In this upcoming election we have one important issue that rises above the rest in magnitude of consequence if it fails. That is proposition 8. This is known as the marriage amendment.
I know that some of you are already fully supportive of this proposition. Others are unsure. There are also some of you are decidedly voting no.
Many of us have friends, family, or loved one that are in homosexual and lesbian relationships. You may not want to offend them, keep them from the same happiness you have experienced in your own marriage…or simply do not see what harm there is in allowing it.
No doubt – this can be an extremely difficult decision.
Regardless of how firm your position on Proposition 8 either way…as a friend I am asking you to:
- Seriously and contemplatively read this letter
- Watch the embedded videos
- Read the linked articles.
A yes vote on Proposition 8 will define marriage as only valid between a man and a woman. In 2000 citizens in California already voted in favor of this definition 61% to 39%.
However – in May 2008, just four California Supreme Court Justices declared this unconstitutional and actually legalized same sex marriage.
Proposition 8 will:
- Reverse the decision of the 4 judges who opposed 61% of Californians
- Make the definition of marriage a constitutional change
- Preserve that definition for generations to come.
But it does so much more. It eliminates the consequences of what would happen if it were not to pass.
If proposition 8 does not pass the following would happen:
- Religious rights and freedoms by individuals and churches would be trumped by “tolerance” or anti-discrimination laws.
- Homosexuality would be taught as a healthy normal relationship in schools to children as young as 7, maybe even younger. (2nd graders in Massachusetts are to read to from books such as “The Prince and the Prince” as part of their family education curricula)
Gender would no longer become an essential characteristic in ones identity.
Don’t take my word for it.
There are THREE videos and THREE articles I want you to look at. They do a much better job of explaining the importance of the sanctity of marriage, and what the real consequences would be if Proposition 8 does not pass.
These videos and articles are:
Video #1: Broadcast snippets of LDS church leaders to its members. (you will have to click the link...the code to embed it did not work) Church leaders encourage its members to participate in the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign. More importantly though in this short video, you will hear non-denominational Christian ideas and views regarding Christ’s teachings of tolerance and the treatment of those who engage in sinful behaviors. Put aside any thoughts you might have about listening to a “Mormon Leader” and just watch. You won’t be disappointed.
Video #2: Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council discusses family education being taught in Massachusetts. As a result of legalized same-sex marriages in Massachusetts, family education curricula have changed dramatically, all without the consent or knowledge of parents.
Video #3: How will my same-sex marriage affect your marriage? This is a YouTube video by someone whom I know nothing about. I found it while doing some research on Proposition 8, and found this mans answer to be phenomenal and very satisfying.
Article #1: When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash. This is an NPR article citing actual court cases when the liberties and rights of religion have been discarded as a result of Gay rights. This has been coined as “The Tyranny of Tolerance”. This is where modernized definitions of tolerance trumps basic fundamental US constitutional rights
Article #2: Protecting Marriage to Protect Children. This is an article written by a liberal democrat who supports “homosexual and lesbian love”, the fight against homophobia…but is opposed to same-sex marriage.
Article #3: The Divine Institution of Marriage. This one is heavy on Mormon theology regarding marriage but not unique only to Mormonism. I think you will find the declarations and statements made to be quite universal among most of Christianity. In fact 100% of supporting scriptures for the statements and positions on marriage comes from the King James Version of the Bible. Even those conservative religions that are not Christian based such as the Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist faiths will find many common beliefs.
If you have read this much of the email I am sincerely appreciative of the time you have given this topic already. If you haven’t already watched the videos and read the articles please do so – you won’t regret it and you will be much more informed.
Like I said at the beginning of this email, I have some action steps that I would like you to consider as a result of studying this topic.
Here are action steps I would like you take:
Thanks for reading this positing and studying out this very important issue.
10 comments:
After looking over some of the materials you've provided, I have a question for you:
Do you think that having morals is exclusive to those who are religious?
People of all different walks of life have morals that have nothing to do with their God or gods or any certain religion.
I agree that those working in private institutions or those within any certain religion should have the freedom to believe whatever they want and act according to the beliefs of their institution or religion.
However, if you want to say that all people working for the state should be able to discriminate against people based on sex, sexual orientation, creed, etc., then I suggest you consider what could happen in this situation.
