Teaching children that it’s ok to act on gay impulses, that crosses the line of morality for me. Children aren’t “gay.” Gay isn’t something you are in my book, it’s something you do. You are a person, you are my brother or my sister. You are lots of things in this life but you are not your sexual behavior.

  25. jesurgislac said,

    November 16, 2008 at 6:13 am

    For instance, Childbirth vs. Adoption. I have three sons who joined our family by adoption and a daughter who is biological. Both ways of adding to our family are equal but unique. When I brought my sons home, I did not demand it be called childbirth, it wasn’t childbirth, it was adoption. Are my sons second class family members? Absolutely not.

    And yet, I’ve seen many arguments that say couples who have children only by adoption ought not to be allowed to get married. It’s one of the key arguments against same-sex marriage, in fact – that because when same-sex couples have children, they have them by adoption or by donor (or by fostering, or stepchildren) they ought not be allowed marriage, because marriage is restricted exclusively to couples who have children via mutual interfertility. As the mother of adopted children, do you feel that your adopted children don’t need you to be married to your partner?

    The only equality the word marriage gives that another word wouldn’t give is moral equality. But that isn’t something that’s truly attached to the word anyway. You could give same sex unions the word marriage and we could adopt another and they’d still be unhappy because they’re not morally equal.

    That’s an interesting idea: let’s try it out for a few years and see how it works out for you.

  26. beetlebabee said,

    November 16, 2008 at 6:36 am

    jesurgislac, so are you intending to misunderstand? Mentioning the idea of adoption is not open season on adoption subjects, I am making a point. If you’re truly interested in constructive argument, stick to the subject and don’t gratuitously jump from one to the next because you have some cut and paste about adoption. Respond to the point. We can talk about the perils of same sex adoption next. Keep it in the cue, I promise, I’ll still be here.

  27. jesurgislac said,

    November 16, 2008 at 6:43 am

    Are you intending to misunderstand?

    I’m talking about the right of children to married parents: an argument for equal marriage. You can diss adoptive parents in a separate post if you want to; I’m asking you a serious question. Do you think that your adopted children don’t need you and your partner to be married, whereas your biological children do? If you don’t make that distinction – if you think both adoptive and biological children deserve married parents – what’s your justification for denying marriage to parents of adopted children?

  28. jesurgislac said,

    November 16, 2008 at 6:48 am

    You can teach your children about respect without teaching them equivalence. That’s the whole thing about morality. Not every action is equal. Not everything you may feel like doing….because of genes, choice, or circumstance….is right.

    You used “adoption” as an example. Would you teach your biological children that they could respect their adopted brothers and sisters, but weren’t to regard them as equals in the family? Could you teach them respect in that way?

    I don’t see how.

  29. beetlebabee said,

    November 16, 2008 at 7:13 am

    Actually, the adoption example is an example of separate but equal without stigma attached to either one side or the other. That is what is possible with Civil Unions and Marriages.

  30. jesurgislac said,

    November 16, 2008 at 7:38 am

    Well, let’s take this seriously for a minute.

    If the US government were to institute a federal civil union for same-sex couples only, with identical federal rights to marriage, and (as the UK government did for civil partnership) specify that they would recognise all legal unions equivalent to marriage as this civil union in the US, would that be full legal equality for same-sex couples? It would be nearer it than before, but it still wouldn’t be full equality, because:

    One, in the US marriage is supposed to be regulated by the state governments, with each state recognising the legal marriages from other states. (Which is why the news that Obama intends to repeal DOMA was such good news: it means that other states will have no choice but to accept as valid a marriage that is legal in the state in which it was made, just as the US Constitution requires.) Imposition of a top-down civil union wouldn;t give full legal equality in states where the legislature had determined that the state wouldn’t; recognise same-sex relationships, even if the federal government was going to. The strategically right thing here is to repeal DOMA, which will ensure that couples who want to get married can even if it means they have to travel to another state to get a legal marriage which their own state will be required to recognise: and ought to mean that, across the nation, any state with same-sex civil unions will be required to recognise the same-sex civil unions from any other state. (Ironically, this will mean that states which have declined to institute even same-sex civil unions will thus be compelled to accept same-sex couples as legally married, as they have no alternative to offer.)

    Two: You cannot argue that you are offering same-sex civil unions as “separate but equal”, with full respect for same-sex couples, if you admit that you do not respect same-sex couples or see them as your equals. If your solution was adopted, and children in kindergarten go to see their teacher get to wed her partner in a civil union instead of a civil marriage, and children in elementary schools get text books which say that same-sex couples can register a civil union and mixed-sex couples can register a civil marriage, and both are equally good and valid, and children of any age are told by their teachers that it’s okay to be gay – will you really be happy and supportive of this outcome? From what you’ve said in this thread and elsewhere, I somehow doubt it.