I'm not sure if you realize, but there are many people who are atheist or agnostic or of religions not Christian in nature who view Christianity in a negative light. Imagine a doctor who is atheist refusing to artificially inseminate a woman who is married to a man because they are Mormon. If that doctor firmly believes that LDS teachings are harmful to society and children's mental and emotional health, then (by your standards) that doctor should be allowed to refuse service to that couple without any repercussions.
If people wish to work for the state or send their children to public schools to receive the free education provided by the state, then they will have to accept that they will have to sometimes work in violation of their own moral codes or that their children will learn something in school with which they don't agree. If you wish to work for a private institution or send your children to a private school or practice your own religion, then you should not be subject to the state's laws and teachings. You have the freedom to act and believe as you please.
If there is such an uproar over a lesbian couple seeking artificial insemination yet everyone claims it's not because of the fact that they're gay, then there should have been just as huge of an uproar years ago over single women seeking artificial insemination. After all, it's ideal to have the mother and father in the picture if at all possible.
As far as teaching kids about same-sex marriages goes: no matter what, the number of opposite-sex marriages will always far outweigh the number of same-sex marriages. Those in same-sex marriages will always be the minority. Our children will simply be taught that such unions exist just as divorce exists or abandonment exists or death of a parent exists. If we want to teach our children to show respect for all people, then, at the least, we have to educate them about the fact that people who live differently than them exist.
No one is saying that a person's gender is not important. Allowing same-sex marriage does not send the message that gender is not important. Each gender offers something unique to the world, but so does every individual person. I don't understand the fear I hear when people explain their worries about same-sex marriage affecting children. Are they afraid their children will TURN gay? That is an irrational fear. These people's children will see their own parents and learn from watching their relationship. They will not be so affected by the fact that same-sex marriages exist that they will want one for themselves if it is not already their natural inclination to desire a romantic relationship with their same sex.
Lastly, I would like to give these strong advocates of Proposition 8 something to think about. Their children have no more or less of a chance of being gay simply because their family has a certain religious belief about homosexuality. To think any differently would be along the lines of thinking that if I cover my brown eyes with blue contacts then maybe my child will have blue eyes. All I ask is that everyone pay careful attention to the language they use within their homes and around their children when talking about these topics. It is easy to slip into being prejudiced and discriminatory when talking about this issue, and I wouldn't want any parent to look back and feel guilty about the way they talked in their homes as their children grew up if one of their children happens to be gay. That child would inevitably feel inferior to the rest of the family and be reluctant to be honest about his or her identity with his or her family. I don't think any parent would want a child to feel left out of his or her own family, especially within a family that is very focused on family values.
And as people talk out of one side of their mouths about how they respect gay people, they talk out of the other side about how they're so fearful of things such as gay couples teaching at a summer camp. Why? Gay couples exist whether Proposition 8 is passed or not. So I'm confused about what would be harmful about someone who happens to be gay educating children. Are we afraid of their homosexuality? Because that would be prejudiced, the exact thing that almost everyone in support of Prop 8 claims not to be.
Read this:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514477
And this:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec05/kids.html
If you Google search "children of gay parents," it's almost impossible to find studies that say children are any better or worse off being raised by homosexual parents or heterosexual parents. If anything, a huge plus is that children of homosexual couples are found to be very accepting and respectful of others' differences all across the board.
Wow Cate - I really hit a button here didnt I?
I will try to respond succinctly:
1. Yes, I agree that morals are not exclusive to the religious and they are not all the same. But I dont know why you asked. I never alluded differently or even brought it up.
2. I never said people working for the state should be able to discriminate. LA Times article cited a judgement where the state employee could exercise his religious views because the state had other employees with different views who would perform the ceremony. Therefore the state was not being discriminatory.
3. I am aware Athiest and Agnostics view Christianity in negative light. Your analogy is off. The marriage amendment isnt against gays. Its against same sex marriage. I am ok with a Gay man marrying a gay woman. Its about the behaviors - not the people.
Gay marriage says that gender is no longer an essential characteristic of identity. That is damaging to society and will destroy it.
4. Refusing service to a Mormon (I assume you are trying to make this personal) for the sake of mormonism has been happening since the early 1800's. We've learned to identify those who objectively disagree with us and those who ignorantly just dont like us.
I disagree with homosexuality. Vey few ignorantly hate homosexuals. See the video on our Church teachings about this. I love my homosexual friends. And I do have them.
5. About my children in schools learning things I dont agree with. Happens all the time. This however strips them of part of their idntity as male and female. It teaches that gender doesnt matter and it does. If gender doesnt matter you and I should be able to occupy the same public restrooms - we can be mature about that, right?