  31. November 16, 2008 at 12:59 pm

    jesurgislac,
    There are two kinds of equal that I think you are getting mixed up here. First is equal under the law. That means that you have the same rights and responsibilities from the law’s point of view. In California, civil unions and marriage are equal under the law. They have different names but the same rights are given to both groups. You can read the California code to be convinced of this (although I don’t think it’s really a contested point.)

    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5

    The second type of equal is the idea that both things are of equal value. Here is where there is disagreement and why many are against having it taught in schools, for instance. This is NOT based on beliefs or faith, it’s based on facts. This isn’t saying that same sex couples are not better because homosexuality is a sin, it’s saying that same sex couples are not better because they result in outcomes that EVERYONE can agree are negative. I believe that most people who voted for prop 8 voted because they don’t believe that same sex unions and marriage have equal value and that teaching that they do would be dishonest to our children. Here are some links to data that support the idea that they are not of equal value:

    Research shows that contributions from both a mother and a father are significant in the development of children:

    http://www.alabamapolicy.org/pdf/currentfamilystructure.pdf

    http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/SOOU2007.pdf

    http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/SOOU2007.pdf

    http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/Do_Moms_Dads_Matter.pdf

    Same sex relationships are shorter term than traditional marriages between a man and a wife.
    The average duration of committed relationships among gay steady partners was 1.5 years:

    http://www.aidsonline.com/pt/re/aids/pdfhandler.00002030-200305020-00012.pdf

    29% of relationships last more than 7 years:

    http://glcensus.org/press/02052004.html

    The average homosexual relationship in the US lasts only two to three years:

    http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50

    Same sex relationships are much more prone to domestic violence
    Violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples

    http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/85-570-XIE/85-570-XIE2006001.pdf

    http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50

    Same sex relationships are more likely to prematurely end in death of one or both partners due to the very high rate of diseases such as AIDS (200 times more likely):

    http://www.unaids.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/HIVData/EpiUpdate/EpiUpdArchive/2007/default.asp

    Homosexuals are 10-25 times more likely to be child molestors:

    http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet2.html

    Although same sex unions are equal under the law, they do not have equal value. They are plauged with these problems and it would be dishonest to our children to teach them that they are of equal value because unfortunately they are not.

  32. { Lisa } said,

    November 16, 2008 at 2:52 pm

    Troy,

    Wow what great information!! Thanks!

  33. lizziejane99 said,

    November 16, 2008 at 3:02 pm

    “where bans on civil union recognition are almost as common as bans on same-sex marriage.”

    But not in California. Pick one cause. Geez. There is no ban on civil unions in California. Period. If you want to lift bans in other states, work toward that in other states or work toward repealing the DOMA (good luck). California does have domestic partnerships and those domestic partnerships have the exact same RIGHTS as heterosexual marriages, without the name. Changing the definition of a word is not a right.

    “Good. Support equal marriage, then.”

    Aw, that’s not exactly an “alternative” that would make both sides happy, now is it? Way to compromise, good buddy.

    “Regardless of what your child’s sexual orientation is? Regardless of the sexual orientation of your child’s friends? Family? Supposing your child is gay – wouldn’t your child be better off if, at school at least, your child learns that yes, regardless of what they say at home, it is possible to grow up gay, be happy, know that being gay means you can be as lovable, worthwhile, and good a person as if you were straight – even if your mother keeps trying to tell you that your sexual orientation is a “stigma” and you made a “choice” to be that way?”

    But I don’t believe that, so why should my child be indoctrinated just because you think that’s what’s fair? I don’t believe gays can grow up being happy. They are making a lifestyle choice that is fraught with social problems – how will that make them happy? And, no, I don’t believe that by removing the stigma all gays will suddenly be happier – that by society telling them their sexual orientation is normal, it suddenly will be. No matter how much the homosexual community forces the greater American society to accept their deviant lifestyle, God never will. And research has already shown just how negative the lifestyle is on the couple itself, the children belonging to the couple, the community, health, etc.

    And, I do believe it is a choice. I believe that homosexuals are born into feelings and tendencies that they themselves do not understand. But, like the alcoholic, born into addiction, surrendering to those feelings is unacceptable. We are all given trials and tribulations, but we don’t all succumb to the temptations and the “natural man.” If I have a child that expresses homosexual feelings, I will try to nurture him/her back into a heterosexual preference. If that doesn’t work, I’ll teach him/her that God gave us struggles and if we work with Him, we can live happy lives without giving in to our desires. But if that doesn’t work, I’ll always love him/her, even while I disagree with his/her lifestyle.

    “Regardless of the prejudices of their parents, all children – no matter what their sexual orientation or the sexual orientation of their parents – deserve to grow up regarding each other with respect, and regarding each others parents with respect. Yes, your child’s teacher ought to be teaching your child that it’s okay to be gay, it’s okay to have gay parents, because if you won’t, if you want your child to grow up thinking that it’s not okay to be gay, or that it’s not okay for their best friend to be gay – or to have gay parents – then someone must.”