No Gender does matter and is significantly more important than any thing else being taught in school now.
6. About gay adoption. Its not about it being gay parents. It is documented that children lead more productive lives when raised by a father and a mother. Here again, gender identity comes to play again. The gender differences play a key role in raising a family, community, society, nation.
There was an uproar when single women wanted artificial insemination. Ask 100 single mothers how much they love being single mothers andif they are living the dream. Aso if they had to do it again, would they - or would they choose to find a better father and husband to raise a family with than they did the first time.
6. Gay teachers. Where did this come from - but since you brought it up. My sons kindergarten teacher was gay. The teacher is still still gay, my son is no longer in kindergarten.)He was a wonderful teacher and we had hoped that he would be the teacher for our other son who is two years behind. Unfortunately the teacher transferred to a school closer to home. I dont know where this point came up. I am sure by homophobic people somewhere, but not on this blog.
7. Perhaps if I google children of gay parents I wont find any information that children are better of in household over another. But If I google other words and phrases I do.
I will try to respond succinctly:
1. Yes, I agree that morals are not exclusive to the religious and they are not all the same. But I dont know why you asked. I never alluded differently or even brought it up.
--I brought it up because of the NPR article that is making people so afraid that they won't be able to work according to their moral standards in the workplace.
2. I never said people working for the state should be able to discriminate. LA Times article cited a judgement where the state employee could exercise his religious views because the state had other employees with different views who would perform the ceremony. Therefore the state was not being discriminatory.
--You're right, it was the doctor working for the state who was being discriminatory.
3. I am aware Athiest and Agnostics view Christianity in negative light. Your analogy is off. The marriage amendment isnt against gays. Its against same sex marriage. I am ok with a Gay man marrying a gay woman. Its about the behaviors - not the people.
Gay marriage says that gender is no longer an essential characteristic of identity. That is damaging to society and will destroy it.
--My analogy was about how people are so upset that a doctor was not allowed to perform artificial insemination on a woman because she was a lesbian and had a lesbian partner, not a husband. So that doctor was basically saying X is not in line with my moral beliefs, so I will not perform this certain procedure on the person who is or participates in X. All I was saying is that everyone has a different X that is not in line with his or her moral beliefs. So if doctors working for the state get to start deciding who they will and won't perform procedures on based on their moral beliefs, then that will often not work in the favor of those who are now in such support of that idea.
Why in the world would a gay man marrying a gay woman be any better than same-sex marriage? What behaviors are you talking about that you don't agree with?
4. Refusing service to a Mormon (I assume you are trying to make this personal) for the sake of mormonism has been happening since the early 1800's. We've learned to identify those who objectively disagree with us and those who ignorantly just dont like us.
I disagree with homosexuality. Vey few ignorantly hate homosexuals. See the video on our Church teachings about this. I love my homosexual friends. And I do have them.
--Just because you can make the distinction between those who objectively disagree with you and those who ignorantly don't like you doesn't mean that doctors won't bring their morals into the workplace in regards to religion just like others do in regards to same-sex marriage.
For the record, I don't ignorantly dislike Mormons or Mormonism. I am quite informed about the LDS church and objectively disagree with the majority of its teachings. I was not implying that the hypothetical doctor's thoughts are my own.
5. About my children in schools learning things I dont agree with. Happens all the time. This however strips them of part of their idntity as male and female. It teaches that gender doesnt matter and it does. If gender doesnt matter you and I should be able to occupy the same public restrooms - we can be mature about that, right?
No Gender does matter and is significantly more important than any thing else being taught in school now.
--Does a person's homosexuality strip them of their gender? A lesbian woman is still very much a female, and a gay man is still very much a male. Being gay does not make one androgynous. Everyone has their own individual gender identity, no matter who is getting married to one another in society. In many heterosexual relationships, the gender roles are quite atypical. Some wives are more assertive and take care of the finances, and some husbands are more passive and enjoy cooking dinner for the whole family. Do you think this behavior would be detrimental to their children who don't have typically defined gender roles in their homes?
6. About gay adoption. Its not about it being gay parents. It is documented that children lead more productive lives when raised by a father and a mother. Here again, gender identity comes to play again. The gender differences play a key role in raising a family, community, society, nation.
There was an uproar when single women wanted artificial insemination. Ask 100 single mothers how much they love being single mothers andif they are living the dream. Aso if they had to do it again, would they - or would they choose to find a better father and husband to raise a family with than they did the first time.
--Where does it say that children with a mother and father lead more productive lives? I've actually found (and I will show you the article if you care to read it) that studies have shown that young girls raised by lesbian parents are "[c]ompared to the daughters of heterosexual mothers, the daughters of lesbians more frequently dress, play and behave in ways that do not conform to sex-typed cultural norms. They show greater interest in activities with both masculine and feminine qualities. They have higher aspirations to occupations that are not traditionally female."
And I'd like you to get back to me on this after you read the articles I suggested because your statements here lead me to conclude that you haven't read them yet.
I didn't say that no one is upset about single mothers being artificially inseminated. I'm simply saying that if that is such an issue, yet one which that doctor claimed was not about the woman being gay but about her not being married to a man and providing a father for the child, then people should focus on that first so that they aren't simply pointing fingers at lesbian couples. If it were truly not discriminatory about homosexuality, then it would honestly apply to all single women. Everyone would be just as upset, if not more, about those cases as the cases involving lesbian couples. At least lesbian couples provide a two-parent home.
6. Gay teachers. Where did this come from - but since you brought it up. My sons kindergarten teacher was gay. The teacher is still still gay, my son is no longer in kindergarten.)He was a wonderful teacher and we had hoped that he would be the teacher for our other son who is two years behind. Unfortunately the teacher transferred to a school closer to home. I dont know where this point came up. I am sure by homophobic people somewhere, but not on this blog.
--Actually, this point came up in regards to the section about Sea Scouts in the NPR article you posted:
"While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp."
Based on what you said above about your child's kindergarten teacher who was gay, I would think you wouldn't see a problem with gay couples teaching at summer camp. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
7. Perhaps if I google children of gay parents I wont find any information that children are better of in household over another. But If I google other words and phrases I do.
--Really? Exactly what words and phrases would you use? I hope you'll share studies that show different results because I would like to read differing perspectives. I would think that if there are studies proving any differently than the ones I showed that the phrase "children of gay parents" would come up with equally as many stating the opposite result. Let me know what you find.
Cate - I like you. I seriousely think we could go on for hours and never really get upset at each other, just be frustrated with how the other thinks.
On the other hand - I am not going to spend a lot more time debating this. But I do want to answer some of your questions. Sorry - I am going to ignore the others. Not becuase they are not important, or that I couldnt answer. I just think that anyone reading this knows the answer and that we can both find supportive evidence for our claims.
So here goes my responses:
1. NPR article reference moral standards. Here again I will just state that in the defense of tolerance and anti-discrimination people have to discard their beliefs. The NPR article is pretty straitforward is case study fact without a lot of opinion. What happened happened, and will happen again, and will have a ripple effect.
2. Doctors choice on who they operate. I think that is OK. If someone thinks that a temple going Mormon raises wacko children and cant support that, fine. THis is America. If that Dr. really feels that way, I am glad I know about it before he puts me under. I dont want him operating on me anymore. There are plenty Dr.s who dont feel that way. I think anyone has the right to refuse service to anyone based on moral and ethical beliefs. (which is different than race or ethnicity)
3. I am glad you dont ignorantly dislike Mormons. I never got that impression. You would have said a lot of things differently. I actually get the feeling that you are a very respectful person and I enjoy our online conversation.
4. Gender stuff. I realize that same sex marriage doesnt neutralize a gay mans man-ness or a lesbians woman-ness. Our point is that the gender differences no longer matter in a marriage and relationship when the do. THe differences are incredibly important.
5. Did you say daughters of lesbian couples tend to drift to careers not traditionally female. Doesnt that further my argument on gender necessity, not yours.
6. Boy Scouts. Ahh I am involved in Boy Scouts. My thoughts are this: Its a private organization. Let them write their own rules. If you dont like, start your own group.
But...If I found out that one of the leaders was Gay and got through the administration cracks I wouldnt care.
My personal thoughts on this is because men, regardless of strait or gay, are typically more agressive sexually than women are. So statistically you will find more gay men willing to push the limits with say a 17 year old boy scout than you would a lesbian with a 17 year old girl.
Because of that - I think the boy scouts are scared of what could happen and that they could have a "Catholic Priest" type scandal on their hands.
Also because of that I think they should eliminate girls from being at boy scout camp. Yes - Girls can be part of Boy Scout camp at the ages of 16 - 21, as part of what is called an exployer post.