    You’re splitting hairs. I will always teach my children to respect all different kinds of people (including their gay uncles). But respect does not mean embrace. I will never teach my children contrary to the Lord’s teachings. I will never teach them that homosexual relationships are okay as an alternative to heterosexual marriage. Never. And when you say something like “…if you won’t…then someone must,” you remind me exactly why I voted Yes on 8. Because what you’re suggesting there is that someone knows better than my husband and I with regard to the teaching and moral education of my children. What you are admitting is that what happened in Massachusetts is “right.” And that, sir, scares me to death. Where do we draw the line then in what education we’ll turn over to the state or angry minorities seeking sexual orientation validation?

  34. lizziejane99 said,

    November 16, 2008 at 3:03 pm

    Beetle,

    I loved your adoption analogy. You’re right, just because adoption is not considered childbirth does not mean that your adopted children are second class citizens.

    Thank you!
    Liz

  35. jesurgislac said,

    November 16, 2008 at 3:56 pm

    Troy: First is equal under the law. That means that you have the same rights and responsibilities from the law’s point of view. In California, civil unions and marriage are equal under the law.

    No, they’re not.

    Troy: I believe that most people who voted for prop 8 voted because they don’t believe that same sex unions and marriage have equal value and that teaching that they do would be dishonest to our children

    So, they’re bigots who wanted your children to grow up thinking that the only relationships they could have were of lesser value. Why are you on their side? Are you assuming that all of your children are going to be straight, so it won’t matter that some people’s children are going to be taught that they’re second-class citizens?

    lizziejane99: I loved your adoption analogy. You’re right, just because adoption is not considered childbirth does not mean that your adopted children are second class citizens.

    Interesting you should “love” that analogy when immediately above it you have posted this:

    “But I don’t believe that, so why should my child be indoctrinated just because you think that’s what’s fair? I don’t believe adopted children can grow up being happy. They are making a lifestyle choice that is fraught with social problems – how will that make them happy? And, no, I don’t believe that by removing the stigma all adopted children will suddenly be happier – that by society telling them their being adopted is normal, it suddenly will be. No matter how much the community of adopted children forces the greater American society to accept their deviant lifestyle, God never will. And research has already shown just how negative the lifestyle is on the adopted children, the children the adopted children have, the community, health, etc.”

    If Beetle’s adopted children were consistently being told, by Troy Rockwood, by you, that they were inferior – that their existence was deviant, that they had a “negative lifestyle”, that the only relationships they could have would be inferior to those children growing up with their biological parents have – would you think that was just fine and dandy?

    Because that’s what you’re saying is OK to do to children of LGBT parents, and to kids who know they’re LGBT.

  36. standingfortruth2008 said,

    November 16, 2008 at 4:29 pm

    Jesurgic –

    You missed the boat, dude! Please use logic for a second and stop throwing up the same cut and paste. Are you ok with all relationships – regardless of age of minors (pedofilia), because is society right in saying that 18 is the legal age? – Cannibalism Analogy

    Are you OK with Open Marriages (Gay or Straight)? Why should society tell us we should be monogamous? – Pescavore Analogy

    Are you OK with Muslims having up to 4 wives? – Raw Foods Analogy

    Try and stay with the analogies, or else the discussion just doesn’t happen and we are just posting random comments to hear ourselves talk.

  37. lizziejane99 said,

    November 16, 2008 at 4:33 pm

    Um, adoption vs. homosexuality…moral vs. immoral. No comparison. Period.

  38. jesurgislac said,

    November 16, 2008 at 4:52 pm

    lizziejane: Um, adoption vs. homosexuality…moral vs. immoral. No comparison. Period.

    Telling kids they’re immoral or inferior because of something they did not choose: Just Plain Wrong. Period.

    That goes for whether you’re telling kids they’re inferior because they’re adopted, because their parents are a same-sex couple, or because (as Troy does) because they’re lesbian, gay, or bisexual.

    Doesn’t matter what your justification or excuse is or however sincere your belief that these kids are immoral because they’re homosexual, or inferior because their parents are both gay men or both lesbians. Bullying kids, trying to make kids feel bad about themselves or their parents: wrong.

    standingfortruth2008: Uh, does the “half-civil” only apply to me, and not to you?

  39. Troyrock said,

    November 16, 2008 at 6:44 pm

    Jesurgislac,
    First is equal under the law. That means that you have the same rights and responsibilities from the law’s point of view. In California, civil unions and marriage are equal under the law.

    No, they’re not.

    Apparently you did not read the link that I posted. Maybe you can be a little more specific and help me know in what way civil unions are not equal to marriage under the law in California. Thank.s

  40. jesurgislac said,

    November 16, 2008 at 7:13 pm

    Maybe you can be a little more specific and help me know in what way civil unions are not equal to marriage under the law in California. Thank.s

    No problem. California Family Code, 297. Domestic partners must “share a common residence”, and it must be within the state of California. This does not apply to married couples. Domestic partners in California do not have the rights of spouses towards each other recognised if they leave California, unless the state or country to which they move has formally declared they will do so: this does not apply to married couples. Further, once Obama repeals DOMA, all married couples in California are entitled to full recognition under federal law immediately: couples in a domestic partnership need not be. This is not equality.

    Is this specific enough?

  41. { Lisa } said,

    November 16, 2008 at 7:32 pm

    jesurgislac,

    “Telling kids they’re immoral or inferior because of something they did not choose: Just Plain Wrong. Period.”

    People are not born gay, just like they are not born with anger issues or pregnant. It is a lifestyle choice that they come to for lots of reasons. Saying it’s genetic is an excuse to be that way.

    If God says it is sin then he would not create them that way period.

  42. lizziejane99 said,

    November 16, 2008 at 7:41 pm

    “Telling kids they’re immoral or inferior because of something they did not choose: Just Plain Wrong. Period.”

    Who said I’m going to go around telling kids anything about homosexuality? I have merely asked that I be allowed to teach MY OWN KIDS about homosexuality, a parental right I have effectively protected by voting for Prop 8. Now homosexuality will not be taught in schools and I will not have another authority figure undermining my religious/moral teachings by reading books about homosexuality or having conversations about homosexuality or distributing safe homosexual sex pamphlets in sex ed class.

    And, of course, I agree with Lisa. People are not born gay, they choose to pursue some feelings of attraction and effectively choose to be gay.

  43. duane said,

    November 16, 2008 at 8:36 pm

    Lisa, #41, I can understand where you are coming from as if I were not gay I would most likely think the same–that people choose to be gay. Odd as it may seem, I have met hundreds, maybe thousands of gay people in my lifetime and not one of them has claimed they chose to be gay. The only people who claim that homosexuality is a choice are straight. To you, homosexuality is foreign, inconceivable and could never be a choice for you. So it is with me and being straight. Peace.

  44. jesurgislac said,

    November 16, 2008 at 8:59 pm

    { Lisa } : People are not born gay, just like they are not born with anger issues or pregnant. It is a lifestyle choice that they come to for lots of reasons. Saying it’s genetic is an excuse to be that way.</I?

    Huh. Actually, the scientific consensus is that while there may be both genetic and environmental factors involved in a person’a sexual orientation, no one actually knows what the cause is: but what has been definitely known for at least a century is that a person does not choose their sexual orientation: whatever the factors involved in where someone falls on the normal human range from homosexual to heterosexual, none of them involve personal choice. If you think about it, I’m sure you’ll realize that at no point did you choose your sexual orientation, whatever it is. No one does.

    If God says it is sin then he would not create them that way period.

    Precisely. So, one may reason back from the information available; as people just “are that way”, if you believe that God made humans, God can’t possibly consider that homosexuality is a sin, since God wouldn’t make part of the normal range of human sexual orientation an arbitrary “sin”. The Biblical evidence for this is scant anyway, dependent on two verses in the Levitical purity laws and a couple more possible condemnations in Paul’s letters to first-century churches.

  45. jesurgislac said,

    November 16, 2008 at 9:20 pm

    lizziejane: Who said I’m going to go around telling kids anything about homosexuality? I have merely asked that I be allowed to teach MY OWN KIDS about homosexuality

    Well, you have that right: you always did, you still do, no vote of yours or anyone’s changed this. No one can stop you from telling your children anything you like about homosexuality.

    Of course, the Californian public school system still may teach your children that being gay is OK and normal, but that was true before the court decision in May on same-sex marriage, and is still true today.

    , a parental right I have effectively protected by voting for Prop 8.

    No: Proposition 8 had nothing whatsoever to do with what can and cannot not be taught in Californian schools. Proposition 8 was solely and exclusively about banning the freedom to marry for same-sex couples, and banning the recognition of same-sex marriage in California. It neither prevented you from telling your children whatever you please about homosexuality, nor did it affect the public schools’ responsibility to educate children factually and without discrimination.

    Now homosexuality will not be taught in schools

    Well, insofar as teaching children that being lesbian or gay is just as OK as being straight is “teaching homosexuality in schools”, yes, it will. Proposition 8 had nothing to do with Californian schools: you can read the exact text here. I know this was a popular theme with the “Yes-on-8″ campaign, but it was a lie: you did not change the Californian education system even one bit when you voted to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, as you can confirm for yourself by reading the text.

    and I will not have another authority figure undermining my religious/moral teachings by reading books about homosexuality or having conversations about homosexuality or distributing safe homosexual sex pamphlets in sex ed class.

    Well, unless you withdraw your kids from the Californian public school system completely, yes, you will have public school teachers undermining your attempts to make your kids think there’s something immoral/bad about being gay – because, as you’ll see from the text of Proposition 8, you didn’t change anything about the education system when you voted on marriage.