It wont be long until we start hearing about girls getting pregnant at scout camp by male scout leaders. I hope it doesnt happen but its inevitable.
So while I like what Boy Scouts does - I am not a champion of them in every detail.
I do however get upset when their core values and rules are negated and, as i would any group.
Lets create a mock scenerio.
Lets suppose there is a Gay-lesbian business networking group.
A strait man wants in
They deny him membership on the value of the purpose of the group is to promote business within the LGB community.
The strait man sues.
I would disagree with the strait man and side with the gay group. That strait man needs to go somewhere else.
It's James, right? Well, I like you, too. I've enjoyed debating back and forth, and you've actually helped me put any negative feelings about the opposing view aside. I thought you might find it interesting that I started looking so much into Prop 8 after a discussion with my boyfriend's family, who happens to be Mormon. I wasn't sure you were Mormon until your response to my example I used earlier on. Anyway, I do have great respect for the majority of Mormon values aside from what I may or may not agree with concerning the LDS religious beliefs.
I also completely agree that we could go on and on forever about this because we have both done a lot of research, and I don't see it as defeat on your part not responding to everything I said. Therefore, I'm only going to respond to one thing you said in the last post, haha. It's mostly because I thnk we've come to the point where we can agree to disagree and feel at peace about it since we've challenged one another quite a bit.
I was just going to point out that the quote I used from the article concerning daughters of lesbian couples pursuing careers that aren't traditionally female was not in directly in response to the idea of losing gender identity. I was using it to illustrate that simply being raised by a heterosexual couple makes you no more productive than someone raised by a homosexual couple. I was pointing out that these young girls with lesbian parents seem as if they are raised with a great amount of confidence that they can do anything they want to, even if that means following a dream that some young girls may have been discouraged to follow in the past.
Most traditionally female jobs are either not very high up in companies or don't pay quite as well as traditionally male positions do. Therefore, it's a positive result of their upbringing that these young girls are motivated to acheive great things for themselves. I'm sure you can tell by now that I'm a very motivated young woman. I happened to be raised by heterosexual parents, but I'm simply going off of the study's findings that such inclinations happen to be more common among girls raised by lesbian parents than heterosexual parents.
In my opinion, being able to take on traits typical of both genders rather than relying on simply fitting a gender stereotype can often prove more helpful in living a productive, fulfilled life in which one can understand people from all walks of life. Men who can be sensitive and nurturing make wonderful fathers and husbands, and women who are very driven and assertive make amazing CEOs and role models for young women.
Quite frankly, I think breaking gender stereotypes is a positive thing for the people in our nation. I don't think gender identity follows the pattern of: you're a girl, you like pink, you're kind and loving, and you're more submissive; you're a boy, you like blue, you love playing sports, and you're more aggressive. I think it's when we have combinations of these traits mixed up in our own gender identities that we begin to see men and women as equals and can understand one another and have healthier relationships across gender lines.
Gender stereotypes and typical gender roles are what women's rights activists have been fighting to break down for so many years. I'm not saying we need to completely abandon any sense of what men and women generally bring to the table in terms of general characteristics and qualities because men and women do have some fundamental differences. All I think is that we would be much better off broadening our understanding of what it means to be a man or a woman.
So that went on a lot longer than I expected, but I was on a roll. : )
I've enjoyed verbally sparring with you, and I wish you the best of luck in your life and with your family. : )
I just read over what I wrote, and I realized I have one more point to make. Considering that homosexual people make up, at most, 10% of our population, the heterosexual marriage will always be the dominant type of marriage. I don't think we need to worry that our kids will be greatly confused by the narrow minority of those who are gay and married to the point that they have lost a sense of the significance of gender identity.
When you consider that gay people grow up in a world dominated by straight people and have still managed to form their own unique gender identities, I think we have nothing to fear about children who are born straight becoming confused about their own gender identities. The great majority of homosexual people were raised by heterosexual parents, yet they were so strongly aware of the fact that they were different that they struggled to find their own gender identities and succeeded in doing so.
I find it hard to believe that the state making same-sex marriage legal will confuse straight children being brought up in either a heterosexual home or a homosexual home about what their gender is or which gender they are attracted to naturally.
That was pretty much all I had left to say. : )
So, your whole family believes in that Moronic cult nonsense.
http://antigaybigots.blog.com/
Post a Comment