  46. November 16, 2008 at 9:56 pm

    From the California Code:

    297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
    protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
    responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
    derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
    government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
    of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.

    This is equal under the law. The method for establishing a domestic partnership is different from that of marriage but I don’t believe that this is significant. Are you concerned that someone may want to establish a domestic partnership with someone but does not wish to share the same domicile?

  47. November 16, 2008 at 10:11 pm

    jesurgislac,

    Troy: I believe that most people who voted for prop 8 voted because they don’t believe that same sex unions and marriage have equal value and that teaching that they do would be dishonest to our children

    jesurgislac: So, they’re bigots who wanted your children to grow up thinking that the only relationships they could have were of lesser value. Why are you on their side? Are you assuming that all of your children are going to be straight, so it won’t matter that some people’s children are going to be taught that they’re second-class citizens?

    It is clear that you are quite emotionally involved, however, I only posted facts. I believe that teaching children that things are different from the way that they are is not correct and dishonest. When I teach my children, I teach them the facts as far as I know them or can discover them.

    The misuse of the word bigot is tiresome in the extreme. If you are going to use a word, look it up so that you can use it properly.

    I’ll provide from definitions from

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com

    Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
    Intolerant: Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
    Tolerate: to allow something to exist or happen, even although one does not approve of it

    A therefore bigot is one that does not allow something to exist if it is different from oneself. From that definition the people who voted for prop 8 are not bigots. My teaching children that existing in a same sex partnership in general results in higher violence, lower child rearing capabilities, higher incidence of death and disease, and will likely be more short than a traditional marriage is not bigoted, it’s just telling my children the facts. Telling them that they should be celebrated equally would be a lie. It would be like telling your children that 2+2=5, it would make them less able to cope, less able to succeed because it would be false.

  48. jesurgislac said,

    November 16, 2008 at 10:13 pm

    Are you concerned that someone may want to establish a domestic partnership with someone but does not wish to share the same domicile?

    Aren’t you aware yourself that people do get married when they don’t or can’t yet share a home? A couple may have jobs mandating that they live separately, or family responsibilities that take one of them out-of-state. This isn’t something that same-sex couples are able to do under Californian law, as I see the text of the law – a couple can marry in order to establish their legal relationship, but as from 4th November, a same-sex couple who want to establish a legal relationship must move in together as a first step. Nor of course does this help out-of-state couples, who want to marry in California and have just been legally barred from doing so.

    In any case, “separate but equal” – especially when it’s not fully equal – is a legal tradition with a long record of allowing/encouraging covert or overt discrimination in the US. As I think noted upthread, with plenty of people arguing that LGBT people are their inferiors, it’s hard to see those people arguing that domestic partnerships are exactly as good as marriage.

  49. { Lisa } said,

    November 16, 2008 at 10:38 pm

    Jesurgislac,

    “Huh. Actually, the scientific consensus is that while there may be both genetic and environmental factors involved in a person’a sexual orientation, no one actually knows what the cause is: but what has been definitely known for at least a century is that a person does not choose their sexual orientation: whatever the factors involved in where someone falls on the normal human range from homosexual to heterosexual, none of them involve personal choice. If you think about it, I’m sure you’ll realize that at no point did you choose your sexual orientation, whatever it is. No one does.”

    The scientific consensus also says we were created from an explosion, that we were monkeys, etc etc. Sceientists don’t get much right and if it is “proven” right by their own peers then years later it is proven wrong such as it were when they said we were not made from carbon 9 (aka dirt)! so you stick with your scientists and I will stick with what God says is true!

    I say again, God said homosexuality is a sin, then he would not create humans that way thus proving that gays are not born gay.

  50. jesurgislac said,

    November 16, 2008 at 11:03 pm

    Troy: My teaching children that existing in a same sex partnership in general results in higher violence, lower child rearing capabilities, higher incidence of death and disease, and will likely be more short than a traditional marriage is not bigoted, it’s just telling my children the facts.

    Hm. I wonder what you teach your children about black people. The “facts” – for, thanks to the deeply unequal economic and social climate in the US, which made it “just a fact” two years ago that a black man would never be President, bigots can and do compile lots of statistics about how black men are more likely to be in jail, more likely to be convicted felons, black people more likely to be from broken homes, more likely to suffer and to commit violence, more likely to suffer ill-health and to die young – all of which, a bigot blames on these people for being black, and argues that no social or legal change will affect these statistics because they are innate to skin color. Whereas a calmer more liberal view looks at the society and the culture and says “If people are treated equally regardless of the color of their skin, then social outcomes for people are likely to become more equal” – and this is the right thing to do anyway.

    Similiarly with sexual orientation. For example, a culture which denied gay men any sexual contact but anonymous promiscuity in public places led to a high degree of transmission of STDs, for example. One way of changing that culture is to recognize and celebrate same-sex couples who pledge a lifelong committment to each other. This is the calmer more liberal view: change the culture of discrimination, and we see the statistics change, whereas the bigot’s view is that these statistics show something innate to sexual orientation, and unchangeable.

    Telling them that they should be celebrated equally would be a lie. It would be like telling your children that 2+2=5, it would make them less able to cope, less able to succeed because it would be false.

    I think you have that backwards. If you make a point of teaching your children that, when they grow up and enter a same-sex partnership (should they be gay or lesbian) that inevitably means that they will suffer from higher violence, will be less able to rear children, will be more likely to die or suffer disease, and their relationships will be shorter and less stable than their straight friends, this will in fact, tend to make them less able to cope, less able to succeed, because they will be convinced you believe them to be inferior – and insofar as your opinion affects them at all, that will be a negative effect.

    Lisa: The scientific consensus also says we were created from an explosion, that we were monkeys, etc etc. Sceientists don’t get much right and if it is “proven” right by their own peers then years later it is proven wrong such as it were when they said we were not made from carbon 9 (aka dirt)! so you stick with your scientists and I will stick with what God says is true!

    Well, then, as I do prefer scientific facts to invented stories derived from translated Bible quotes, I’m afraid we will have to agree to disagree. I don’t think I can continue to argue with someone who thinks that “Sceientists don’t get much right”.

  51. { Lisa } said,

    November 17, 2008 at 11:51 am

    Yes agree to disagree… the tree will and is bearing it’s fruit. Your lifestyle will bear good fruit if it is good and bad if it is bad.

    :)

  52. lisalongll said,

    November 17, 2008 at 3:35 pm

    As the author of this analogy, I hope you don’t mind if I comment. I have read some of the above comments, but not all.

    First of all, I just want to say that a lot of people are reading WAY too much into this analogy. It is not a perfect analogy. It is just something I thought of while taking a shower one day. I simply wrote it because this is such an emotionally charged issue for everyone. I have come into contact with a lot of people who automatically put up a wall when the topic comes up. I just wanted people to take a moment and step back and look at all sides of the issue, and I thought this might be a way to take some of the emotion out of it.

    Here is how I feel about the whole thing:
    I do not think that all same sex couples should move away. I have no problem with them having the same rights as a heterosexual couple, in fact that is what I think should happen. I just don’t think it should be called marriage.

    Why? Because that begins to infringe upon my rights as a religious follower and a parent. Maybe not today, but it certainly moves in that direction and opens a lot of doors. Those are doors I am not willing to open.

    Part of living in a society is recognizing the fact that every decision we make has an effect on other people. This happens when we vote on a bond issue that will provide money for a school or transportation project (by doing so, we make it so that there is less money available to other projects or programs), and it happens when we talk about rights. If you call a same-sex union a marriage, then you are taking a very large and dangerous step toward taking away religious rights.

    If you want to be angry with someone about the issue, you should be angry with the far, far left wing group of society. There is a group of people who will stop at nothing to get anything and everything. They will trample on people’s sacred beliefs and remove their rights just so they can get married in any church of their choosing. A lot of them don’t even care about getting married in that church, they are just mad that they can’t. It is these people I am afraid of. They are powerful, angry and disrespectful. I am not afraid of a gay couple living down the street from me…at all. I am a little tired of everyone making it out to be that way. I believe that everyone has a lot to offer their community. I am not discriminating or trying to take away anyone’s rights, just trying to protect my own.

    It has been my understanding that in California under the Domestic Partnership Act that was passed in 2003, same-sex couples have all the rights of a heterosexual married couple, it is simply called a civil union. I know that some gay couples feel that it makes them “second class citizens” to have to check the box that says “civil union” instead of “marriage”. While I can definitely see that side of the argument and I empathize, I feel like the losses our society would experience from making it the same word far outweigh the benefits. If it is true that a civil union does not offer all the fundamental rights that a marriage does (other than the word itself), let’s work toward making sure that a civil union does offer all rights and responsibilities of a marriage.

    I also wish that people would put away their hatred and anger on this issue. Can’t we agree to disagree without calling each other bigots, defacing property and spray painting people’s churches?!! Everyone, please just try to get along with your neighbor no matter who they are and do something, small or large, to make your world a better place.

  53. jesurgislac said,

    November 17, 2008 at 5:15 pm

    lisa: First of all, I just want to say that a lot of people are reading WAY too much into this analogy. It is not a perfect analogy. It is just something I thought of while taking a shower one day. I simply wrote it because this is such an emotionally charged issue for everyone.

    I appreciate that – but, you know, once you post an idea it will tend to take off. I do regular “Tuesday Recipe Blogging”, often of vegetarian main courses, and was thinking about using this analogy – with credit to you, though I won’t link to you if you prefer me not to. (Seriously: past such posts include nut roast and chilli. I love to cook.)

    I just don’t think it should be called marriage.

    Why? Because that begins to infringe upon my rights as a religious follower and a parent. Maybe not today, but it certainly moves in that direction and opens a lot of doors. Those are doors I am not willing to open.

    Actually, those doors are already open. Regardless of whether you allow same-sex couples marriage or require each state to provide civil unions identical to marriage and recognised as marriage by the federal government, your “right” as a religious follower to discriminate against gay people is being eroded: your “right” as a parent to ensure your child grows up believing gay people to be inferior (believing themselves to be inferior, if gay) is already being eroded away, and the freedom for same-sex couples to marry is a symptom, not a cause. Human rights and equal civil rights for LGBT people are on the road: the freedom to marry is just one example.

    It doesn’t mean that religions that hold LGBT people to be inferior/same-sex relationships to be inherently immoral can ever be forced to solemnize same-sex relationships, any more than a rabbi can be forced to wed a Jew to a Gentile. It just means that no religion can prevent people having a civil marriage, or standing in the way of other religions that feel differently.

    . I am not afraid of a gay couple living down the street from me…at all. I am a little tired of everyone making it out to be that way. I believe that everyone has a lot to offer their community. I am not discriminating or trying to take away anyone’s rights, just trying to protect my own.

    How does taking away the rights of the gay couple living down the street from you protect your rights? Rather the reverse: if you support the principle that religious belief is just cause to remove someone’s civil rights, you support the principle that someday religious belief could be used to remove your rights.

    Can’t we agree to disagree without calling each other bigots, defacing property and spray painting people’s churches?!!

    We probably could: but voting in Proposition 8 made it impossible to “agree to disagree”. That was the first act of aggression: reactions against it may at times have crossed over the line of acceptable protest, but never as far as the imposition of Prop8 on people who wanted equal rights and were told that other people’s religiously-inspired bigotry against them meant they couldn;t have any. If you want people to simply “agree to disagree”, you need to support the repeal of Prop8: then you can think that gay couple down the street shouldn’t be allowed to marry; they can get married; you can both, equably, agree to disagree. Your forcing a dissolution on them (or voting against their freedom to marry) is not “agreeing to disagree”: you won’t let them simply disagree with you.

  54. Cathy Lim said,

    November 18, 2008 at 2:57 am

    Jesurgislac: Geesh, stop mixing the analogies all into one big pot! An analogy is a wonderful way to see more clearly and more simply the different points of a situation. You’ve taken several analogies given by several different people to make clearer certain points, and you’ve thrown them all into a Cuisinart and pushed “Blend” on High power. Stick to one analogy at a time and stop trying to deliberately misunderstand their points.

  55. lisalongll said,

    November 18, 2008 at 4:13 pm

    Thank you Cathy Lim! Well said!

    Why is it so difficult for people to understand that the word marriage has a specific sacred meaning to some people? I believe in God. I also believe that God has instituted marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman.

    Our government has taken it and applied it to society. For many people it does not hold a sacred meaning. For many people it still does. Why can’t you respect that? You wouldn’t try to build an amusement park on a Native American burial ground (or at least I hope you wouldn’t)! It may not be a place that is sacred to you, but you respect the fact that it is a sacred place to someone else. While you may not believe in God, or believe that marraige was instituted by Him as a sacred union, why can’t you understand and respect my belief that it is?

    Throughout history groups of people (usually the conquering group in a war) will take the symbols and ideologies of those they are trying to shove out and trample them, destroy them, sometimes even make them evil or taboo. After a few generations, those ideologies are all but gone.

    This is not about bigotry or discrimination. (I’m sure it is for some people, but it is not for me.) It is about protecting what I hold dear to my heart. The government has already taken a word that is sacred to me, now it is trying to change the definition of it (against the will of the people I might add). I have heard some people suggest that the government should sanction civil unions for everyone…heterosexual couples, same-sex couples, whatever they decide, but let religious groups perform marriage ceremonies if they desire. That is fine with me. I am not trying to take away anyone’s rights. I am trying to protect a word that I believe has a sacred, spiritual meaning. So again I ask, why can’t you respect the fact that the word marriage has a sacred meaning to me, and how can you not recognize that you are trying to take away my right to believe that it is sacred?

    Finally, I would never support to repeal Prop 8, or any issue for that matter. I think it is the WRONG way to go about getting what you want. Even if the situation were reversed, I would not support a repeal. What makes this country great is that it is a democracy. People vote, the legislature listens. It is a scary, scary thing when the law is not followed by the elected officials. We might as well have a dictatorship if that is the case. While in this case, it would support your cause to repeal a ballot measure that the people voted on, sometime in the future it might not support your cause. What will you do then?

  56. November 19, 2008 at 9:44 pm

    I agree with lisalongll. The importance of elected officials doing their jobs and not going against the voice of the people is more important that prop 8. This country is founded on democracy, the idea that the people have the power and may delegate it to their elected officials. If the officials do not/can not do what the people say, the people should withdraw that delegated authority. If the people vote for it, it’s the job of elected officials to support it, not encourage it’s destruction.

  57. triptotheouthouse said,

    November 22, 2008 at 4:28 pm

    Lisa,

    PROVE with scientific facts that gay people are not born gay. Put your money where your mouth is.

    Also, y’all talk about “gay lifestyle”. Please define that. I’m gay. I go to work at the same job I’ve had for more than 20 years, pay my taxes regularly so YOUR children can go to school. Hurry home from work in the heavy freeway traffic so that I can get my dog out for a walk. Meet my friends (other dog owners, most of whom are not gay). Go home, fix dinner, watch some TV, and get myself to bed so that I’m fresh for another day at work. On weekends, I run errands, try to do some exercise, and go to a movie or out of town to a park for a hike.
    Is that the “gay lifestyle” you’re talking about?
    I’d say that in reality the “Mormon lifestyle” is further from the mainstream than the lives of most gay people: sending young men out together for 2 years in groups (but, course, not young women), following the demands of a so-called prophet, wearing special underwear, pushing people to get married and have children as soon as possible. That sounds much more like a different style of life than what most people I know have.

  58. triptotheouthouse said,

    November 22, 2008 at 4:30 pm

    I think they should pass a law that says all women should have to buy their underwear at Victoria’s secret and all men should have to buy theirs from International Male.

  59. beetlebabee said,

    November 22, 2008 at 7:13 pm

    Trip, I can’t speak for the others, but what I mean when I say “gay lifestyle” is same-sex behavior, because for me there is a moral difference between the actions of individuals who choose to act on same sex tendencies, and those who don’t.

  60. triptotheouthouse said,

    November 22, 2008 at 7:50 pm

    I think a much bigger moral issue is these guys who go out there and get themselves several “wives”, to whom they are not legally married and then connive the government out of welfare money.

    All you people who are so worried about how other people are having sex must have awful sex lives, or non-existent ones; otherwise, why are you so focused upon it. If you are truly someone who believes in the teachings of your religion, whatever it is, there are many other “moral issues” (like poverty and homelessness) that one would think “do-gooders” would be working on.

    Y’all always want to say that historically and biblically, marriage has always been between one man and one woman, but Solomon had 700 wives, Moses had a couple, and David has several wives, but what WAS his relationship with Jonathan. Oh, no, maybe Mormons didn’t always think that since they practiced polygamy, but when it was politically convenient (when Utah wanted statehood), they changed there tune. So in fact, the definition of marriage really has changed throughout time, hasn’t it?

  61. beetlebabee said,

    November 22, 2008 at 8:00 pm

    Certainly relationships outside of marriage are a problem, but not to the degree that the re-definition of marriage is.

  62. November 24, 2008 at 5:57 pm

    [...] An Analogy [...]

  63. Wendy Kaneen said,

    November 25, 2008 at 1:36 am

    Great analogy! We should not be forced to accept something as much as we value and treasure traditional marriage for something so opposed to my personal beliefs.

  64. Leslie said,

    November 25, 2008 at 3:06 am

    I think that comparing the vegetarian analogy to the eHarmony lawsuit makes a lot more sense than the above conversation. eHarmony chooses to sell a particular type of meal (heterosexual dating). When the carnivore demands a cheeseburger (homosexual dating), the waitress tells him that cheeseburgers are not on their menu because the chef doesn’t know how to make them (eHarmony’s founder does not know how to translate his methods to a homosexual clientele). Carnivore sues and wins, judge tells waitress to start selling the beef!
    I used to be in business (closed it when I moved), and would not want a judge to tell me that I had to take responsibilty for working in a way that I knew nothing about. Should accountants be told they have to file tax returns for people in England? This is exactly why I voted yes on prop 8 – but now the gay community is getting the results they wanted anyway.

  65. November 26, 2008 at 1:16 pm

    This all boils down to semantics.

    Here’s another analogy: calling a homosexual domestic union the same as a marriage is akin to calling an apple an orange. Some believe they are both fruits, and the names are interchangeable. Some believe there are fundamental differences between the two and they should be distinguished differently. All have the right of free speech to call an orange an orange or an apple or a banana or anything they wish. Apples and oranges are both found in the grocery store for anyone to purchase and consume (i.e. domestic partnerships and marriages.) Individual stores and consumers may label the apples and oranges however they like (call any relationship a marriage, domestic union, business partnership, whatever.)

    The problem arises when government or other entities enter in and FORCE businesses, schools, and individuals to apply a mandated label. In the case of marriage/domestic partnership labeling, I personally have no problem with individuals, churches, and businesses who choose to label them as being interchangeable. That is their right. I do, however, have a problem with businesses, individuals, and schools being mandated to label them as being the same things. I have a problem with an apple orchard being told it must sell oranges or an orange orchard being told it must sell apples.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: