Editors note: Due to a bug in my code, as well as the popularity of this post (or the un-popularity, I’m not sure which), users must use Internet Explorer to view all of the responses found in the comment secion.
Did you know I was a pageant girl? I was, and I’m proud of it, as I loved both experiences. Sadly I don’t have any pictures to show you, since this was before Facebook and digital cameras so all of the photos are at my parents house. Someday I’ll scan them in and show them to you. Here’s a picture of my sister competing instead.
We both participated in Junior Miss, and I loved the experience so much that I entered into Miss Moses Lake (a part of the Miss America program) pageant as well. I tell you this so you know that I am sympathetic to these girls that stand up and answer a random question for which they’ve been attempting to prepare for months.
That Husband came home from work today and asked if I had heard about what happened with Miss California in the Miss America pageant last night.
How her heart must have leaped up into her throat when she realized that a very vocal, very popular, homosexual blogger was asking her that question.When I watched the video, I felt so proud. When you are on the opposite side of what the media views to be right, you are always in a tough spot.
Miss California is, in a way, a hero for me. Not because she answered the question exceedingly well (the term “opposite marriage” was quite the flub) but because she stood up in front of millions of people and demonstrated something we don’t see very often. Integrity. We spend hours and hours complaining to each other around election time that our public figures don’t follow up with their promises, and this is because they walk around only saying what they think we want to hear. Miss California states what she really believes (demonstrating that she would follow through with integrity and honor if selected to be Miss America), but because it is the opposite of what people want to hear she is attacked and penalized for it.
I believe the same way as Miss California. I too have attempted to stand up and voice my opinions in a public forum, and I have been personally attacked for doing so. In conversations with That Husband, a certain question has come up between us which I’ve never found the opportunity to voice, but I think now might be a good time to do so.
If you support gay marriage, do you also support polygamous marriage?
For if the issue is denying people the right to choose who they marry, should not the choice be available for all to follow their heart and be with the one they love? Even if they share that love with more than one person?
April 21st, 2009 on 4:11 am
I can’t help but disagree with you about her answer - because she is wrong. She says we live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage. We don’t. We absolutely don’t. To choose same-sex marriage, you have to move to Vermont or another state that legalized gay marriage, and then stay there forever, because your marriage is not valid in any other state. That is NOT my idea of a choice. You were married in a different state than the state where you live - yet your marriage remains valid in Texas. Imagine how heartbreaking it would be for you to get married in a state and be forced to stay in that state, even so far as not being able to travel outside of that state, because your marriage is not valid.
What she may have meant is that we live in a country where you can choose who to be with, choose who to love, but you absolutely cannot choose who to be married to. If she truly thinks that people should be able to choose whether to have a same-sex or opposite marriage, then she believes in gay marriage, she just doesn’t personally believe in it.
What I love about the same-sex marriage versus polygamous marriage debate is this - right now, there is a large number of people who believe in gay marriage. There is not a large number of people who believe in polygamous marriage. We are lucky enough to live in a country where ultimately, people make or influence the laws. I think eventually we will see gay marriage throughout the country - because there are enough people who want to see that happen. If there are enough people that are able to make a legitimate case for polygamy, I think that eventually that too should be legalized, but right now there is not nearly as much demand for polygamy to be legalized. The laws and social change move so slowly in this country that polygamy will have to become incredibly popular and well supported for it to ever be a law, and honestly I don’t ever see that happening.
Reply
Hailey Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 9:10 am
I don’t think she meant that in America you can choose same gay marriage or not, she means that the democratic process allows you to choose one way or the other when it comes up to vote, just like you said “We are lucky enough to live in a country where ultimately, people make or influence the laws.” I think she meant the same thing as you.
Reply
Jenna Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 10:24 am
I agree with Haily. Perez’s question was referring to the fact that the democratic process had been exercised in 4 states so far to legalize gay marriage, and her response was in reference to the democratic process and that each person can choose to exercise their rights and vote either directly for reform to the laws, or they can vote for leaders whom they know will do so.
Reply
Ellie Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 2:30 pm
I will agree that that may be what she meant, but that is absolutely not how she came across to most people out there (especially people who are gay and who took her imprecise language as a marker of ignorance about the law). In a competition where you are being scored on your ability to articulate a response to a specific question, a failure of this magnitude should, and did, cost her. Yes, she got asked a tough question (and Perez is being a major jerk about it - http://jezebel.com/5221508/war-of-words-miss-california-vs-perez-hilton) but she has, theoretically, trained to be asked this kind of question and come up with responses that do not get her in this kind of trouble. If she had only given the second half of her answer - that she doesn’t personally believe in gay marriage, I would have accepted it and moved on. So Miss California doesn’t believe in gay marriage - neither do the majority of Americans - I honestly would not be that surprised. But her attempt to sound smarter or more polished than she is totally failed, and that is why she didn’t advance.
Reply
Natalie Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Great post — I posted on it too today. She was on the Today Show today too and did a great job. yay for INTEGRITY. Finally, right!
She said she plans to travel around speaking.
Oh, and it was the Miss USA pageant, not the miss American organization — which I almost think is more incredible because the Miss USA organization is traditionally more ditzy and flawed. Miss America is traditionally more of a “scholarship” org.
Anyway, I see the difference between polygamy and gay marriage — one is between two people — one is between multiple people.
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 5:11 am
I have to say, I think the comparison is flawed.
Most polygamy that I’ve studied in school or read about in practice (groups in texas, british columbia etc) are polygamous in the structure of one man- many women, without relationships of equal one woman - many men. While I’m not saying that I’d agree with polygamy in either case, polygamy in practice seems to demean the role and status of women. Also, in many historical polygamous cases women are encouraged (forced?) to marry young. This also demeans the status and role of women by culturally disallowing them to make their own choices.
Polygamy has an established history of being harmful to women, children and communities.
I defer to The United Nations Human Rights Committee which “has repeatedly said that polygamy is “incompatible with equality of treatment with regard to the right to marry.” To make the skewed arithmetic of polygamy work, women and children must be chattels. As a result, men-usually in God’s name-trample the freedoms of everyone who has the misfortune to fall under their power. ”
I also refer you to read the full piece here: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Polygamy,+impunity+and+human+rights.-a0180553032 (I recognize that this is an opinion article)
In fact, it’s probably easier to point everyone to read this article from reason online ( a libertarian online journal) http://www.reason.com/news/show/117323.html
It covers polygamy/gay marriage differences and why the comparison itself is so flawed. The article focuses on the just a few of the inequities set forth by polygamous marriage - namely that it creates a system of zero sum marriage.
There have been multiple studies regarding same-sex child rearing that have shown there are “no significant developmental differences” between same sex or opposite sex couples. These studies have been carried out by the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of Social Workers and the American Bar Association.
I disagree with polygamy as it is currently practiced and I disagree with it because of the social implications it (mathematically and practically) that it would/does have on society. Whereas with gay marriage that isn’t the case - gay marriage promotes monogamy and continues to promote 2 parent households.
I don’t think it is a correct comparison to make, it is only slightly better than when people say “oh…well if people marry people of the same sex - next thing you know they’re going to want to marry their pets” . I think the argument and comparison itself is flawed.
k…that’s all for now, I should really finish breakfast before I begin commenting next time…
Reply
Amanda W Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 8:45 am
There have been multiple studies regarding same-sex child rearing that have shown there are “no significant developmental differences” between same sex or opposite sex couples.
My question is, have they ever asked the children that are being raised by same sex couples? Yes they may have done studies that say otherwise but has anyone ever asked the child’s opinion? I ask this because I have a degree in Education and while I was completing my observations I was placed in a classroom where there was a boy that had “two moms”. Yes, he looked normal and was at the same level as the other kids, but you could definitely tell that he lacked something. He was overly sensitive, especially about his parents. When it came for mother’s day he was embarrassed because he had to make 2 mothers day cards and didn’t want the other kids to know why. I think that is sad. I also was present at a lot of the students’ functions, like their school play and I never once saw his “mothers” there. That’s not to say that they didn’t love him, but maybe he asked them not to be there because he didn’t want to have to explain why he was different.
I don’t agree with same-sex marriage. Marriage should be between a man and a woman. There should be no question. God made men and women to be together. He made us different in the sense that we work together. Men have qualities and traits that women don’t have and vise versa, aside from the obvious fact that only women and men together can procreate. That is a commandment from God in ALL bibles: to multiply and replenish the Earth. Yes, same sex couples can adopt or participate in artificial insemination, but I don’t think that is what God meant when he gave that commandment.
Aside from the issue when I was observing, I have first hand experience in this issue because my sister chooses to have a same sex partner. I understand that that is her choice and I love her despite it, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with it. I love that Jenna said that Miss California had integrity. I too believe that she did because it would have been so easy to just say “sure it should be legal for anyone to choose”. But instead she went against what they wanted her to say and stood up for what she believed. Not many people do that anymore. Good for her!
Reply
James Hightower Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 9:03 am
….participate in artificial insemination, but I don’t think that is what God meant when he gave that commandment.
So you obviously have a problem with heterosexual couples who have trouble conceiving doing this?
What about people who don’t believe in god, why should your beliefs infringe on their rights?
Reply
Amanda W Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Okay, I wasn’t saying that using artificial insemination was wrong. I should have worded that differently. God made us so that we could procreate, a man and a woman. Notice how it isn’t physically possible for two women or two men to together make a baby. That is what I was saying that I don’t think God meant with that particular commandment. Sheesh, it’s not that hard to understand.
Reply
Amanda W Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Also, same sex couples don’t “have trouble conceiving”.
Reply
Emily Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 9:10 am
All kids have differences that they’re embarrassed of. It *is* sad that this child was embarrassed about his parents, but what kid isn’t embarrassed about their parents at some point?
Reply
lindseytron Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 9:18 am
Couldn’t someone make the point that the only reason that little boy seemed to be ashamed of his two moms was that society has been telling him that they’re wrong his whole life?
What if instead he were to hear that his family is just as good as the other families, that maybe he is lucky to have two mothers? Every family is different, there is no perfect design. A lot of other people have already pointed out that not too long ago you could find a similar boy ashamed of his interracial parents, or his single dad, or his grandparents who are raising him. Kids will always target others and ridicule them about what makes them different, and the different kid will always be self conscious about it - that doesn’t mean he is missing something.
It really does all come down to separation of church and state. The single word “marriage” has dual meaning; that within religious context and that of the civil laws created to protect partners. The same separation of church and state that should allow both gay and straight couples to enter a legal agreement, would undoubtedly protect the churches from having to perform those marriage ceremonies if they don’t want to.
James both made a good point below talking about the legal issues surrounding marriage and sums up my own opinions better than I probably could. well said, James.
Reply
Emily Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 9:20 am
Well put, lindseytron!
Reply
Sophia Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 9:44 am
I would agree- the child is embarrassed because society tells him his family is wrong, disgusting, etc. Children of divorced parents used to not be admitted into some colleges because they were considered to be emotionally unstable, and come from “bad backgrounds”. Interracial children were horribly persecuted, etc. It’s important to look to the cause, not just the symptoms.
Reply
Zoe Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 11:52 am
Agreed
Reply
Becky (rksquared) Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 6:52 pm
If only we could use the phrase “civil union” for ALL legal unions (be they hetero or homosexual), and leave the term “marriage” to the churches. I think that would bring so much clarity to this issue.
Reply
Becky (rksquared) Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Just some of my thoughts on what was said above…
He was overly sensitive…
I have met boys/men whom I would consider “overly sensitive” that grew up with heterosexual parents, his sensitivity may very well be an inherent trait.
When it came for mother’s day he was embarrassed because he had to make 2 mothers day cards and didn’t want the other kids to know why.
I think as the adult in the classroom it is your job (regardless of your own personal beliefs) to help make that child understand that everyone grows up under different circumstances from others, and that “different” does not equal “bad”. There are many, many children out there that have two moms because of they have step-mothers whom they spend much of their time with, and whom they are as close to as their biological mothers.
“That’s not to say that they didn’t love him, but maybe he asked them not to be there because he didn’t want to have to explain why he was different.”
Wow! You are making a HUGE assumption here. There could be many, many reasons as to why his parents were not at theses events, also I would bet that this was not the only child who’s parents’ were not in attendance.
“…aside from the obvious fact that only women and men together can procreate. That is a commandment from God in ALL bibles: to multiply and replenish the Earth.”
So, what about people who chose not to procreate (or can’t), should they also not be allowed to marry?
Reply
Amanda W Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 10:03 pm
As an Educator it is my job to handle all kinds of situations regardless of what they may be, despite my own personal beliefs. As an Educator of that boy I did handle the situation very well and he was accepted by all around him. It wasn’t his choice as to how he was raised and it isn’t anyones right to judge him or his upbringing. I never judged him or his parents, but that doesn’t mean that I have to agree with it.
It is, however, my right to share my own personal opinion and it is your right to break down each an every sentence that I wrote and interpret it in your own way. I think it is interesting that instead of allowing me to share my opinion and you choosing your own way to understand it, you find it necessary to question each and every aspect of what I said. I guess that is what a debate is but aren’t you supposed to share what you believe and allow me to ask you questions in return? I just think it is ridiculous when people choose to be so critical.
I was merely responding to the idea that just because studies have been done that say otherwise, it is important to look further than a statistic.
Reply
Katherine Reply:
May 1st, 2009 at 2:48 pm
First of all, I know that I’m a little late coming into this debate. I normally don’t comment on blogs-just read a few during my lunch break-but I feel compelled to throw in my two cents.
Amanda, you asked if children were ever asked during these studies. Well, I am giving you an invitation to ask away. My mom came out of the closet when I was 9 years old. I am 26 now but grew up in a household with two moms. I can honestly say that I don’t feel like I’m flawed, harmed, or ashamed by my family. I’m also straight and married.
Yes, growing up (and to an extend still today) I was embarrassed about my mom’s sexual orientation. Some of the other commentators hit the nail on the head as to why. It wasn’t because I didn’t like my mom’s choice, her partner, or anything else. It was because of the teasing, ridicule, and outcast treatment that I would receive from other people when they found out about my situation. Whether we like it or not, differences are frowned upon and chastised (especially when through kids or teenagers into the mix). I was a kid growing up in the South in a pre-”Will and Grace” era. There was no one else my situation who could offer my sympathy or compassion. That’s all that I needed though-not a straight mom or a perfect family. I needed and still need people to be understanding, open, and accepting of my family. We’re not perfect, but it works for us.
I’m happy to report that I’ve developed a thicker skin and greater admiration for my mom from everything that we both went through. However, childhood wounds are hard to heal, and I still worry that people will judge me and my family for the choices that we’ve made to be happy. I would still gladly go through everything I went through and still do if it meant that my mom could be happy. Happy people raise happy kids who live happy lives. It’s as simple as that.
Reply
Jenna Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 10:46 am
“Other things being equal (and, to a good first approximation, they are), when one man marries two women, some other man marries no woman. When one man marries three women, two other men don’t marry. When one man marries four women, three other men don’t marry. Monogamy gives everyone a shot at marriage. Polygyny, by contrast, is a zero-sum game that skews the marriage market so that some men marry at the expense of others.”
In a society where both heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriage, and polygamous marriage were legal, there is no need for a balance. In fact, when two men marry each other, one woman misses out (according to his argument). What about people who choose to never marry? The argument that monogamy is better “because it keeps equal numbers” just doesn’t really make sense. It’s not like we are arguing that EVERYONE become polygamists, just like no one is arguing that everyone be gay, just arguing that people should be able to choose how they want. (Well, I guess I am playing the devils advocate because I believe that neither should be legalized).
Also, those who argue against polygamy seem to forgot that the majority of polygamists live that way because they want to do so. Yes, there are isolate cases where bad things occur, but there are cases of rape and incest within monogamous families as well. Those who argue against it say it hurts the children, which seems like the exact same argument that those against gay marriage use as a reason why children shouldn’t be raised with two fathers or two mothers.
For two interesting perspectives on polygamy (from a liberal source, NPR), listen to this program about Utah attempting to force a polygamous sect to change the way they live: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1281
and this one which includes a polygamist woman arguing that polygamy is the ultimate feminine lifestyle: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1117
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 7:29 am
I don’t think Miss California is being penalized for standing up and expressing her views, but for holding bigoted views.
What if she had stood up, maintained her integrity and said she believed marriage was between two people of the same race? That she was against interracial marriage? That she was against people of different religions marrying? Would you have lauded her for her integrity?! No, she would be recognized as a bigot.
We have a separation of church and state here in the US. I don’t care what your church or my church says- I didn’t elect your church elders, your pope, your imam, etc. The government shouldn’t legislate religious doctrine.
Most people object to polygamous marriage because of what is associated with it (whether it’s accurate or not) like child marriage, child abuse, being on welfare, etc. If those issues were non-existent I wouldn’t have a problem with polygamous marriage. However, as Ellie said- there isn’t much demand for it and few people advocating for it.
I think the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. If marriage, the religious construct, is between a man and woman then make it solely a religious construct. Let the government recognize civil unions for everyone whether you’re marrying someone of the same sex or a different sex (including people who are transgender, etc).
Reply
Kristin Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 8:41 am
While I agree that the separation of church and state doesn’t give the government rule over religious doctrine, I wonder this: how long before the church is bullied by government to “recognize” same-sex marriages?
Suppose I am the leader of a church, and a same-sex, married couple wants to join, I may have to tell them that based on the church’s beliefs they would not be allowed to be listed in the church directory as married. But under the law of the land, they are married. Would I be served with civil suit papers for discrimination?
This is a sticky situation no matter how it’s argued. I just don’t like when people use the separation of church and state argument. On paper they are separated. But how difficult it is, as humans, to separate the two.
Reply
Emily Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 8:54 am
It’s perfectly fine if you don’t “like” when people use the separation of church and state as the basis for their support for gay unions, but the fact is that CHURCH AND STATE ARE SEPARATE, whether we like it or not.
This legislative principle is currently protecting us from all kinds of discrimination, and is the founding belief of our country. It’s fine if you don’t “like” it, but please don’t leverage this dislike as solid basis for an argument against gay marriage, because it’s not. Not everyone (including, ahem, our founding fathers) has the same difficulties separating the two.
Reply
blablover5 Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 9:14 am
That is something I have never understood about the Republican platform.
They are against big government, want the federal government to have little to no power yet they want to lobby for laws to requires schools to have prayer and to put a marriage amendment into the constitution. So if you are against big government but also against forcing prayer on schools does that make you a republican or not?
Though the issue of seperation of church and state is much dicier than we really want to admit. While the founding fathers had lofty goals (and most were actually not religious) the simple fact is that there is a lot of religious dogma tied in with the laws of the land.
Personally I believe that churches can have their marriage and state can have its own. Two people who love each other should be able to get shared health benefits, be able to file taxes jointly and if one is dying in the hospitals not have their partner denied entrance just because they are not related.
It’s the simple state and federal rights people are denied due to their genetics. We certainly don’t have to look too far back to see the same thing was done due to the color of your skin or the fact you’re missing a Y chromosome.
No where is the church involved in that.
Reply
Matt Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 10:31 am
“But how difficult it is, as humans, to separate the two”?!?!
This is the worst argument I might have read. And I’ve read a lot.
It’s extremely easy to separate the two - as humans we were given cognitive functions that allow us to understand two sides of debate, to think about multiple things at once, to have critical thinking skills. If you do not have the ability to separate the two in your head, you should not be participating in a debate at all.
And if you look at almost ANY GLBT civil rights legislation, there are exemptions from churches for the requirement that they perform gay marriages or anything else - because their marriage is not the marriage that is sanctioned by the state. The ONLY way churches would be required to do anything with GLBT civil rights is if they move in to the public sphere and provide services to the general public in a manner in which they accept public funds - at which point the church is ALLOWING itself to come under the purview of ALL civil rights laws, not just GLBT civil rights. In fact, churches can choose NOT to perform interracial marriages if they wanted to. That’s their choice. They might get reaction from the community, but no repercussions from the government. Another way this argument is completely flawed.
Reply
Hailey Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 9:16 am
My biggest pet hate of the gay marriage debate is the label of conservatives as ‘bigots’. That’s not constructive for debate, and it’s not true.
Reply
Courtney Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 10:41 am
Hailey- Is this in reply to my comment? Because I did not refer to conservatives as bigots- the word conservatives doesn’t even appear in my comment.
However, if intolerance of another person’s way of life (and basically attempting to legislate away their freedoms) is not bigotry, what is it?
Reply
Cristin Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 10:57 am
LOL - Courtney’s definition of a bigot, “intolerance of another person’s way of life (and basically attempting to legislate away their freedoms) is not bigotry, what is it?” made me laugh out loud. Not trying to be rude, but based on your definition, where do you draw the line? I have zero tolerance for smokers. I support ALL legislation that bans smoking in public places (open air or otherwise). Does that make me a bigot, because I am intolerant of another person’s way of life? There’s a restaurant ban on transfats here in NYC. Does that mean that we are bigoted against people who love higher cholesterol intakes?
That Mr. Rogers “love everyone just the way they are” philosophy leads to no standards, no moral codes, and no accountability for people who do the wrong thing (I can hear you saying - who decides what is wrong?).
You can call it enlightenment, but at a certain point, a people “way of life” may be incongruent to society’s welfare. Not taking a stance in this post one way or another on gay or polygamous marriage, but philosophically… how can you say that any intolerance = bigotry?
Perhaps Websters agrees with you. But where would you draw the line with “bigotry” for polygamy, child marriages, female genital mutilation, cannibalism, etc. ? At what point is it “ok” to disagree with lifestyles in public without being shunned?
Reply
Jenna Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 11:28 am
Ohh the smoking thing. I’ve never thought of that one before!
Reply
Courtney Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 12:51 pm
The examples you give about where to draw the line all seem to fall along a boundary of harm. If I eat a twinkie, your cholesterol doesn’t go up. If I smoke a cigarette and blow the smoke in your face, I’m exposing you to danger. It’s not OK to harm others, I think that’s where the line is drawn.
We generally allow people to engage in risky behavior so long as they are the only ones put at risk- so it’s legal to get drunk, but not legal to drive drunk because you may harm others. So I don’t feel your examples are really relevant to the debate at hand, I think it’s a pretty clear designation.
However, with the issue presented in this post, marriage is a right that is only being afforded to a certain segment of the population. Just like it was not OK to legislate the right to vote away from women and blacks, it’s not OK to keep gays from being in state-recognized unions.
Reply
Cristin Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 7:08 pm
My examples are relevant to this point. It is interesting where you draw the line. Because a person’s overindulgence of twinkies (or McDonalds, etc) DOES have an effect on society… it affects a person’s ability to live, to parent, and to contribute to the economy. People who are chronically unhealthy and relying on public benefits become a financial burden on the welfare and Medicaid system. People who are chronically unhealthy and employed are a big burden on their employer’s health insurance pool. Eventually, they will definitely be a public burden on Medicare. So while you may consider my example about transfats irrelevant, I place it very close to smoking. You should consider that people’s actions that may be viewed by some as private are actually very public and DO affect society.
Reply
Courtney Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 8:35 pm
So you should be able to dictate everything I do with my body that may have a negative impact on society?
Give me a break. Then let’s sterilize everyone who has a child they can’t support because they burden society!
My cholesterol doesn’t cause you harm.
Reply
Cristin Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Oh yeah! That’s definitely what I said. Let’s sterilize ‘em and dictate everything! Absolutely.
In fact - what I offered was a suggestion that your definition of bigotry was unfounded because people who support a transfat ban are NOT bigots. That’s all. But GREAT conclusion jumping!
Thanks for the intelligent debate.
Signing out.
Reply
Katy Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Well said!
Reply
Jenna Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 11:01 am
Ahh the bigotry claim. An old standard.
I’m over it.
Reply
Bigoted Against Smokers Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 11:23 am
I think its an overused word for people to add shock value in debating with the opponent. Nobody wants that label, so they’ll retract their statement so people don’t whisper, “oh, there goes the bigot” when they walk by.
Reply
malex Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 11:56 pm
You may be “over it,” but you are still a bigot.
I find it shocking that you whine on and on about how people misunderstand and mistreat Mormans and yet you think it’s A-OK for you to want to impose your own religious beliefs on another group of people.
You are a bigot AND a hypocrite. Nice work.
Reply
Shan Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:53 pm
This is the same as saying “Ahhh the religious claim, an old standard, I’m over it”
As hard as it is for us to understand eachother on some of these issues it is important to remember that the “bigotry claim” is an “old standard” because that is how we feel on this side of the fence. We feel deep within our hearts and souls that we would be a bigot if we did not extend equal rights to everyone. Just like individuals on the other side of the fence often feel deep within their hearts and souls that they would go against their religious beliefs if they were for gay marriage. Of course this is a generalization, I, for one, am a Christian in an open and affirming church so I don’t feel like I am going against my religious beliefs either.
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 8:19 am
Gay Marriage/polygamy is clearly a false equivalence. The government interest in marriage is the regulation of contracts/power of attorney between people. If your husband dies, or is put on a respirator, you have the ultimate power in making his medical decisions, final plans and estate planning. That’s what governmental marriage is, it is the government allowing people to enter into contracts with each other and be in a mutually beneficial legal relationship.
The problem with equating gay marriage to polygamy is that with more than 2 people, the situation becomes frustrated when there is more than one person vying for their interests.
The government has a legitimate reason for discriminating against polygamists in respect to legal marriages, homosexual marriages, not at all.
Reply
Sharon Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 10:12 am
You say that “The government interest in marriage is the regulation of contracts/power of attorney between people. … That’s what governmental marriage is, it is the government allowing people to enter into contracts with each other and be in a mutually beneficial legal relationship.”
Isn’t the government just establishing a default apportionment of rights — which people can contract into or out of regardless of whether they get married? I mean, isn’t the government establishing a default contract, rather than merely allowing people to enter into them? People are free to enter into these contracts as they see fit anyway, regardless of whether they’re married. So I don’t see how the situation becomes frustrated when more than one person is vying for the right. You or the government could give one of two people the default right just as easily as they can set up the default. I’m not sure about all the laws with regard to estate planning and power of attorney — but, what if you’re single? Don’t BOTH of your parents have the right to make medical decisions for you?
It’s just not clear to me that having multiple decision-makers is the real issue with regard to polygamists. We have a legislative history of encouraging a certain set of moral beliefs in this country. One of these beliefs is that heterosexual marriage is somehow good for society. It’s this same belief that justifies discrimination against single people (this is why married people get tax breaks, right?).
I’m really not committed to either side of the issue, but the multiple decision-maker thing seems to be a red herring to me.
Reply
Cristin Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 11:00 am
I agree with Sharon - anyone can draw up a legal contract or will stipulating a person different than their genetic family to be their medical-decision maker.
Additionally, people use the argument that same-sex partners do not get healthcare benefits in the way that married couples do. I would encourage those people to go work for companies that are more open-minded and supportive of this lifestyle choice. Southern Methodist University in Dallas Texas offers same-sex partner healthcare benefits to its employees. Homosexual marriage isn’t legal in Texas, but employers can choose to recognize partnerships. Its not the government’s fault you work for people who don’t support your partnership.
Reply
James Hightower Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 11:03 am
Why should they be encouraged to work somewhere different? Again, its an equal rights issue. you say employers can choose to recognize partnerships, but they can choose not to as well. There i no guarantee .
Reply
James Hightower Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 11:06 am
*is no
“Its not the government’s fault you work for people who don’t support your partnership.”
No, but it is the government’s responsibility to ensure equal rights for those under its jurisdiction. That’s why we have the 14th amendment, the civil rights act, the voting rights act, etc. There will always be people who don’t support the partnership, but their opinions are not allowed to affect their hiring practices/benefits policy. Just like an employer cannot deny insurance to an interracial couple.
Reply
Cristin Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 11:10 am
Healthcare and gay marriage/partnerships is not an equal rights issue, because healthcare coverage is never a guarantee for anyone. If people use benefits as part of the argument for gay marriage equality, I would like to point out that healthcare coverage is a privilege, not a right. So if that’s part of what someone believes is unfair and they don’t want to move to another state, I would suggest they get another employer.
You can not possibly think that every employer in every state should pander to every single person’s lifestyle. Example: some employers don’t offer family coverage or child coverage, etc. What I’m saying is that people can use their power to voice opinions to employers that they don’t like their plans and switch jobs.
Reply
James Hightower Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 11:16 am
Well, personally, I consider health care coverage a right, referencing the “right to life” in the declaration of independence.
I never said anything about children, simply spouses.
What you fail to understand is not everyone can just switch, nor should they have to. If employers disagree with a lifestyle they are not allowed to discriminate against it unless it becomes deleterious to a safe working environment. After 9/11 people we’re not allowed to deny coverage/fire all their Islamic workers because of their disagreement with their life style.
Reply
James Hightower Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 11:01 am
Its not a red-herring. Its an explanation why polygamy is vastly different from homosexual union.
If your husband is on life support, you have the power to make decisions for him, without his parents/brothers/family telling you what to do.
The problem with polygamy is that if the patriarch is incapacitated all the women can vie for what needs to be done, each might have different interests depending on kids and other mitigating factors.
This is where the union of heterosexual marriage and homosexual union join. 2 people, making decisions for each other.
Reply
Sharon Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 11:30 am
I think something should be said to distinguish the multiple decision-maker issue with regard to polygamists and the multiple decision-maker issue with regard to a single incapacitated patient with two living parents. In the latter case the government is comfortable with multiple decision-makers (even, for example, if the parents are divorced, have conflicting religious views, have children outside of their marriage, hate each other, etc.) Given that this is acceptable it is hard to see why multiple decision-makers in the case of polygamists should be unacceptable.
Maybe there is another reason why the government has an interest in keeping polygamists from marrying?
(Thanks, Jenna, for posting on this interesting issue.)
Reply
Christiana Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 11:16 am
As a US citizen who is marrying a British citizen I can promise you the government is VERY involved in creating a contract for our relationship. I have to prove that I can support my future husband, that my parents can cover us, that my future husband is healthy, has never had a violation with the police, that he has enough money of his own, what our debts are, the list goes on and on and on and takes years.
He is not “free” to be in this country with me unless we are married and have gone through this process. We aren’t really “free” to actually be together in any sense of normalcy until we’ve passed the government’s tests.
Also, Married people often face a tax penalty instead of a break. Check here for a layman friendly take on it. http://www.weddingbee.com/2009/04/15/happy-tax-day/
Immigration laws prevent polygamy from being recognized and people that are in polygamous relationships wishing to emmigrate must choose which wife can come with them and wife wife has to stay behind. How would those two women NOT have conflicting interests? These conflicting interests would likely lead to conflicting decision making. I’m not saying multiple decision makers is the only reason it isn’t legal, but I do see the conflict.
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 8:21 am
I support both gay marriange and pologamy as along as everyone can enter into the relationship at their own will. I believe that who someone else chooses to love and how they form their family is really none of my business and neither polygamy nor gay marriage would have any affect on me.
Jenna - are you opposed to both polygamy and gay marriage or just gay marriage?
Reply
Jenna Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 11:06 am
Both. Although I’m sure being LDS with a polygamist history in the Church most are probably confused on this issue.
Thanks for your honest answer. Most don’t seem to be willing to address it directly.
Reply
mhb Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 11:53 am
Wow. I haven’t read through _all_ the comments yet… quite a discussion so far.
I think civil marriage is a contract between two consenting adults. Gay or straight. If we want to call the government recognition of this (with all its accompanying tax, insurance, etc benefits) a “civil union”, then cool - my straight marriage will be called a civil union by the government, and a marriage by my church. Works for me. Churches maintains the right to recognize and bless the unions they deem recognizeable - because they are separate from the government.
I’m going to have to listen to the radio story you posted about polygamy being feminist, Jenna, because I share concerns with other posters about GIRLS being FORCED into “marriages” with men in polygamous communities. Forced marriage is a violation of human rights, and rape of a child (’cause that’s what it is) is immoral, illegal, and traumatic not just for that individual, but across generations.
To me, marriage is for two consenting adults. Emphasis on all three of those words.
Reply
Julie Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Absolutely. I agree 100%. If a man wants to marry 4 women, and all 4 women are completely okay with this, then I see no reason why they should not be permitted to go forth with this lifestyle, because it is something which they all want — and why should I be the one to tell them otherwise? As long as a woman has the same right to marry multiple men, if the men are willing to be in the same situation. Personally, I would never want to be in a polygamist marriage, much the same way a homosexual relationship does not appeal to me, but I personally would support both legalized polygamist AND gay marriage. I don’t want someone to tell me what I can do with my own life if it does not physically harm others, and I fail to see how two men marrying each other and living their lives together poses any sort of harm to the rest of society.
Reply
Shan Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 2:29 pm
I agree with Krista. If it is between consenting adults I’m A-OK with polygamy. I think when individuals are forced into it (which is what we mostly hear about) that is what rubs the wrong way.
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 8:21 am
Curses to you and your intelligent question that made me think.
I support gay marriage. If someone is with someone else and they love each other and want to be together forever, recognised legally, they should have that right. I was horrified when, at the wedding I shot last week, one of the speech-makers started ranting about how gay marriage is an abomination and gay people are worse than dogs. (first of all, entirely inappropriate for a wedding, no matter what, and second, to announce that kind of thing to over 200 people, many of whom you don’t know, is just bad manners.One of my gay friends, who IS married - it’s legal here - said I should have charged extra for being forced to listen to hate-speech.)
Anyway, I don’t believe in polygamy. Why? I had to think about this! Because I think it cheapens marriage. I think marriage is about committing yourself whole-heartedly to one person, forever. Now, to me, it doesn’t matter what gender that person is. But to take more than one wife or husband feels to me like you’re not committed enough to any of them - if you get bored, you just get another one. I don’t think you can love that many people at one time in the way that you should love your spouse. It just reeks of a child wanting every piece of candy in the shop, to me.
I don’t know what the general vibe is in America right now - was Miss California giving what she thought was the “safe” answer? Did she think she’d lose points if she advocated gay marriage? Or is it the other way around, that if she DID believe in gay marriage, she would have been applauded for saying so, even if it meant losing the race? I don’t know what the general populus believes, so I don’t know what she was going for, or if she was really just speaking her heart without caring about whether she won or lost. Cynical me has to doubt that…
Reply
Hailey Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 9:21 am
As far as the ‘general vibe’ goes, I heard a good deal of applause when Perez Hilton asked the question, which I would assume were indicative of support for gay marriage, and I heard similar amounts of applause when Miss California said that she believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. So I would say there’s still a large support base on both sides of the fence and therefore I doubt her answer was an attempt to crowd-please.
Reply
Ruby Slippers Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 9:29 am
Fair enough, thanks! You can just never tell.
Reply
Hailey Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 9:52 am
Yeah true true! It’s impossible for us to get in her head though so who knows!
Reply
Cristin Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 11:01 am
Re: her intentions in answering the question
In her interview with Matt Lauer on the Today Show (msnbc.com), she says she would answer the question the same way, even knowing the outcome. She says that she’s not interested in being politically correct - she wants to be biblically correct.
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 8:43 am
I don’t know how long it’s going to take people to realize that the issue of gay marriage boils down to RELIGION. It’s fine if your religious beliefs dictate that your church won’t honor gay marriages (against biblical teachings about non-judgment and love, if you ask me, but FINE, whatever), but it is NOT fine for state and/or federal governments to legislate (and discriminate) based upon religious belief.
If you’re against gay marriage, I implore you to give me ONE reason for your conviction that isn’t founded within the ideologies of your religious beliefs. Church and state are separate, my friends, and they’re separate for a reason. The Christian majority in this country has no moral right whatsoever to discriminate against the homosexual minority.
Gay marriage is, I firmly believe, one of those issues that future generations will look back on and wonder WTF we were thinking being so discriminatory. Do the reading: slavery, eugenics, and genocide have all been waged in the name of the Bible. Those who discriminate against homosexuals are NO DIFFERENT and NO BETTER than people who have historically argued for other kinds of oppression in the name of the Bible. I don’t care how you’d like to couch this, it’s true. This is discrimination, and is just as intolerable as any other kind of discrimination.
I absolutely believe that individual churches should be able to decide for themselves whether or not to perform/support gay unions, but we need to wake up and realize that discrimination against homosexual marriage has its foundations in religious dogma and therefore has no place in law.
And here’s another issue: What the heck is a “man” or a “woman,” anyway? Science has shown that gender falls, not into two distinct binary categories, but along a spectral continuum. This is a biological FACT. Human beings have designed these categories to help us wrap our wee minds around concepts like sexuality, but the truth is that not everyone falls (or, perhaps more accurately, hardly anyone falls) neatly into these categories. Yes there are some biological differences between female and male bodies, but we’re misled if we believe that it’s always that simple.
At the end of the day, each person should be able to believe whatever they’d like. Regardless of that, the government shouldn’t be able to impose the religious beliefs of the majority onto the lives of the minority. I am losing my patience with those who argue against gay marriage because at this point it comes down to ignorance about how our government is designed to work: Church and state are separate.
Reply
Hailey Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 9:39 am
You only want ONE reason that isn’t founded in religious beliefs? Too easy. Homosexuality isn’t beneficial for society. Show me a homosexual couple who has managed to have a baby by natural means.That’s not religion. That’s practicality, and furthermore, it’s politically and sociologically sound. How could it possibly be beneficial to society to support the union of a bunch of people who can’t contribute to the population?
And are you certain the Bible was behind the occurrence of evil things like genocide?? If that it true, it can only be because the vile individuals who came to power manipulated what is written. It’s easy and ignorant to use the Bible to support your various religious beliefs, which is why I believe that one should form political opinions based on what they know to be true. If the Bible has contributed to your concept of truth, then I see that as valid, but don’t cite a book that is famous for being interpreted differently by everyone who reads it because in the political forum, that will get sticky.
I am losing patience for those who argue for gay marriage because at this point it comes down to ignorance about how nature is designed to work. See how ‘losing patience’ isn’t a politically persuasive idea?
Reply
Emily Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 9:55 am
As a heterosexual female, my partner and I can decide whether or not to have children. Are you saying we shouldn’t be able to get married unless we’re willing to promise to be “politically and sociologically sound?”
I promise you that legalizing gay marriage won’t lead to the demise of the human species because heterosexual couples will quit having children. That’s never going to be a problem.
I’m also not saying that the Bible was “behind the occurrence of evil things like genocide,” but I AM saying that people have historically used the bible as reasoning for their bad behavior. Have you ever read, for example, Frederic Douglass’s Narrative? He discusses at length the ways in which slave owners (and legislators) used biblical evidence in support of slavery. Mind you that we’re not taking about some bizzaro minority faction of people — the WHOLE COUNTRY at one time practiced slavery. As in, the majority. We all now recognize that this was waaaay wrong, but the truth is that slavery was often justified using the Bible and Christianity.
I see your point about “how nature is designed to work,” but the truth is that the biological nature of homosexuals has led them to be attracted to people of the same sex (just as my biological nature makes me attracted to the opposite gender). Nature does allow us to have children, but it does NOT only set biological precedents for heterosexual relationships. Ever read the children’s book And Tango Makes Three? The true story about the Central Park Zoo male penguin couple? Open your eyes: nature and biology are so much more infinitely complex than our constructed (and artificial!) social categories.
As far as childbearing goes, your argument sounds frighteningly like the eugenics discourse that was popular at the turn of the 20th century. What if I’m not able to have children? Am I automatically then worthless, by the standards of your argument? What if I have a disability? Should the government forcibly sterilize me so that I won’t bring forth any dysgenic progeny?
I respect your willingness to engage in debate, but your argument about nature doesn’t hold any water.
Reply
Courtney Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 10:46 am
Hailey- are couples only allowed to get married if they are going to procreate? What if one person is infertile? They don’t have the right to be married?
If I’m not contributing to the population of an already overpopulated world, I have no value?
What about the Bible teaching us to care for orphans and widows? Is adoption not a “natural” means of having a family? Lots of gay couples would adopt if they could- it seems pretty practical to me that orphans should be cared for by a family instead of the state.
Reply
Katy Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Of course people shouldn’t be disallowed to marry because of infertility - that isn’t a choice. It something that happens completely out of your control, unlike acting on homosexual behaviors which is a choice. If couples choose to not have children, that is their choice, but at least should they have children, those children are then raised in a male/female household which thousands of years of society has shown to be the preferred method for optimal, balanced child development.
And just because some millions or more people have chosen to live in certain crammed areas of the world, doesn’t mean the world as a whole is overpopulated. Have you seen all the vast land on this earth that humans don’t occupy? Did you know that issues of hunger around the world have little to do with available food and more with the politics of those local governments and tyrannically led countries? Even our own country pay our farmers to not grow all that they could grow in efforts to control price/supply/demand, etc. Besides, limiting the population only limits that which we can accomplish - more thinkers and more workers equal more great things discovered or things cured.
Sorry to dump on you like that, the false notion that we are overpopulated is a sore point with me.
Reply
Courtney Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Umm. Katy- it’s pretty well established that the earth can’t support our current population. See here:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090418075752.htm
Also, being gay isn’t a choice either. Think about it- read the vitriol here, the urge to oppress the freedoms of gays and lesbians. Who would choose to be gay or lesbian in this hostile environment?
Also, there are physical differences in the brains of homosexuals that makes them more like the opposite sex- the idea being that men with feminine brains will then be attracted to men just as women are (analogous situation is true for lesbians). There is also evidence of a genetic basis for homosexuality:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8332896?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed
If God appeared to you tomorrow and said that you should be homosexual, could you make yourself homosexual? I don’t think I could. So what makes you think that gays and lesbians could choose otherwise?
Reply
Katy Reply:
April 24th, 2009 at 12:34 am
I finally got around to reading through your link - I’m at least happy that they didn’t make any dire, specific predictions. I have great respect for scientists, especially for all that they discover that benefit us now, but when they start making predictions and forcasting what they think our vast world’s problems are…that’s when they lose me.
In the 1970′s, the top experts and scientists of the day predicted-among other things that I can’t remember right now - that:
*the Earth would be around 10 degrees cooler in the year 2000
*more than half of the species on earth would be completely extinct by the 1990′s
*and life expectancy would be around 42 years of age in 1995
(I could post the links, but I’m just too tired - forgive me and I’ll get them some other time if you wish)
When it comes to projecting ideas about something so vast as our entire world and it’s future capabilities….yeah, scientists are often quite off and they don’t all agree. Ironically, you have except what science projects with quite a bit of “faith”!
Reply
Jessica Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 10:04 am
I like your point about gender and science. I am interested to know what people who are against gay marriage think about people that don’t fall squarely within a gender. Hermaphrodites (a person born with both male and female reproductive organs), for example, are a scientific fact. What about these people? Who decides if they are male or female? Who can they marry?
I encourage anyone interested in a Biblical perspective of homosexuality (and how passages in the Bible used to condemn homosexuality haven’t been interpreted correctly) to watch the documentary For the For Bible Tells Me So. Has anyone else seen this?
Reply
Hailey Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 10:32 am
I have heard all the rebuttals before, and they do not discredit the argument. No, of course marriage should not depend on whether or not you plan to/are able to have children, however there is a big difference here between homosexual and heterosexual couples - the vast majority of heterosexual couples CAN have children, whereas homosexuality excludes the ability to naturally have children between the two people in that union. That is nature, as much as homosexual tendencies is nature. We shouldn’t compare a whole denomination of people to the small percentage of heterosexual couples who can’t have children. And no, I don’t think that homosexuals can single-handedly wipe out the human race. I agree that if homosexual marriage was legalised everywhere, the human population would not necessarily go into rapid decline. But I’m not talking about how a law could ruin a society, I’m talking about benefitting or not.
However, I do agree with you that the Bible has been used to back up all sorts of terrible beliefs throughout history, and I agree that this is a corrupt practise. I believe that the place of the Bible in politics is to influence an individual’s opinion - that is valid, as many different sources shape a person’s overall belief system. However, the Bible should certainly not be used to determine laws in a country where there is an institutional separation of church and state.
Reply
James Hightower Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 10:55 am
Why is it wrong for two people who care for each other to enter into a legally binding contract? Why should the ability to make legal decisions for each other depend upon the ability to procreate?
“…whereas homosexuality excludes the ability to naturally have children between the two people in that union. ”
So postmenopausal women cannot get married? Infertile women cannot marry?
That is the argument you make.
Reply
MrsW Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 11:10 am
Straw man again. Can we stick to the issue rather than making all of these attempts to blow each other off course in what we “obviously” believe (you have made that comment several times, James.)
Reply
James Hightower Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 11:44 am
Its not a straw man, her claim is illogical—hence it needed an analogous situation to explain why. Procreation was not the crux of my debate; it was, however, the substance of hers.
Legal contracts are not a straw man. It is why the government has a vested interest in marriage, and why others want their marriages recognized.
Reply
James Hightower Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 11:46 am
It is also how this began, showing the difference between homosexual marriage and polygamy.
Reply
Erin Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 11:10 am
@Hailey: “Homosexuality isn’t beneficial for society. Show me a homosexual couple who has managed to have a baby by natural means.” So if you don’t have a child by “natural means” you aren’t “benefiting society?” Many of my friends have had to take fertility drugs, do IVF, surrogate etc. in order to get pregnant - and some ended up adopting. Homosexual couples use IVF, surrogates or adopt - so they would use the same “unnatural” means as my heterosexual friends to have a child - since this is apparently not “natural,” are these beautiful children less wonderful, less special, less “beneficial to society”?
Reply
MC Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 11:15 am
Anybody consider the fact that continued reproduction at recent levels might not be the most beneficial thing for the human population or the earth? Overpopulation is an issue that we will have to face more and more. A society cannot function healthily when it’s demands exceed it’s resources. Major political and social ramifications can be seen in some countries already.
I remain unconvinced that the ability or desire to reproduce gives any validity to the union of two people. Nor do I think that limitless reproduction is the best thing for any society.
Reply
Katy Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Ideas of overpopulation seem grounded in the belief that we can’t grow enough food for everyone. That we are too crowded. There are vasts tracks of land that we haven’t even touched on this earth - just because 8 million people have chosen to cram themselves into New York City doesn’t mean that the rest of the world is also so abundantly populated in every corner. Also, issues of not enough food, especially those in third world countries have little to do with actual growing and much more to do with political tyranny and oppressive governments in their regions. Even farmers in America are paid/supported in not growing all that they could because of economic factors - supply/demand/price issues.
The idea that humans are a scab on the face of the world and must be limited forgets that humans have the potential to do limitless things for good. When we talk of limiting the number that can be born we are talking of limiting those minds that could grow up to cure diseases and improve the quality of life for those around them.
Reply
Jenna Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 11:13 am
Well I believe that gender is inherent to the soul, but as far as what I would do if a child of mine was born a hermaphrodite, I’m not sure. Interesting. I thought Middlesex was a great read for this very reason, in that “he” was raised as a “she” and didn’t make up his mind about what gender he felt was inherent to him until later in life.
Reply
Jessica Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 11:57 am
This is very interesting. So, if gender is inherent to the soul- do you believe that it is possible that someone could be born one sex and feel in their soul that they are another? It’s my understanding that transgendered people feel that way. If a transgendered man feels in his soul he is a woman, should he not be able to marry a man?
I know this is tangential to the original question but I think considerations such as these prove the point that issues of gender and sexuality (and their moral/religious implications) are not as simple as the labels we place on them.
Reply
Amanda Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:48 am
LDS religious doctrine teaches that the soul is the combination of our bodies and our spirits. We are imperfect (both our body and our spirit), however, when we are resurrected after death, our bodies will be perfected and united with our souls-perfected by Jesus Christ. So sexuality-in all its imperfections-is a part of us…but it can be imperfect as well. (Please excuse this horrid comparison-but it drives a point) There are people in the world who are sexually attracted to children. No matter what they do, they will always be attracted to children. But this attraction is wrong and persons who have this attraction should not act on it. I don’t think this necessarily works into the legal aspect of gay marriage, but it works into why Jenna can believe acting on homosexuality is wrong. (Please don’t attack me on how his makes no difference in the legal sense. It just is a little explanation of sexuality is perceived.)
Here’s another idea that I recently heard.
I was listening to a very interesting interview of a gay LDS man and his view on homosexuality and gay marriage. He said at this point in this life, it is beyond his imagination that he could ever be attracted to a woman. But then he compared that to when he was 8, and he couldn’t imagine life without his legos. And then when he was 10 and couldn’t imagine moving away from home (or something to that effect). But later in life his legos were lost and he moved away from home. He pointed out that human understanding is very limited and as we grow and learn, our world expands. LDS doctrine teaches that we learn throughout the eternities, even after we die. So basically he was trying to point out that things that seem impossible to imagine while on this earth, might seem incredibly simple when we have eternities in front of us.
I know this is off topic. And probably doesn’t answer your question. But hopefully it explains a little of Jenna’s beliefs (and mine
.
Here’s the link to the interview:
http://www.nine-moons.com/2009/03/30/a-totally-gay-podcast/
Reply
malex Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:02 am
Bravo, Emily. Well said.
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 8:48 am
Jenna,
I was thinking the exact same thing when I heard about and watched clips of the pageant the other night. I really commend this woman for not compromising her beliefs. It would have been so easy to lie and side with the popular view-point to help secure a win. I too strongly believe that marriage is a special and unique bond between a man and a woman. That’s that.
On a lighter note….did anyone else think that Miss California’s earrings were card-stock and plastic gems?
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 8:49 am
The thing is, people aren’t calling her a bigot, they’re calling her stupid (google “miss california gay marriage” and read the comments on all the blog posts out there about it). Leaving aside the question of whether or not gay marriage should be legalized (which I say no to, not only for religious reasons but also because of thousands of years worth of precedence in the vast majority of world cultures and religions), I think the bigger question with Miss California is the right for the minority to voice their opinion (at least when they are flat-out ASKED what their opinion is!) without being called stupid or being considered less educated. Part of me wonders whether people would still call her stupid or choose some other insult if she was accepting a MENSA membership or something like that. But I know they’d still insult her.
Reply
allison Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 8:58 am
The vast majority of world cultures for thousands of years considered women to be inferior animals. Were women’s rights then a mistake, by this argument?
I agree with whoever it was above, who pointed out that Miss California’s response was not just against gay marriage, but untrue. You CAN’T choose to marry if you are gay, only if you are within a handful of states, and wish to remain in those states. If you support the right to CHOOSE to marry, for homo and heterosexuals, you are FOR gay marriage, you just don’t choose it for yourself.
Reply
Ellie Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 9:48 am
As I said before, although possibly less than coherantly, Miss California gave an answer that came out as flat out wrong. Absolutely wrong. Even if she meant that through elections, we can choose whether we want gay marriage or “opposite marriage”, she came across as stupid because what she looked like she was saying was that she didn’t know that gay marriage isn’t legal everywhere. And further, for anyone who is gay, that is an unbelievably insulting response because it portrays her as somebody so ignorant and so isolated that she doesn’t know/care that gay people can’t get married. I agree with Jenna that she had integrity to voice her personal opinion on a controversial issue (although it is fairly obvious to me that people who don’t support same sex marriage are still the majority, so I don’t think she necessarily chose an unsafe answer). But her first half of her answer is just so terribly wrong that I really think that is why she is getting so beat up by the internet, at least on the sites I read.
It is unfortunate that beauty contestants, particularly after Miss South Carolina last year, have a reputation for being pretty but dumb. I honestly don’t think these personality questions have any place in pageants because they aren’t a very good measure of intelligence, political savvyness, character, or whatever, and we only ever pay attention when somebody messes up.
Reply
Jenna Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 11:16 am
She was asked “4 states have legalized, do you think this should continue” which directly refers to the democratic process. So of course in her answer she referred back to the democratic process when she said “choose”. You can “choose” to exercise your democratic rights by either voting directly for gay marriage, or for leaders who will legalize.
She is not an idiot, she understands that those who live in states that aren’t legal can’t choose to get married.
Reply
Emily Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 9:05 am
I see your point, but there is really no such historical precedence — have you read ancient Greek history, for example? Or ancient Roman history? Or Shakespeare’s plays? Or Sappho’s poetry? Homosexuality has just as much a historical presence as heterosexuality.
Reply
MrsW Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 10:00 am
Perhaps I wasn’t clear — certainly homosexuality has had a presence, but there has never in history been socially approved homosexual marriages (to my knowledge).
As to the tired old saw of “The Bible/historical precedence allowed for XYZ horrible thing too,” please tell me why this is relevant? We’re not talking about those things. The Bible and historical precedence supports a lot of positive things too, like, families should stay together, children should be protected, elders should be respected.
And the comments on this post are exactly why I DESPISE having this conversation and now I’m wondering why I got into this again. This argument inevitably boils down to ad hominem, ad populum, straw man and red herring fallacies, and each side ignoring the arguments they don’t have an answer to. It just makes me sick every time.
Reply
Erin Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 11:18 am
She did come across as stupid - not because she said she does not support gay marriage - but because she used the word “opposite marriage” several times, and was flat out wrong that we all “get to choose”. (Many of you have stated that she meant whatever, and you’re probably right, but she was being judged on her ability to be articulate her thoughts - and she was certainly not articulate if we are needing to say, “she really meant…”). Perez also gave her a huge out because he did NOT ask her “do you support gay marriage?” The questions was “Vermont had a vote (that was the key to the question), gay marriage is now allowed, should other states follow suit?” She should have given a reply that was about the question - should other states vote on gay rights (as opposed to having the national government decide what all states must do, etc.) All you anti-gay rights/marriage people - you can still be anti-gay rights AND also think that Miss CA did a horrible job answering the question. Just because you agree with her that gay’s should have limited rights doesn’t mean you need to lie to yourselves and pretend she did a good job; she didn’t.
Reply
Erin Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 11:23 am
I shouldn’t go back and re-edit my posts because then I end up being very inarticulate! Trying again, it was the interview portion of The Miss USA pageant! She was being judged on her ability to articulate her thoughts. We shouldn’t have to guess or clarify what she meant (e.g., by choose or opposite marrage) - if we do, that means it was a poor response. You can be against gay marriage and still recognize she was inarticulate and didn’t give a good response. That exact same response but ending with “I support gay marriage” would have been equally as crappy. If there was a talent portion and she’d done a baton routine and hit an audience member over the head with a baton and then said “I do not support gay marriage” - still a crappy dance routine. This issue and abortion cause people to instantly (and blindly) love or hate whoever agrees/disagrees with them; it is dangerous. Agree with her politically, but that doesn’t mean she did a good job answering her interview question.
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 8:55 am
I definitely think it is dumb that Miss California was penalized for stating her opinion, her HONEST opinion on the matter of gay marriage. Wouldnt we want Miss America to be honest in her answers instead of telling us all what we want to hear? I do not support Gay Marriage for religious reasons but i do understand in a sense to what the other people commented about. Should the government really get to say who you can or cannot marry? Gay people will still be gay at the end of the day, so by letting them all legalize a relationship will it really be that bad?? By not letting them get married doesnt really change life that much for us who believe against it. But at the end of the day i do believe its wrong, and if the Govenment lets people do whatever they want and not base it off any values, what will happen next?? What else will be allowed or not allowed? You have to draw a line somewhere.
Reply
Emily Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 9:02 am
I respect your religious belief, and I think you’re totally right that religious belief (even of the majority) shouldn’t dictate law. There is a difference between basic moral humanism (i.e. don’t kill people, don’t steal, etc.) and religion.
The thing with gay marriage is that it doesn’t affect anyone other than the people who actually get married. Violence and other crimes are immoral because they affect other people. But who does it bother when two people get married? No one!
You’re right that we have to draw a line somewhere, and I think that this line should be drawn at the place where one person’s behavior begins to affect others.
Reply
Amanda Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:01 am
We have no idea how gay marriage will affect society. It’s never happened before. If we simply look at how current marriage affects society, we learn that it makes a HUGE different. What happens when marriages crumble? There are studies on divorce and how it has affected individual children as well as wider society. Marriages affect stability, financial and emotional of children. Those children are the future leaders of the world. I’m making no argument for or against homosexual marriage-only simply on the naive belief that marriages don’t affect society (or the lives of my future children).
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 8:56 am
I’m with you on this one. I think it kind of sucks for her that now Perez is jumping all over the internet hating this girl. All she did was express what she believed in. Just b/c it’s different from what Perez believes, does that make it wrong? I don’t think it does.
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 9:01 am
Thanks for posting this Jenna.
I think it was pretty publiscly stated by more than just a few that Miss California lost largely due to her response.
She definitely stuck to her guns, even though she was understandably upset. I admire that in anyone-that she could stand in front of hundreds booing her and maintain her integrity.
Seems like there are only a very few of us that don’t think gay marriage should be legalized and I have tended to avoid controversy on most of the wedding blogs and sites I participate in because my opinion is wildly unpopular-no matter what my reasons are, (they’re irrelevant if I come to a different conclusiong, apparently)
When most people speak the words “we all can have our own opinions” it seems like they’re adding, “as long as you agree with ours”. If, as the majority of people believe, that life is a gray area and each person determines what’s right for him or herself-why should I ever be attacked for an opinion I came to just as all other came to theirs-with their heart and mind. Of course, I don’t believe morality is determined by each person…but that’s another conversation for another day.
Reply
lindseytron Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 9:37 am
When most people speak the words “we all can have our own opinions” it seems like they’re adding, “as long as you agree with ours”.
______________
If marriage laws were equal, you could still hold your own opinion - that marriage belongs between a man and woman. You could still practice your religious beliefs that uphold this idea, raise your children to believe as you do and support those causes.
If equal marriage laws were put in place, nothing would change for you. What would change is the quality of life for thousands upon thousands of your friends and neighbors. All they want is the same benefits, the same chance to live their life and have their own opinions upheld by legal support.
For me a lot of this boils down to a support for all people to make their own choice, or support for a specific group to make the choice for all.
Reply
Hailey Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 9:45 am
Leglisation of gay marriage WOULD affect everyone. Our children would grow up in a decayed society where anything goes. Latte Love, I too find it frustrating that being in the minority makes you ‘wrong’.
Reply
James Hightower Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 9:52 am
Yes, giving people equal rights to enter into legal contracts with each other would decay society beyond what we know.
people said the same thing about interracial marriage, segregation and rock and roll
Reply
Emily Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 10:01 am
I think you’ve said it well here, Hailey — Isn’t it frustrating when being in the minority makes you wrong? Oh, wait: couldn’t we say exactly the same thing about the homosexual minority?
Reply
Hailey Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 9:47 am
Thankyou for posting this, Jenna! My experience has been similar to that of Latte Love’s… it’s like a breath of fresh air to hear someone stand up for the other side of the story!
Reply
James Hightower Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 9:42 am
People who believe it is okay to actively work against the civil liberties of others are generally marginalized when they make these opinions known.
Its not right to tell you to NOT hold these opinions, this is a free country after all. However, it should not be a surprised when you are ostracized when you express them.
Reply
Hailey Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 9:55 am
It’s true, people did say the same thing about interracial marriage, segregation and rock and roll. I’m listening to rock and roll by someone of another race to me at the moment, ironically. It’s interesting how society works.
Also, ostracisation still shocks me. C’est la vie.
Reply
Kelli Nicole Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 11:28 am
While your opinion may be wildly unpopular in your eyes (or at least the blogs you participate in), it’s obviously not in the minority or California would have legalized same-sex marriages. It’s just that people with the same opinion as you get labeled as bigots and harassed far more often, plus I think most people are kind of sick of defending their beliefs.
Reply
Courtney Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Kelli- I think it’s pretty widely known that the LDS church poured a lot of money and a lot of time into passing Prop Hate, I mean Prop 8.
If voters in the state of California had been left to their own devices to make up their minds and not had the leadership of a variety of groups (including the LDS church) spending millions to spread disinformation, I think that vote would have turned out differently.
http://www.queerty.com/how-the-mormon-church-bought-prop-8-20090202/
Reply
Katy Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Sure, we poured our money into it. As do ALL groups that support/not support something. You say that as if it’s wrong to show your support for a cause you believe in financially.
I’ll have to find my exact link, but I’ve read many reports that show that the No on Prop 8 campaign spent MUCH MORE on their campaign. Sorry, all the LDS folks in the world would have a hard time raising the kind of money that liberal Hollywood could raise in a weekend so that makes perfect sense to me. The amount of money spent has nothing to do with it - the No on Prop 8 people just don’t like the fact that a majority of people in CA (who despite the insinuations that the CA citizens can’t think for themselves and need the LDS and other churches to tell them what to do) didn’t agree with them.
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 9:46 am
Miss California had the opportunity to talk about our democratic process and how states can make the decision on their own.
Discrimination is wrong. It doesn’t matter what race, age, religion, gender, sexuality someone is. They should ALL be entitled to the same rights. I believe polygamy falls into the religion and should not be illegal. No adult should ever be denied the right to marry the person they love. Gay marriage and polygamy are both private issues that do not impact anyone other then the people in the relationship.
Jenna, my question to you is do you have any gay friends or family members?
Reply
Jenna Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 11:22 am
One of TH’s closest friends, also a groomsmen at our wedding, was a member of the Church, left it, and is now living in a committed relationship in California with his partner.
I am LDS with the Church in my family going back for decades, almost every single person in my family (extended included) is active in the Church, raised in a small farming town where homosexuality would not have been accepted by the inhabitants, attended a Church run school where homosexuality is not allowed (the practice of it, homosexuals are allowed, but not many choose to come). Now most of my friends are on the internet, and not many homosexuals want to be friends with someone who openly voices their opposition to gay marriage. I believe the lack of relationships with homosexuals in my life to be because of circumstance, as well as perception.
Reply
MC Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 11:58 am
I think one’s relationship with those in the minority at hand, here the LGBT community, can have SO much to do with your perception of the issues.
I grew up in a church where homosexuality was not accepted, but in a family that didn’t discriminate as such. At that point, I didn’t have much, if any, interaction with anyone who was gay (to my knowledge), and so I had a lot of questions and definitely leaned to the side of ‘something’s not quite right’ about the idea of homosexuality.
As I got older, I made friends who just happened to be gay, and have a sister who is a lesbian (and is also a church-going Christian). Having these people in my life, I cannot imagine supporting legislation that would restrict their ability to create a loving family of their own. Yes, homosexual couples face challenges, and yes, not all of these unions work out in the long-term. But heterosexual couples and families are plagued by just as many problems.
I would never for a second think that the family my sister hopes to create one day has any less validity in God’s eyes (and hopefully one day the government’s eyes) than my own.
Reply
Emmie Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 2:38 pm
I really agree with you MC. I have always been an advocate of civil rights and LGBT rights in general but when I got to grad school and members of LGBT community became my best friends, it has changed my life. If you can see the struggle, and the humanity in all of it, it changes you.
I think a lot of people who have anti-gay views, just don’t know a lot of gay people, or only like them in the sense of their decorator.
Reply
Courtney Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 3:15 pm
MC- I also agree with you.
To those who are against gay marriage- if you feel bad/guilty/upset/like a bad friend when you tell a person to their face that you don’t want them to share equal rights with you, then that should tell you, you are wrong.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Other religious and non-religious groups persecuted the Latter Day Saints and drove them to Utah. I think we can all agree, that persecution was wrong. Why does the LDS church perpetuate the intolerance it has experienced?
Reply
Katy Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Thank you for agreeing that the persecution to the early LDS was wrong - we LDS know from our history what real persecution is about. But the LDS church is not perpetuating the kind of intolerance we experienced - - for that to happen, we’d have to call for an extermination of all gay people. We’d have to support the tar and feathering, murdering, and driving from the homes of all homosexuals. We’d then burn their homes and even kill the children they have adopted in heartless ways. The government would look the other way while we forced homosexuals to leave their homes in the dead of winter at gunpoint and flee thousands of miles away just to experience some physical relief.
No, we don’t agree with the homosexual lifestyle. But our disagreement does not lead to nor advocate any treatment remotely to that which the early LDS people experienced. Of all people, we know what it is to be hated and we still today are one of the last acceptable groups for Hollywood, the media, and other self-proclaimed “tolerant” folks to pick on, so believe me when I say that we understand what it is to be tolerant of all people, even when we don’t agree with or accept their choices. Tolerance and acceptance are not the same thing and should not be used so interchangably.
Reply
Mandy Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Jenna, I just wanted to through this out there since there don’t seem to be to many on your side.
Being close friends with someone in middle school and through high school did not make me feel that I should support gay marriage. I still love the people, I just don’t love the act. I don’t agree with it, and I am fine with legislation that keeps marriage a union between 1 man and 1 woman.
I find it interesting that just because the basis for my views are from my religion (the Bible) it is suddenly a view found only because I am narrow minded and obviously don’t know anything. I’ve heard all of the arguments against this idea. I don’t care. I still have my views, others have theirs. That’s fine. I guess we’ll just agree to disagree.
Reply
C Reply:
April 30th, 2009 at 3:30 am
Why would someone want to be friends with you if you believe that they do not deserve to have the basic right to marry? This is just as horrible as people who thought that it was wrong for black and white people to marry. In 20 years time (I hope sooner!) you will all be viewed as those people - bigoted and intolerant.
I don’t care what your religious views are. Your religion has no right to dictate who can be awarded a CIVIL union. And to those people who say ‘how long would it be before they start forcing churches to honor same sex marriages?’ - your response is just as uneducated and ridiculous as those running around saying that you can get swine flu from eating bacon.
Do your research. Churches can still refuse to marry straight couples, and many do. Ie many catholic priests still refuse to marry couples that have ‘co-habitated’ before marriage. Straight marriage is completely legal, and the government doesn’t step in here. Why would they with same sex marriage?
grr.
Reply
Jenna Reply:
April 30th, 2009 at 4:10 am
I’m not that worried about having friends. After all, the majority of people in California voted for Prop 8. If I’m having trouble finding friends, I’ll just go find some of them. It looks like you and I won’t be making any plans to head out for some Pinkberry though.
Also, have you heard that the majority of voters in California who voted for Prop 8 in California were Black/Hispanic? Why would a bunch of people whose ancestors were enslaved vote for something like that? I think for the same reasons I do, because they believe in something greater.
I’m not opposed to homosexual civil unions. I’m opposed to gay marriage.
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 9:55 am
Kudos to Miss California for sticking with her beliefs. I think it’s interesting how people say: “you can believe whatever you want” but persecute you for disagreeing with them. I guess the saying “What is popular is not always right and what is right is not always popular” is applicable here.
I personally don’t really get the comparisons of interracial marriage to gay marriage. Gay people aren’t a different race just like interracial married people (from the comparison people are making) are not of the same gender.
I don’t hate gay people, I don’t wish that they would all die and/or go to hell. My heart goes out to them. We’re as much sinners as they are and generally it is a good idea to deal with the log in our own eye before pointing out the speck in others eyes.
Sure, my beliefs stem from the bible, but that is how I choose to live my life. Personally, I’d rather be a fool for Christ and be wrong than to be a fool of this world and be right.
Reply
Hailey Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 10:16 am
Very well said! My thoughts exactly.
Reply
Matt Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 10:39 am
Your response completely misses the point of the debate.
I’m totally happy that you’d “rather be a fool for Christ and be wrong than to be a fool of this world and be right.” That is your CHOICE. I emphasize the word choice because you point out what many religious people forget to mention - you chose your religion.
Gay people did not choose to be gay or to fall under your choice of religious convictions.
This is exactly why there is the separation of church and state. You can be against gay marriage with your church, but be FOR equal rights for all based on state rule - as our country was founded on that belief.
I think its interesting that so many people fail to understand this simple dichotomy of the choice portion of the debate.
You chose your religion and you DEMAND that your opinion and choice be recognized, but as a gay person, you don’t choose to be gay and you want EQUAL rights, nothing extra, and all of a sudden the gay person is the one who is forcing their agenda on the world.
Seems a little bass ackwards if you ask me.
Reply
T. Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 12:08 pm
“I personally don’t really get the comparisons of interracial marriage to gay marriage. Gay people aren’t a different race just like interracial married people (from the comparison people are making) are not of the same gender.”
Interracial marriage was struck down because the government saying that only two persons of the same race (or more accurately, only white versus nonwhite) could marry violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth amendment. The government saying that only two persons of the opposite gender can marry commits the same wrong: it takes the population and divides down the line of an immutable characteristic that is protected by the equal protection clause. (I’d go further into the different levels of of protection for gender/sex versus race, but I figure I’m already too far down the legal rabbit hole!)
I note, however, that the lawsuits regarding marriage equality are generally filed in state court and deal with state constitutions, although they often make a similar argument as one of many. But the argument as I’ve summarized it above is based on the federal Constitution, not state constitutions.
Reply
Katy Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 2:09 pm
I don’t get the interracial / gay marriage comparisons because to me it is a TOTALLY different issue.
You have NO control over what race or nationality you are born into. You have NO control over the color of your skin - you can’t change your parentage if you tried, so no - it seems very unfair to then not allow those whose only difference is skin deep to marry.
But gay marriage DOES involve choice and control. Even if you believe that homosexuality isn’t a choice and that you are born that way (which I don’t), you still have a choice and control over whether or not you act on it. Whether or not you choose to be involved in relationships with the same or opposite sex. I as a heterosexual female can exercise control over whether or not I engage in homo or hetero - sexual behaviors.
That is the key difference and why I don’t buy the comparisons to interracial/gay marriage. One has to do purely with skin color (which is no indicator of the mind, actions, or beliefs) and the other involves the mind, actions, and behaviors.
We should never judge people based on their outward apperance - we judge based on one’s actions and behaviors. If certain behaviors and actions are a detriment to society (as I feel alternative marriages are - heck even single parenthood by choice is determintal and that has nothing to do with sexual orientation…) then we have a right to voice our opinion and deem what we feel to be the best option….As those in CA did.
Reply
T. Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 2:26 pm
See my comment above yours. You can draw the analogy two ways. One is to sexual orientation, but the other is to gender.
In any case, your argument doesn’t hold together. You choose who you marry-the color of your partner’s skin is a choice. People thus choose to engage in interracial marriage.
Reply
Katy Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Maybe I’m not understanding your point, but I’m trying to say that one has complete control over their sexual orientation. They don’t have control over gender, true. And true, you do choose the color of skin of the person you marry, just as everything in life is a choice.
But I’m arguing from a different standpoint - that of course it is wrong for two people to not be allowed to marry because of something completely out of their control (race, etc). That is what makes it different from homosexual marriage. Homosexuality is not a function of your DNA directly and since you have control over that aspect of your life (unlike skin color), then it is within society’s rights to determine which behaviors it will accept.
Here’s a little analogy - two people that are blind could marry one another and never know that other might be a different race/color than them because that difference has nothing to do with thoughts, words, and actions. If no one ever told them, how would they ever know. The difference is purely related to the epidermus - a very shallow way to judge another. However, two people that are blind would very much know that the other was homo or heterosexual (including themselves) BECAUSE expressed sexuality has everything to do with actions, attitudes, and behaviors.
Not that I at all can speak for those who are African-American (whom many of these interracial marriage examples are referring to), but frankly, if I was African-American, I think I wouldn’t like the comparison of hardships between my community and the homosexual one. Homosexuals have never been enslaved for hundreds or thousands of years and homosexuals have never been viewed as property and thus put on the same level of animals. African-Americans have been judged by their skin color only and not allowed to enter certain buildings. Since disagreements with the homosexual lifestyle have nothing to do with something so shallow as appearence, the very comparison between the two communities would seem like an insult. Those of us that disagree with gay marriage (excepting the few radicals out there) do not view homosexuals as less than human - that they deserve any unkindness. Just as all human beings require, they deserve our respect and love for their positive contributions and good will.
We simply believe that the model of one man and one woman is the ideal way to raise children and of course is the only way even possible to have a future generation of children.
Reply
T. Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 3:25 pm
“But I’m arguing from a different standpoint - that of course it is wrong for two people to not be allowed to marry because of something completely out of their control (race, etc). ”
But the race of your partner IS within your control. I can choose to partner with a man or a woman, and I can choose to partner with a white person or a black person.
For the comparison, it doesn’t matter whether homosexuality is a choice or not. What race(s) you are attracted to is a choice. Who you marry is a choice. Just because it’s a choice doesn’t mean it’s okay to legislate what choice is acceptable.
Furthermore, you CAN make a legitimate argument that it’s better to raise children in a single-race household. It is undeniably true that there are people who don’t approve of mixed-race relationships, and given the choice between a childhood full of teasing from other children based in bigotry and a childhood fitting into the norm, I think we’d all agree in the abstract that a child is better off not facing prejudice. So if two white parents divorce and the mother enters a relationship with a black man, should we give the white father custody because that way the child won’t face prejudice growing up?
No. Because even though bigotry exists and bigotry is harmful, the legal system should not take prejudice and bigotry into account. We shouldn’t kowtow to prejudice.
Finally, I think denying a person the right to be with and build a family with someone they love is incredibly unkind.
Reply
Lauren Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 2:34 pm
I take sincere issue with the last bit about we judge based on one’s actions and behaviors. If certain behaviors and actions are a detriment to society.
Even if everyone did believe, as you do, that homosexuality is a choice, what right do we have to judge that choice when the outcomes of the choice have no “detriment” on our society at large? It’s a slippery slope of what can lead from misunderstanding to hatred and I’m concerned that becuase some people feel that heterosexuality is the “right” way to live life, that allows free reign to judge based on behaviors and decisions that do not breach the law.
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 10:24 am
We’re all very opinionated about this issue and it’s a little heated in here, but no matter what I appreciate Jenna’s willingness to open her website up as a forum for these discussions. Thanks, Jenna!
Reply
Hailey Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 10:36 am
agreed!
Reply
MrsW Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 10:41 am
yes, I agree too. I probably came off as pretty angry earlier.. I didn’t mean to, sorry. It is just hard to hold to what you believe to be right, knowing that you are not being a bigot or hateful, but actually trying your darndest to love people, and being told that you are ignorant, or a bigot, or that you deserve to be ostracized. On the other hand, I understand that it is hard to be told that your relationship with the person you love most in the world would “destroy society” if it were legally recognized. It’s a tough issue for all of us.
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 11:04 am
hmmm..hard post for me to stomach today. I enjoy following this blog but there are times like this where I am reminded that we are so very different.
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 11:05 am
Jenna - I don’t know if you are ostracizing other readers, but I have really enjoyed the more challenging posts and questions you’ve posed here. Your readers run the spectrum across religious beliefs (orthodox to “just be nice to people and you’ll be fine”). It makes for an interesting read and gives me something to chat about at the dinner table. Kudos.
Reply
Jenna Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 11:25 am
Thanks Cristin!
Reply
Emmie Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 7:18 pm
I don’t agree with you on this point, but I think it’s great that you post your viewpoint.
Reply
Kristin Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 10:14 pm
I agree with Cristin - I love reading all of the varying opinions and beliefs. I really feel like I learn a lot from everyone here!
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 11:27 am
This is the first comment I’ve ever left on your site Jenna, I enjoy reading about your opinions and about your religion as many different religions interest me. With that said, I must respectfully disagree with you. I was raised Methodist, my husband is Catholic and I consider myself to be Agnostic. I believe that this should be a decision based within each church and that the definition of ‘marriage’ needs to be defined by each one separately.
This should not mean that two people of the same sex should not enjoy benefits of marriage within the state. Separation of church and state was very important to our founding fathers. With the high number of extreme beliefs out there, this is the only way for our country to allow it’s integrity to remain. Each state should decide for itself.
It is not right to govern a couple by someone else’s religious beliefs. This country was founded on religious freedom, I would like it to remain that way.
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 11:34 am
With all due respect, I wish you would stick to posts about weddings, photography, and cooking. With comments like these, you alienate me, and apparently a lot of your other readers.
Reply
lauren Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 11:51 am
I’m torn on this.
I disagree with a lot of what Jenna posts on religion, but I do enjoy reading the posts and the associated comments, and I think she presents her viewpoints very honestly and candidly. It makes her blog more much interesting than your average newlywed blog.
It doesn’t change my opinions at all, though - I am distrustful of organized religion, a strong supporter of gay marriage, and would be fine with legalized polyamory if we could figure out how to mitigate the abuse/control concerns.
Reply
Zoe Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Same here. I disagree with a lot of it as well, but we all have the option not to read certain posts. I continue to read though b/c Jenna is a very good writer.
Reply
lauren Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 12:31 pm
I wasn’t saying she should stop posting on these topics AT ALL, sorry if that wasn’t clear. I’m more torn about myself and my enjoyment of her blog. I enjoy her writing, her style, and her posts, I just vehemently disagree with some of her viewpoints.
Reply
Zoe Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Ah, that part was actually directed toward Rachel, lol, but it’s all good.
Reply
MrsW Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 11:57 am
Jenna, keep posting whatever you want. Not that you need my permission. But if people can’t deal with something that is very core to your beliefs than they are free to not come here. I don’t agree with you on a lot of theological issues, and yeah, they’ve bothered me, but I don’t think you should have to change how you post because readers are alienated.
Reply
D Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 12:23 pm
This is Jenna’s blog, and she can post whatever she wants.
You are left to choose if you want to read her posts or not.
I think it’s childish to suggest that person stop posting what they want to post on their OWN blog.
Reply
JaymeLyn Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 1:29 pm
I agree. I love the post about photos and weddings, but if someone wants to bring up something a bit more controversial on their OWN blog, whose’s to say they can’t?
Reply
Katy Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Yes, Jenna - you post about whatever the heck you want.
Those with more liberal views get much more air-time anyway thanks to our modern idea of journalism so anyone out there brave enough to post their beliefs - even when the “percieved” popular belief tells them they are wrong - should be able to say what they want on their own forum.
I love all your posts!
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 11:56 am
Thank you for bring that video to my attention. I struggle with deciding my opinion on gay marriage. My Jesus and my spiritual beliefs say homosexuality is wrong, but when I look at the love my uncle’s partner has for him while he is struggling through a concurring illness, my heart can’t see what is wrong. I also have a passion for equality. But you bring up a good point-if you allow one, where does it stop? It’s something to be taken into careful consideration.
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 11:56 am
i might not be taking the bait here, but perhaps the whole question was a media stunt. here’s why:
1. california passed proposition 8
2. miss california (carrie prejean) attends a christian college in san diego.
3. perez hilton is an outwardly gay blogger, notorious for pushing the issue of gay marriage
4. interest in televised pageants has waned in the last several years
i think it was staged. perez wouldn’t have asked miss vermont the same question.
Reply
Katy Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 1:53 pm
As is pretty much EVERYTHING in TV and media - I bet you are right on the button. The way the media skews everything - everything is a ‘stunt’ in some form or another. It is very “convienant” that a homosexual blogger asked this question of a gal whose state voiced their opinion in favor of traditional marriage.
Good eye….
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 11:57 am
When I see a shred of evidence that polygamy is an orientation, as opposed to a choice, I’ll consider it equivalent to same-sex marriage.
Reply
mhb Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 12:28 pm
aha - well said.
Reply
allison Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 12:43 pm
excellent point. I agree.
Reply
Anonymous Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 12:49 pm
You must be a woman who does not understand men very well. Men are wired to spread their DNA as far as the eye can see - this is just plain natural selection and genetics. You can hardly get closer to “orientation” than that.
Reply
T. Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 1:08 pm
(1) That’s an argument against monogamy, not for polygamy.
(2) Interesting that you assume that I’m female.
Reply
Jenna Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 1:25 pm
I believe Anonymous is arguing that men have a higher sex drive than women, and so polygamy is naturally better for them because they are able to turn to more than one source as an outlet. When masturbation is not on the table, as is the case for some religions including the LDS faith, it can be a difficult thing for one woman and one man to work out how much sex is enough for both of them.
Reply
T. Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 1:39 pm
I think you’re making the “spreading seed” argument more rational than Anonymous did, and moderating his or her argument more than it deserves. If the male sex drive to “spread their DNA as far as the eye can see” is so unyielding as to constitute an orientation, the choice of two sex partners versus one would be a drop in the bucket.
Also, that reduces marriage to finding compatible sexual urges, and I think it’s considerably more than that.
Reply
Anonymous Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 8:47 pm
I thought we were talking about sexual orientation. The drive of a person to have multiple partners can be as “unyielding” as gender preference. Isn’t it men who do most of the cheating in marriages?
If you read the Wikipedia article on homosexuality you will find that “sexual orientation falls along a continuum” suggesting more of a preference than orientation - or maybe orientation is just a strong preference. Read some of the Kinsey Reports on human sexuality (he’s the guy who really started the discipline), and you’ll find more in there.
You’re obviously knowledgeable on the subject, so if you don’t see a “shred of evidence” that people can have a strong preference for polygamy, it’s because you don’t want it to see it, not because it doesn’t exist. If the natural selection doesn’t work for you, just open a history book and see whether polygamy or homosexuality has been practiced more widely across the ages. That gives an idea of which preference is stronger.
Reply
mhb Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 1:52 pm
But returning to the “people aren’t animals” idea - men aren’t animals. The idea that a man can only survive if he has multiple wives as an outlet to his sex drive is demeaning to both men (perceived as hormonal dogs) and to women (mere vehicles for male satisfaction). That’s not an orientation, that’s an excuse to be non-monogamous.
“it can be a difficult thing for one woman and one man to work out how much sex is enough for both of them.” - sure. But marriage is full of negotiations like this, where both parties have to say what they need and try to provide for each other, right?
Reply
Katy Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 1:55 pm
You are supposing that homosexuality is an orientation - that’s it not a choice. To my knowledge, that hasn’t been proven either.
Reply
T. Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 2:23 pm
It’s been proven to my satisfaction. Gravity’s technically a hypothesis too.
Reply
MrsW Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 2:52 pm
That’s a very cute thing to say — where is your evidence? Links to specific scientific reports might be helpful.
Reply
T. Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 3:33 pm
With regard to sexuality or gravity?
I said proven to my satisfaction, and I figured given the volume of literature out there that an exegesis of why I find particular studies convincing was a bit excessive for a blog comment. I’d start with the Hershberger and Swedish twin studies, the evidence that homosexuality is a trait linked more strongly to maternal lineage than paternal, and differences in the physiology of the brain corresponding to sexual orientation more strongly than gender. That’s just the human stuff; I find data on homosexual behavior in other species persuasive too.
Reply
HamiHarri Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 4:41 pm
This.
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 12:02 pm
Semantics and euphemisms - some words have become so heavily loaded or connotative, that we’ve actually forgotten what these words mean and/or we misuse them. For instance, I came home the other day and told my husband, “I was so selfish today… I was feeling sick so I took a nap, etc.” My husband responded - oh I thought you were going to tell me you did something bad. We forget that selfish means “devoted to or caring only for oneself.” Ah, semantics. (I work for a German linguist).
And now onto two more words: tolerance and bigotry. The definition of the root word tolerate: to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of WITHOUT prohibition or hindrance; permit; to endure without repugnance.
By definition, those of you who are against gay marriage do not tolerate gays as you are not allowing their “practice without prohibition or hindrance” (you are prohibiting or hindering them from getting married). If you do not tolerate - that means you are intolerant.
NOW - this isn’t a value judgment (are you evil because you don’t tolerate something?!) - this is just simple semantics. But some words are so heavily loaded (filled with negative connotations) that people say stuff like, “I’m not intolerant! I am very tolerant of them!” - But no, you are not tolerant of them - that’s just the definition - it is what it is. You do not want to kill them, you don’t wish bad things for them - come up with some euphemisms if you must because you can’t change the definition of tolerate. And now onto the tough pill to swallow - the definition of bigot: it actually says in all dictionaries “see synonym: intolerant”. Sugar coat it all you want, but Jenna, Hailey, Miss Cali, and others - you are bigoted towards homosexuals. Semantically speaking. I know you are proud of Miss Cali for (inarticulately) being honest about her beliefs - but make sure you are also being honest to yourself about yours. Your beliefs do semantically match the definition of being bigoted (just as my behavior semantically matched that I was selfish yesterday - does that mean I would globally classify myself as selfish?). Your beliefs also have very real consequences for millions of Americans. You can hold onto your beliefs, and vote that way, and win elections (I do live in Cali) but also recognize that though I’m sure you are all nice people, your opinions and votes have very sad, real consequences for a lot of real people. For the aunt who will never get to see her niece again after her brother’s partner died and his parents got custody because it was their sons name on the adoption papers - or the newlyweds who were just told they were no longer married - or the woman who can’t visit her partner of 25 years in the hospital - all of these people are saddened by the consequences of your votes. The millions of Americans who were just told they do not deserve the same rights as everyone else - that is incredibly sad and heartbreaking for them and the people who love them. It is easy to be honest with yourself (and the blogosphere) and say “I do not support gay marriage.” It is harder to be honest with yourself and say “I understand that my opinion is bigoted and I understand that my opinion, which is influencing the law through my votes, is breaking the hearts of millions of kind people.” It is easy to say I’m a good Christian and I’m following the bible - it’s hard to say “I’m a good person and my opinion/money/vote is hurting a lot of good people.”
Reply
mrsgilmore Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 12:18 pm
wow. i think you hit the nail on the head. i have to say i like your approach, it appeals to both logic and emotion.
Reply
kim Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Thank you for this well laid out argument, as people are offended by the terms “intolerant” and “bigoted” being used, but they don’t realize that they the only words that can be applied to the situation.
Reply
TH Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Let me offer an ESL point of view. If I have learned anything about languages it is that the dictionary cannot tell you everything. Even though the straight dictionary definition of bigot may fit a situation, the nuances of the word may make it unfit for some purposes. Everyone of us is by nature “selfish” but you don’t go around calling people selfish (certainly not a good way to make friends), even though from a dictionary standpoint you are correct.
Now on the “intolerant” front, I think you got the subject wrong. For example, you may oppose opening US borders to immigrants without being intolerant of billions of potential immigrants, even though you affect their lives in a very real way (they can’t come and have a better life here because of a view you hold). That does not make you a bigot, it simply makes you an opponent of indiscriminate immigration. In the literal (although in my opinion innacurate) sense of the word “bigot” you would be bigoted against non US citizens and so would most Americans. In fact, take any matter of public opinion, and you’ll see how the view you hold puts someone at a disadvantage, or by your reasoning makes you intolerant of them.
Thus, if the word is to really mean what you argue, we are all bigots, and we should just accept the fact and move on with life.
Reply
Cristin Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Oh TH. This comment makes me want to marry you a little.
(not really - but I do love the finality of your statement)
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 1:00 pm
First, he behavior was intolerable and I am glad that she lost. However, I am glad that she said it because I am glad that it is out in the open. I live in Los Angeles, and many people feel like she is an embarrassment to the state. Opposite marriage? Really. Unacceptable.
No, polygamy loses on the immutable factors test.
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 1:21 pm
Wow - I tried to read through all the comments…maybe I will finish the rest later.
I think it’s sad that her political/religious beliefs kept her from the crown (maybe it was something else too, but with Perez Hilton judging and she didn’t win…hmm it makes you wonder). She answered with honesty and intergrity and was punished for that. You know, it isn’t the first time that someone has been punished for being true to their beliefs instead of bending their opinions to that of what’s popular at the time. She may not have won the crown, but she still has her intergrity and that makes her a much better role model in the long run.
It does make me wonder…as all things related to more conservative / more liberal views do, if this situation had been reversed…had she expressed a liberal view to a very much conservative crowd and conservative-minded judge, and it cost her the crown - the media would be all over that and completely on her side.
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 1:26 pm
Jenna — thank you for opening this discussion and especially forcing your audience to consider polygamy as part of the equation. I think that, as Americans and human beings, most importantly, this discussion is one that is long overdue.
I feel very passionately about the civil and human rights of all people, and specifically of all Americans. Among these civil and human rights is the right of every American to choose the religious dogma that will dictate different aspects of their lives. Many Americans choose Christianity, a decision which I applaud and celebrate. I’m marrying a Christian. I come from a Christian family and many of my close friends are Christians. They follow certain rules, depending on their sect, and live their lives according to their Christian doctrine. I’m in awe of their devotion. Conversely, I am not a Christian. I try to live my life wholly and fully, free of judgment of others’ religious beliefs. I’m very happy to live in a country where I, a non-Christian, can marry a Christian, work and love other Christians, and befriend, be taught by and admire Jews, Muslims and Hindus {just to name a few}.
With that said, I am not happy to live in a country where it is assumed that the Christian values are held by all Americans and should be included in the laws of a very secular nation. Theocracy has proven time and again to be a dangerous model of government and a form of rule that I certainly would not be able to exist within. I feel that, because of the lack of theocratic rule in this country, we should not assume that our leaders will or should choose the most religious and or Christian way to govern. As citizens the assumption should be that those that govern will choose what is right for all Americans and create and maintain laws that uphold, not infringe upon basic human and civil rights of the people that have been so valiantly protected for hundreds of years.
Outside of the belief that the Christian way is not the best way to govern the country, I also sincerely feel that the polygamy described {free, willing, and involving only consensual adults} be considered for recognition by the state just as I believe same-sex marriage should. Legal recognition of a consensual, adult union steeped in love, mutual respect and a commitment to building a life together, is a basic civil and human right that should be extended to all consensual adults. It is without reason that a ban on either polygamist or same-sex marriage, on the basis of values and “morals” that are not shared by all Americans, should be upheld.
With that said, do I agree with Miss California? No. Do I support her beliefs? Absolutely not. Was I frightened by them? Yes very much as I am with most dissenters on this particular topic. However, I will, after reading the post and your comments here, give her what little credit is due for sticking to her beliefs. It is difficult to have the integrity that Jenna cites to stand up for and speak about what you truly believe, even if it is perceived as unpopular.
I truly appreciated reading this post and all the comments. I feel truly lucky to be in the cyber company of such thoughtful readers and eloquent writers.
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 1:37 pm
As to the polygamy / gay marriage debate…everyone here says there is no comparison because they have already made up their minds that polygymy is wrong. People that claim to be so “open-minded” and accept all marriages convienantly close their mind to those that they don’t agree with. I’m NOT expressing support for polygymous (sp!?) marriage - - I believe the way society has done it for thousands of years - one father and one mother - has been that way because it is the best way to raise children.
Those that support gay marriage seem to feel that they have the more enlightened view, yet they can’t except anything different from what they’ve already decided to accept. It’s the same for those who only support marriage between a man and woman - that is what we’ve chosen to accept because of moral beliefs (I believe you could remove religion from the equation and it would still be justified to support one man and one woman).
Polygmous and gay marriage CAN be considered similar because of their effects on children (both being detrimental). Also, if any marriage situation - - man/man, woman/woman, many men/one woman, many women/one man - - is between consenting adults then they can also be viewed similarly. Many here express that they don’t like polygmous marriage because it involves child-brides - but not all do and if our society wants to become so accepting of non-traditional arrangements, then we can’t exclude those adults that willingly and willfully enter into marriage. If we are going to be so accepting of alternative options for the one man-one woman option, it doesn’t make sense that we would exclude any consenting adults from the equation.
Reply
Ms Snowflake Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Jenna, I have thought about your question, but I also wanted to respond to Katy.
I believe in same-sex marriage, and at this point in time, I believe I am also comfortable with the idea of polygamous marriage. Given all the comments above, and the media, I don’t feel a need to defend my position on same-sex marriage, but other position will drop some jaws from others.
I think the associations people have with polygamy automatically put in a negative light-there are child brides, abuse, degrades women, etc. However, all of these are capable of happening and DO happen in traditional marriages! Just the Dr. Phil episode the other day had a woman who was staying with a husband she admitted was abusive and degraded her (she had actually divorced him at one point, then remarried him secretly). I believe that marriage should be between consenting adults, and if that happens to between a man and two women, OR a woman and two men, who are to judge? I will be getting married in California this fall and I did vote NO on Prop. 8. My marriage will not be effected in any way by changes in same-sex marriage laws, or, should they come up in the future, laws on polygamy.
Katy-I can understand how you do not feel comfortable with the effect polygamy and same-sex marriage, however, I do not think that should be effort for you to be against it. There are many environments that I do not think it is healthy for children to be in, including smoking households, some religious sects, etc. but it is not my place to tell people how to raise their children. As to the idea that children are brought up best by a man and a woman, I do not think this can hold up in today’s society. Many children are brought up by single parents, or even several individuals with the help of relatives. I can think of many people I know who suffered much more from being brought by their father and mother than other people I know who were raised by their mother and grandparents. We do not have laws that say people have to stay married, or that single mothers must get married, but we do have laws that restrict same-sex couples from adopting children.
Reply
Katy Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Yes, we can ALL think of examples of bad father/mother households. They abound because we as humans are imperfect, but just because humans sometimes do stupid things doesn’t make the prinicple and goal of dual father-mother parenthood false.
My parents divorced so I completely understand that children CAN be brought up in single parent households - but that doesn’t make it ideal. That doesn’t make it in the best interest of children to be willfully brought up that way or any other way that denies children the BALANCE that a father model and mother model can provide. This may be a news flash to some people, but men and women are different. Big shock I know:) We are not different in every way, but we are different in the ways that make us complimentary - physcially and emotionally. Those differences, when combined properly (not under circumstances of abuse, neglect, etc of course) are the best way to raise children with stability and balance.
Just because there are flaws in the traditional marriage scenerio (which I wish would also be fixed - if people knew that divorce would be hard to come by, boy would they make better, more thought out decisions about who they marry!) doens’t make it fundamentally flawed.
Reply
Ms Snowflake Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 6:23 pm
I understand your reasoning that individuals should be brought up with exposure to both sexes, however, your dependence on ideal situations is hard (for me at least) to swallow. The sad fact is that half of marriages end in divorce, and any couple, even those ideal ones people speak of, can be separated by death, leaving a single parent behind. In an ideal world, I would not have to worry that there could come a time when circumstances could make me a single parent, I would never have to lock the door to my apartment because no one would ever steal, nor would we need laws telling people not to kill others, or prisons for who those have committed crimes.
Another thing I don’t feel comfortable with is the argument that traditional marriage should be upheld because it is the best for raising children. There are couples that choose not to have children, and sadly couples that are simply not capable of having them biologically and do not have the finances to afford adoption. Yet our society does not criminalize such couples as they do homosexual couples who choose and/or try to raise a family. We do not penalize couples for choosing to not have children, nor are there fertility tests required when you go to get a marriage license. We also do not require unwed mothers to marry, nor force unwed fathers into marriages (or at least we do not have laws requiring people to do so, as society does put this pressure on people in these situations).
I agree that there are problems with marriage in society today. It disturbs that people can be married can be married for a day in Vegas, yet a loving same-sex couple cannot adopt a child in a Southern state.
I respect everyone’s views and opinions (including yours and Jenna’s), and thank all of you for respecting mind. I enjoy having a place to discuss this where I don’t feel threatened (nor feel the need to be threatening-hehe). Thanks, Jenna.
Reply
Katy Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 3:18 pm
I forgot to mention that I respect your willingness to extend your thinking. NOT that I at all support polygomy, I think it’s funny that those out there that would call me “bigoted” for not supporting gay marriage can then turn around and wag their fingers in disapproval towards other consenting adults whose lifestyles they don’t agree with. I guess I’m saying I respect your consistency of thought and belief if that makes sense.
Reply
Ms Snowflake Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Thank you, although I do think there are people out there who are comfortable with same-sex marriage and not with polygomy and do not find it necessary to call who disagree with them bigoted. I understand if you have been exposed to people who have though, so I can understand your frustration.
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 2:10 pm
I realize I didn’t respond to the second question:
“If you cannot support the idea of polygamy, is it possible for you to understand how conservatives (like myself) cannot support gay marriage?”
In your Church, Yes. I understand. It makes sense, and I feel that your church, and my church should be free to practice sacraments as they see fit. In terms of state/Federal law, though: No. I do not understand.
LDS folks choose a path that is not the path of secular US law: it is legal, in this country, to smoke and drink alcohol or coffee if you’re of a certain age. But members of the LDS church choose to follow the Word of Wisdom. Nothing in US law prevents this. You’re free to practice your religion, in your daily life, the way you see God leading you to do it. And I admire that.
I struggle with the fallacy that’s being spread around that churches will be “forced” to allow gay couples to marry. Where has this come from? The Church establishes the rules for marriage (in the case of LDS, strict rules of worthiness about who can be sealed in the temple). If you don’t make the cut, you can still head off to city hall and get a marriage license, but you won’t be sealed in the church.
If the law changes to recognize same-sex marriage, nothing about that above scenario will change. LDS rules won’t change. Catholic church rules won’t change. Most religions will keep doing what they’re doing, and people who don’t fit in with the marriage requirements of those religions won’t be able to get married there.
That is where I take issue: why are religious groups fighting this possible change in state/Federal law so strongly?
Reply
miss button Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Hear hear. I think you’ve hit the nail on the head (as have many other commenters).
I was glad to find that I could read through all the comments (and yes, I read them ALL), and still be 100% firm in my beliefs.
My views:
- the church (any church) should not influence state laws
- any consensual adults should be allowed to marry. This includes me supporting both gay and polygamous marriage.
- polygamy is a tricky beast as it is generally one sided. This leaves a number of men unable to find a partner, so unless polyandry becomes more popular, there will be an unbalance in societies where polygamy is popular. The issues with this unbalance were discussed in one of the articles referenced above.
- on the other hand, gay marriage will ultimately balance out (or come pretty close), with the number of female-female marriages approximately equalling the number of male-male marriages.
- many polygamous societies have other issues with which I do not agree (children being forced to marry, child abuse, incest). But I don’t know that these issues should prevent polygamous marriage full stop.
The word ‘bigot’ has extremely negative connotations, but taken for it’s true meaning, I believe that many conservatives would fit the bill. I try my best to live my life in a tolerant, un-bigoted way, and believe that I achieve this. If anyone disagrees, I will happily re-assess my views.
Although I disagree with the conservative views, I do not believe that they should be unable to live their lives the way that they choose to. I simply believe that they should not be able to prevent others from having that same freedom of choice.
This is a big issue, and I think it will take some time to reach resolution. However, I believe that future generations will look back on this time as a mistake in our history, much like we view racial discrimination now.
I intended to keep this short and sweet, but have failed.
Thanks Jenna for raising an interesting issue, and for allowing such lively debate. It’s fascinating.
Reply
D Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 7:32 pm
“The word ‘bigot’ has extremely negative connotations, but taken for it’s true meaning, I believe that many conservatives would fit the bill.”
As a conservative, I find this statement offensive.
Defined from dictionary.com, a bigot is “a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.”
I don’t consider myself intolerant of gay people — that is, I don’t wish they would all disappear, nor would I ever NOT be friends with someone who is gay (in fact, I am friends with someone who is gay, and a member of my family is also gay.)
While I do not relate to their lifestyle personally, I do accept it. However, I do not support gay marriage.
To me, this is not being intolerant of gays. It is simply not agreeing with an issue that gays deal with.
Now, I guess this could turn into a debate of what constitutes acceptance of a particular lifestyle. Personally, my definition of acceptance does not mean that I need to support every aspect of a person’s lifestyle. Rather, it means that I do not shun people who are different than me and that while I may not agree with all of their opinions about various issues, I do respect the fact that they have these opinions.
Reply
miss button Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 10:53 pm
I am sorry that I insulted you.
But I do believe that if you were truly tolerant and accepting of the homosexual lifestyle, you would not have any issue with them having the EXACT same rights as yourself (and as the majority of the population). As it is, you believe that they do not deserve those same rights.
I guess that’s just a difference between you and me.
Reply
D Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:13 am
I appreciate your apology — if I came off as snarky, I didn’t mean to be. I can sometimes get carried away when it comes to issues like this
Reply
Katy Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Well, many are very devoted to their religious beliefs and even though I think you can argue for traditional marriage even without the religious context, those religious beliefs are deeply held. In the religious context I know that God loves every one of His children - every last one no matter what - but that He doesn’t excuse certain life choices. Being a religious person we feel that God knows best and His ways are infinitely more wise than our own, even if popular opinion differs. And I know that God very MUCH is concerned about families and the homes that all His children are raised in - since the unit of the family influnces society, we as citizens of the U.S. with our voting power express our views through those votes.
The other thing that came to mind - I remember seeing the ads for No on Prop 8 saying “don’t worry, homosexuality won’t be discussed or taught in the schools”, but examples from Massachussets (sp?) - a state that has legalized same-sex marriage - showed that books and other materials WERE being used that introduced homosexuality in the elementary schools (one such example is a district using a text in the elementary school called “King and King”). Though CA is not MA - it’s not crazy to think if something is adopted somewhere else, the same won’t happen here, despite what assurances are given. Assurances aren’t worth much when agendas are in play.
Reply
Katy Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Oh, and I would respectfully state that you still haven’t answered the original second question - the issue isn’t why you can’t understand why we believe so strongly in traditional marriage - - the issue (I think) being raised with this second question is:
If we (LDS/religious folks) are looked down upon for disapproving of gay marriage, then why aren’t those that oppose polygomy not also looked down upon? You may not approve of or agree with any sort of polygomy (or other alternative marriage arrangements), but if it’s between consenting adults why can’t those be accepted as well?
Chances are, you’ve made up your mind and in your conscience polygomy in any form is wrong. That is where you have decided to draw the line. For us, the line is drawn at one man and one woman.
The inconsistency of thought is what bothers me about those that call us “bigoted”, then turn around and wag their fingers disapprovingly at other alternative lifestyles - between consenting adults - that they happen to not accept. I guess it doesn’t make sense to me to pick and choose which alternative lifestyles you agree with - all the while demonizing others for at least maintaining a consistent mantra of “one man - one woman”.
(I could jokingly say that at least we don’t pick and choose - we are “fair” in our “discrimination”:))
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 2:14 pm
I have a really hard time deciding on this topic because I’m a Catholic and grew up in a very conservative state.
I am a very conversative person, but I have a hard time being okay with allowing a drunk man and woman in Vegas to get married (from a government’s viewpoint), but not a loving, committed same-sex couple. It just doesn’t seem fair.
Reply
Lauren Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 2:19 pm
I know from some first hand knowledge that you can NOT be intoxicated and get married at most of the chapels in Vegas. But I know what you’re getting at.
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 2:38 pm
Respectfully, I have a few questions for you if you’d oblige me. These are not meant to be rhetorical or catty; I am genuinely interested in gaining insight to your beliefs.
1. Of course, same-sex couples would never be allowed to be sealed in the temple, and therefore their marriages would not be eternal by LDS standards. It is my understanding that you are not allowed to be a member of the Mormon church if you are living an openly gay lifestyle. Do you feel that your religion is in any way threatened by the possibility of same-sex unions? And similiarly, do you feel that same-sex marriage affects you, or your marriage, on a personal level?
2. Do you believe that divorce should be made illegal?
3. Do you believe that a “paperwork” marriage is, in fact, a marriage? [My Christian faith dictates that it is not true marriage unless it is in the eyes of God.]
4. What is your idea of the word “conservative?” I ask because I’m also a conservative is the most fundamental ways: I believe in small government and in the committed familiy unit as the basis for society. As far as both items are concerned, it seems quite conservative that individual states would vote regarding committed family units.
I fully understand if you don’t want to answer. I certainly don’t mean to bother you; I’m just fascinated by this discussion. Debate is a crux of democracy; all this back-and-forth is what America was made on, so bravo to all who are respectfully contributing!
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 2:42 pm
Jenna-
I first want to say that I read your blog everyday because I like your writing style and it’s fun to read about other peoples lives. Thank you for writing each day and entertaining me
I also want to say that I disagree with A LOT of your views, this being one of them. While I myself am christian I struggle morally with discriminating against a fellow human being. I’m well aware of what it says in the Bible as I was raised Christian and have been taught and read about it from an early age. Deep down I will admit that I don’t feel same sex marriage is natural and biblically correct. I myself have chose to marry someone of the opposite sex. That being said I would be so heartbroken if someone would have stopped my marriage because of THEIR beliefs. I will not force my views and feelings on others. You Jenna are a fellow American and are free to believe and say how you feel. Because of this I will continue to read your blog with an open mind.
I would like to pose a question if you don’t mind…
How would you feel if someone told you that you couldn’t marry That Husband because you are American and he is Polish? I know this question and same sex marriage is a bit apples and oranges but in the end it’s still someone telling you what to do, you know what I mean?
OK I’m done for now. Carry on blogging so I have interesting reads each day! Thanks Jennna!
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 3:02 pm
[...] follow that, in my constant adoration for her very frank and open blog, that I stumbled upon this post, where That Wife celebrates integrity held by the Miss America contestant from California when she [...]
April 21st, 2009 on 3:37 pm
To answer your questions, I have some of my own. Do you believe marriage is civil or religious? Do you believe marriage should only allowed through adults? Do you believe everyone should have health benefits?
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 5:24 pm
http://upturnedbarbie.blogspot.com/2009/04/i-am-seething.html
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 5:37 pm
Do you even wonder if there is a point to all of this? What I mean is, there are certain issues and opinions that people are not going to stray from. No matter how many examples or reasons someone gives Jenna..is she going to change her mind? I doubt it. And Jenna could give me all her reasons for being against homosexuality, and I am never going to change my mind either. I do agree that we should discuss issues to be able to move forward in society. But do you ever wonder if there if there are so issues that we are NEVER going to get past? We have such strong opinions on both sides…..
I think minds can be changed through life experiences….but I am not sure who many minds are actually changed through debate.
I am not saying we shouldn’t…I am just saying that I feel at times like “what’s the point?”
Reply
Cristin Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Even though my mind wasn’t changed at all today, I became aware of other people’s views and understood some of them a little better. I think reading other people’s passionate remarks in a forum like this (where one cannot be interrupted in though) helps me see where people are coming from. When discussing this topic in person with my IRL peeps, I can consider that some of them may have similar views and act respectfully, have done a “test run” online.
Reply
TH Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Likewise, I’ve learned from parts of the discussion. A lot of the views are very emotionally based so logic and rationale get lost in the process, which I don’t like. But some people, on both sides of the issue, are able to stay composed and draw logical conclusions, which I greatly appreciate. I often adjust my viewpoint after hearing some reasonable points here.
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 8:15 pm
“Krista (aka Mrs. Pinot Noir)
April 21, 2009 at 8:21 am
I support both gay marriange and pologamy as along as everyone can enter into the relationship at their own will. I believe that who someone else chooses to love and how they form their family is really none of my business and neither polygamy nor gay marriage would have any affect on me.”
I couldn’t have said it better. And for those who argue that if we legalize gay marriage everywhere, where do we draw the line?…is being in a loving, committed relationship really such a danger to society? I’ve heard people say that once we legalize gay marriage, what’s next — legalizing child molestation? Legalizing abuse? My goodness! I just want to know how LOVE can be taken as something so wrong.
Oh, and for what it’s worth, I am a practicing Christian. And I will firmly and openly state that I am absolutely all for legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide (heck, world-wide!). And I am absolutely for polygamy as long as it’s allowed for both men and women to have multiple partners, and each adult (yes, adult, as in age 18+) has entered into the relationship willingly. I would never EVER want someone to dictate whom *I* could marry as long as we were both consenting adults. Why should I impose those restrictions on someone else?
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 8:23 pm
I have a thought regarding the issue of gay “influence”, or the concern that passing gay marriage will erode society, or that it will make teachers teach kids that gay marriage is ok, etc. Because a lot of the concern with passing gay marriage involves this issue of influence, of kids being taught things you don’t believe…
So, my friend is Hindu. Went to public schools all her life. Staunch vegetarian. Yet every day she’d march into the cafeteria to all the signs about “protein power” and hamburgers and hot dogs dancing together. She had to take her own lunch (before the days of offering vegetarian lunches). Our culture is very meat obsessed, the Beef association runs lots of campaign ads, etc. It’s all very positive when it comes to meat eating in America. Yet the thought of ever eating meat makes her sick. Because her parents TAUGHT HER.
Another example. Mormons don’t drink coffee. Yet I’d wager that Starbucks is in everyone’s face 24-7. It’s on every single street corner, in half the hands and car cup holders of the people you come across every day. Every single convenience store has it… right out in the open! Yet Mormon parents trust that their kids won’t dirnk it, because they TAUGHT THEM.
The point is, that many, many religions are teaching their children beliefs that run counter to the mainstream, predominant beliefs, and they’re doing it SUCCESSFULLY. So if you don’t believe in gay marriage, teach your kids it’s wrong! You’re already doing it with pre-marital sex, with coffee, with tea, etc.
Why do you have power to instill those beliefs in your kids on such pervasive ideas- especially sex, it’s everywhere, yet most of the Mormons I’ve met were virgins till marriage- yet somehow all of your parental influence just magically disappears when it comes to gay marriage? I would sincerely like someone to explain this to me. To me, it seems like a weird picking and choosing of how much influence cultural factors have over children versus how much influence their parents have.
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 8:44 pm
As to the bigot issue, I think we need to look to history to understand why people use that word. I’m wracking my brain, and for the life of me I can’t think of *one single time* in which a group was mistreated, treated differently, etc. and 50 years later everyone still agreed that “yeah, treating them differently was totally the way to go”.
Let’s look at the Crusades, with differences in religion- um, in the lens of history, everyone agrees that was barbaric.
Let’s look at the Middle Ages, with serfdom and people locked in certain classes, unable to move up because of where they were born- that was wrong.
Let’s look at the persecution of the Irish by the English- totally justified then, now denounced as wrong and horrible.
Let’s look at how the Native Americans were slaughtered- justified with religious fervor to convert or kill the savage, with manifest destiny, etc, even backed by the U.S. government! Now universally seen as wrong
Let’s look at slavery, backed by the Bible, ordained of God- yeah, we know how wrong that was.
Let’s look at treating women and children like property, buying and selling them for the father/husband’s benefit- wrong.
Let’s look at denying women the right ot vote- agreed upon as wrong.
Let’s look at discriminating against Irish and Italian immigrants in hiring practices- now viewed as wrong.
Let’s take a look at lynching, at Jim Crow laws, at anti-miscegnation (no interracial relationship) laws- seen as wrong.
Let’s look at the internment camps of the Japanese in WWII- yep, you got it, no one thinks that was a good idea.
Let’s look at rounding up mentally handicapped and mentally ill people and shoving them into asylums for the rest of their lives- we don’t do that anymore.
The point is, a lot of people see the gay rights issue as being another heated debate that people are *convinced* is absolutely right- that there is *no way* they are wrong, they’re not bigots, etc. And it’s not that people who are against gay marriage are bigots. It’s just that, if history is any indicator, they will be perceived as bigots in about 50 years, when, as so often happens, we’ll look back, as we did in all of the above instances, and say “wow, how could it have been like that?”. Does that make sense?
Also, in all honesty, if anyone can give me an example of the majority oppressing, or treating differently, a minority group, and then having it stand the test of time- i.e., we all agree “yeah, the majority was right in treating the minority that way” I’d honestly appreciate it. Because it makes me uncomfortable to think that history is pointing me towards the realization that a lot of my friends, in about 30 years, are going to have to answer some really tough questions from their kids as to why they were on what I feel will eventually be seen as the wrong side. That’s why I think the word bigot is thrown out- because so so so so so many times in history, those people were realized later to be on the wrong side, and are seen as bigots as a result. I think it’s just a natural evolution of society, but that’s just me.
Reply
Katy Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:46 am
I definately get your point, but try not throw the baby out with the bath water. Not all things done out of tradition or done that way for thousands of years (as in traditional marriage) are wrong simply because other acts committed at the same time or for the same amount of time may have been wrong. We tend to say “Oh, well since slavery and discrimination based on skin color is wrong - and that’s what our great-grandparents believed in - then everything they stood for must also be wrong. Good thing our enlightened generation came along to fix up those screwy people from our past…”
Not to change the subject from this topic of gay marriage to abortion (which would open up an entirely new crazy can of worms!), but if anything I hope for the future generations to figure out and right our wrong on it’s that. We may not shove our handicap in institutions anymore (thankfully), but those with disabilities diagnosed inutero have little chance of survival to birth because so many are so fearful and feel entitled to perfect children. I know that in cases of Down syndrome (I have a 3 year old son with Down syndrome), the abortion rate is well over 90% when discovered in utero. How’s that for an “enlightened society”? We are so “accepting” that the unborn deemed unfit to live can be killed for simply not being what the mother wanted.
I’ve heard others before wonder aloud what would happen to the abortion debate if homosexuality could be detected in-utero. Would their be a change in the support for unrestricted abortion? Would it make abortion virtually illegal if the knowledge gained led to the ending of an innocent life simply because it was “feared” to be gay?
Basically, as a mother of a child with special needs I still balk at the idea that we consider ourselves such an enlightened society - that we are so good for undoing the wrongs of the past. Does the homosexual community experience an over 90% death rate? If we are going to through around the words tolerance and equal rights, let’s apply it to all people, not just those that have deemed worthy to live.
(It’s getting late - I hope I didn’t take us off on another crazy tangent. I just wanted to make a point, not start a whole ‘nuther debate, but I just couldn’t help commenting after you brought up those with disabilities. I’m going to bed now:)
Reply
Helena Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:35 pm
This has been a very thought provoking debate, to be sure. Kudos to all who have controlled their tempers in light of a very emotionally charged topic.
I would love to hear if anyone comes up with an example for Sophia.
Reply
Katy Reply:
April 24th, 2009 at 12:14 am
As to Sophia’s request for an example - my first thought is that that would be hard to come by thanks to the notion that every generation thinks the previous generations aren’t as smart, enlightened, and compassionate as they are. We appreciate or consider very little about what life was like in the previous 50 or 100 years and tend to judge past generations by our modern beliefs and standards - which standards have changed remarkably and will continue to change with the whims of popular thought.
For instance, some modern feminist ideas are quite different from the early feminists ideas - modern feminists have gravitated away from some ideals upheld by early pioneers in that movement (acceptance of abortion for one). Those considered “liberal”100-150 years ago for their ideas would not in many cases be considered liberal now. With each passing generation, acceptance of behaviors and what is considered “good” and what is “bad” gets slightly changed in some cases - dramatically changed in others.
Some of these things are relatively minor (people dressing up to fly on airplanes 50 years ago versus the pajama/comfy preference found today) to things that some consider more major (the acceptance & lessening stigma of premarital sex when compared to previous generations).
Basically, good luck finding someone to objectively answer questions related to our modern views on past events - especially those events involving more than one group of people! (just food for thought!)
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 9:05 pm
I 1000% agree with Courtney’s point…
“I think the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. If marriage, the religious construct, is between a man and woman then make it solely a religious construct. Let the government recognize civil unions for everyone whether you’re marrying someone of the same sex or a different sex.”
I’m an atheist, and got married beyond the confines of a religious institution. So by your measure, I’m not married, right?
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 9:18 pm
Just as an aside: this truly puts faces to all those who would be hurt by invalidating same-sex marriages in California (and by the same token, not allowing same-sex couples to be married across the country)…mommies, daddies, firemen/women, office workers, chefs, teachers, politicians, families, friends, etc. They just want to have their love recognized and validated by others as well — what’s wrong with sharing the love?
http://tinyurl.com/dc92wg
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 9:42 pm
I am very proud of her too. Good for her to stand up for what she believes in.
If I had a little more free time I would read this all and comment, but I think I arrived here too late anyway.
Thanks for posting this! I am actually very embarrassed that the country in which I live allows same-sex marriage.
Reply
Sophia Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:24 pm
One last thing- I would hope that those saying being gay is a choice, or you aren’t born that way, aren’t LDS.
Because the last time I read anything on homosexuality and the LDS church, it said “being gay isn’t a sin, but acting on it is”. It also said things about all of us having our own trials and burdens to carry, and for gay people, that’s theirs. There are therapies, offered by the LDS church, that can make you straight, which would have to mean that you’re not straight, you’re gay, and need to be fixed- that there needs to be a process to take you from gay to straight. In other words, that maybe it’s a part of you (an admittedly undesireable part per the LDS Church) that’s always been there…
To me, this language implies that someone is born gay, or, at the very least, that it is a very real problem of desire inherent to them that they must deny or seek to change. In other words, the LDS stance is the closest out of any Christian church to imply that being gay is inherent, thus I think the arguments of some on here are a little flawed if they are LDS and saying that being gay isn’t, at the very least, an inherent part of you that you struggle with. Even the BYU honor code addressess the fact that homosexuals can go to school there, as long as they are celibate (as is required of straight students as well). Homosexuals can be members of the Church as long as they are celibate as well. So, if the LDS Church didn’t believe that people were born gay, or that it was an inherent character trait or trial, to me they wouldn’t frame their “rules” this way. They might not have come out and said “people are born gay” but everything they’ve said all around the issue seems too point to something akin to it. Otherwise they would be like most other conservative Christian churches, who maintain that being gay in and of itself is a perversion and a sin, and is inherently wrong. The LDS church distinguishes between *being* and *acting* in a homosexual way, which begs the question of what the Church thinks about where those desires came from in the first place- especially since a lot of Mormon gay youth were raised in good Mormon households stretching back for generations. Where did those desires come from? How did they grow in an environment that taught against them from a very young age? How did they have feelings that made them want to act in ways they had never seen- many kids didn’t even know of one gay person, yet they remember being ardently in love with someone of the same sex as early as two or three. In fact, my roommate, who is a lesbian and an ex-Mormon, was actually told by her Bishop that she was born that way, but that she could choose to NOT BE GAY- he didn’t say she chose to be gay, he said she was born that way and it was her trial to CHOOSE TO BE STRAIGHT.
To me, the existence of a Church sponsored treatement facility to turn your gay kid straight logically means that your kid is inherently gay and must be physically and mentally and emotionally reconditioned into a straight kid. And be in therapy for years after most of the time. And maybe just end up celibate anyway, never able to marry (even in states where it’s legal) in order to remain in good standing in the Church (there are many, many blogs out there written by gay celibate Mormons for more insight into this).
Reply
Jenna Reply:
April 24th, 2009 at 10:37 am
As per my understanding, programs such as the one you describe are no longer in effect (and although I don’t believe all of these people are lying, I’m not sure how much of what went on was actually sanctioned by the Prophet of the Church).
All of your other points are very valid though.
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 10:45 pm
Well ladies and gentlemen, this has been an intense discussion. I don’t enjoy the emotional back-and-forth so much, but I really appreciate the reasoned and logical responses, whichever side of the issue they’re on.
I wish I had the time to answer all the issues, but I will just focus on one: is there any rational reason why someone would be against gay marriage. Most arguments here were religious and sadly not very rational. Let me offer some that seem logical to me:
1. Potential detriment to society - brought up above
2. Federal subsidies for marriage - actually brought up on a past post, but missed here
3. Burden of proof - I will elaborate below
First the “marriage” we are talking about is the government’s recognition of a union. Many unions (both homo and heterosexual) live happily without that recognition. Another recognition of a union is a domestic partnership, which gives a union almost all the benefits but one: federal subsidies.
Somewhere throughout time our society has determined that marriage is beneficial enough to warrant federal subsidies in form of tax breaks (for married filing jointly). Thus, almost all given the recognition of “marriage” are getting a break. Since economics unequivocally teaches there is no such thing as a free lunch, this is coming out of everyone else’s pockets.
Now, if we find homosexual unions or polygamy/…gyny/etc as beneficial to society as “traditional marriages”, perhaps they should be given the same subsidies. This is up to the society to decide, and the burden of proof should fall on those who seek the subsidies; i.e., they should show how their unions are beneficial enough to warrant the rest of society bearing the burden of their tax breaks. The problem with our current situation is that (1) the courts have taken it upon themselves to decide instead of relying on the democratic process and (2) the media have put the burden of proof on those who oppose new forms of marriage. This puts the society at large at a disadvantage and establishes a dangerous precedent.
As for the point #1, there are multiple arguments that homosexual/polygamous marriage is detrimental to society, some of them valid and some not. They have been debated to death here and elsewhere, so I’ll leave them alone. I think most people who use religious reasons for opposing gay marriage (like Miss Cali) fundamentally believe it would be detrimental and just cannot articulate it.
Now, aside from all these issues, since marriage is society’s recognition of a union, society should decide what is recognized through the democratic process, and every member of society should be able to hold a view without being persecuted. If I oppose open immigration it doesn’t mean I hate foreign nationals; if I’m against unionization it doesn’t mean I hate workers or the middle class; if I oppose gay marriage it doesn’t mean I hate gays. I’ve brought up this point before, and I will repeat it:
take any social issue (taxes, immigration, armed conflict, abortion, etc.), pick any stand on it, and you will put someone at a disadvantage. This does not make you an intolerant bigot, because if it did, we are all intolerant bigots, and we should accept our new titles and go on with life.
Reply
Katy Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:48 am
Hear, hear. I especially liked your last paragraph. Well said.
Reply
Sophia Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Your last paragraph argument works for those that think being gay is a choice TH. But for those that think being gay is inherent, then denying an entire class of people rights based on the way they were born is discrimination.
It’s not a matter of you being against gay marriage and me being for it- our beliefs stem from our ideas of what being *gay* means. You think it’s a sin to act on being gay, and presumably that one can choose to be straight and deny those desires. I don’t think that way at all, therefore denying gay marriage to gays is the same (in my opinion) as denying women the vote, denying interracial marriage, etc. It’s a natural result of our differing views on what being gay is. The gay marriage issue is a side isssue to that. If I thought being gay was a choice, your logic would be very powerful and true. But because I fundamentally disagree with you about what being gay is, I think denying gay marriage is discrimination.
Reply
TH Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Sophia, I do not intend to come off as rude or hurtful, but I will be direct: you’re putting words in my mouth that I haven’t said, and you credit me with opinions I have never expressed. I understand this is an emotional issue, but I think you’re being unfair by shifting focus from what I acutally said to what I presumably believe, and then build an argument around that. This just sets up a much less constructive conversation.
Now, before comment on your point let me give the opinions I actually hold. From all the research I’ve done through the years, I think homosexuality among men is largely hard-wired. There are exceptions, but they are just that: exceptions. I’ve met enough men who wanted to be heterosexual but couldn’t, and I don’t think I could ever be homosexual no matter how much I’d want to be. Homosexuality among women can be hard-wired and it can be a preference. I haven’t seen any studies on what the ratios are, but my understanding is that the deeper emotional connection that women can develop can lead a woman to prefer homosexual unions over heterosexual unions. This helps explain the much larger bi-sexual percentage of women vs. men. But not to digress too much, I think most homosexuals have as much a choice about their sexuality as I have about mine - i.e., not much.
Now that that’s established, whether I believe that homosexuality is a sin or not is actually a moot point and, whether you believe it or not, it has no bearing on my views. I believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin, but I never thought any less of my many friends who choose to have pre-marital sex than I otherwise would have. I vehemently agree that we should not make laws based on what we deem as sinful, because these views are subjective and discriminatory. Fundamentally, religious beliefs and emotion is not what this discussion is about for me.
Now to speak to your actual point, homosexuality being a choice has no bearing on my arguments (to me they are not stronger or weaker either way). To walk through them:
1. Potential detriment to society - doesn’t matter. The issue here is whether gay marriage benefits society at large.
2. Federal subsidies - doesnt matter. The issue here is whether gay marriage is beneficial enough to society to warrant tax breaks at the expense of everyone else.
3. Burden of proof - doesnt matter. The issue here is whether the burden of proof is on those seeking to change the status quo or those seeking to maintain it. It could be argued that for point #1 the burden of proof is on society, but for point #2 the burden of proof is clearly on same-sex couples.
If you speak about the last paragraph - how having a rational and well-developed opinion on an issue doesn’t make one a bigot - I also think choice doesn’t make a difference. I’m going to beat it to death, but nobody chooses where they’re born, and yet we don’t give everyone a chance to live in the great US of A. Bigots or not, we don’t do it because we think it wouldn’t be fair to the rest of society, and we don’t see it as a fundamental right. Which brings me to my last point…
I think the comparisons of gay marriage to women’s right to vote and slavery are extreme and inaccurate. As I’ve said before, marriage is society’s recognition of a union. Unions can exist without marriage, and forming those unions is what I would call a right. As for society’s recognition, society has to decide.
If society decides against, are rights actually lost from same-sex couples if they are not able to marry?
In my understanding, there are only two, and neither of them are actual rights. (1) The right to be called a marriage and (2) the right to federal subsidies in form of income and estate taxes. I could be wrong, but to my knowledge everything else is given through civil unions, like adoption, power of attorney over the disabled, etc. Now, are those actual rights? In my understanding, nobody has a “right” to be called anything by others (like not being called a bigot isn’t my actual legal right), and nobody has a “right” to tax breaks unless society so decides (if there is such a right, I would certainly love to get some more tax breaks myself). If I missed an actual right (which is quite possible), a good way to address it would be to grant it through civil unions, as indiscriminately broadening marriage actually robs society of its right to decision in a democratic process.
I hope that’s not too long of an answer. I also hope my tone didn’t come off as negative, because that’s not how I mean it. Being honest, I have not been frustrated at any argument that proves me wrong in this debate - in fact, there have been several comments on this post that helped me refine my views. If you think my logic is flawed please do comment back, because I appreciate the conversation.
Reply
Katy Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:29 pm
I loved reading this. It’s so good to hear from a male, less-emotional, more technical/logical (if that makes sense) point of view. You summed up many of my thoughts perfectly.
Reply
Shan Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:16 pm
I am wondering, TH, are you for civil unions? I don’t want to put words in your mouth but I’m wondering if this is correct. If so, is anyone else here for civil unions but against gay marriage? I have always assumed most people who oppose gay marriage are also against civil unions. As for other differences, it was my understanding that civil unions are not recognized by some states so if individuals leave the state they may lose the benefits a civil union offers. Additionally, because it is not federally recognized (on a state by state basis) individuals cannont sponser their spouse for immigration. I’m not an expert so if anyone knows otherwise please let me know. I am for marriage equality I have no problem sharing the word with homosexual couples and I’m not sure why tax breaks are given but I don’t think my husband and I have any more right to them then a homosexual couple.
Reply
TH Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Yes, I’m for civil unions. In fact, most Mormons probably are in favor of them as that’s the stand of the LDS church.
The state law differences (civil unions not being recognized) is a good point. In my understanding there is a federal law that would cause the same problem for same-sex marriage (it may not be universally recognized across states, depending on state laws). Thus, we will probably face this problem wherever the debate ends up (unless all states recognize civil unions or same-sex marriage).
The immigration point is a very interesting one. What’s your point of view on it? I haven’t ever thought about this one, so I’ll elaborate tomorrow…
Reply
Shan Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 10:35 am
Without the recognition of marriage at the federal level wouldn’t that also make federal subsidies a non issue as well? Unless all states are on board and the federal govt. signs off on it it sounds to me like the only “right” left to debate is the word itself “marriage”. Granted it is a loaded word but it still seems silly to me.
I would also like to address one more thing. You bring up other social issues like immigration and unionization. To me, those issues, like you said, put someone at a disadvantage on either side. However, I don’t see the connection to gay marriage because where is the disadvantage to allowing it? By removing religion from the equation I don’t see how anyone can be hurt by this. I know not everyone can make it a non-religious issue but I agree that religion should not dictate law. The only burden that could occur is the number of marriages skyrocketed and the single people left were stuck with the burden of providing tax breaks. As far as a good argument for why gay marriage deserves a tax break. How about the huge number of children that can be adopted and taken care of by loving parents? Instead of plugging all of that money into shelters we will be distributing it to these new families. And, as someone who has had a lot of experience with the shelter system and unwanted children I think that would be a huge benefit to society.
As far as immigration, I used to think it was easy to marry a US citizen and become a US citizen. After reading about what Christiana has gone through I have changed my view. If homosexual couples have to jump through the same hoops to prove that they are not trying to cheat the system and that they are financially sound etc. then I think it makes sense to give homosexual couples that right. To me, that is extending equal rights to all US citizens.
Reply
Shan Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:47 pm
One other thought in reference to marriage and tax breaks. Please correct me if I am wrong but I have come to find that some of the differences between the mormon church and some other Christian churches include the focus on the importance of marriage, and on recruiting members by such means as missions. I think I’ve read that LDS is one of the fastest growing religions. Would it be fair to assume that the LDS church is increasing the amount of marriages by spreading the its beliefs? And, as a result, increasing the tax burden on the non-marrieds? If we want to protect the spread of marriage because we want to protect our wallets then maybe this is another point of view.
Reply
TH Reply:
April 26th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Shan, you bring up multiple points and I’m sorry if I miss any.
I’m confused about your first point where not recognizing marriage at a federal level would make subsidies a non-issue. The only thing that would do is make moving from state to state a non-issue (whether you’re married or in a civil union, you’d keep your status). Not sure how that would change anything about the subsidies, but please elaborate if I’m missing your point.
On your second point (if you remove religion from legislation how would anyone be hurt by gay marriage), I think the points brought up here are the exact same as with polygamy - that it’s detrimental to society. However, a lot of the specific points in that argument don’t really address gay marriage but rather things already granted by civil unions. So to me personally, the tax burden is really the major way others would get hurt, although I’m not very well versed in this debate so it’s quite possible there are other potential points.
The point about removing kids from the shelter system is a good one, and I think the issue here is that we should give tax breaks to people who actually adopt those kids. My opinion, and it’s just an opinion, is that kids put with stable same-sex couples and single individuals are probably better off than the kids the shelter. Therefore, I absolutely think they should get tax breaks for the savings they just gave to the shelter system. But this shouldn’t depend on whether they are gay couples that are married, gay couples in civil unions, or single people.
As far as immigration goes, I thought a lot about it, and my opinion is similar if not the same as yours. I agree that people should be able to apply for immigration for their partners if they want to spend the rest of their life with them and are willing to support them financially if needs be. I think this also applies to polygamous marriages from places where those are still practiced (if you are from a largely Moslem nation and want to immigrate, you shouldn’t have to decide which spouse and kids you’re going to leave behind). Historically, marriage has always been the best proxy for this and federal law relied on it because all states recognized marriage as the same thing. Universally allowing gay and polygamous marriage would be an easy way to solve this problem, but it has a multiple other consequences. The problem could also be solved by a change in federal law that defines a domestic partnership at the federal level and grants it immigration rights equal to marriages.
On your final point of tax breaks for marriages and Mormons encouraging marriage: the big question here is whether marriages actually deserve their tax breaks (i.e. do the benefits to society outweigh the increased costs to the non-marrieds). If so, then Mormons are doing society a favor by promoting marriage and families. If not, then the increased burden on others is not justified and the tax breaks should be decreased. I think most people operate under the assumption that it’s deserved, because Washington is usually pretty good at squeezing as much as possible out of us : )
Taking all these points together, I think there are good arguments both for and against redefining marriage. My bias is that we should do our due diligence before we make a large change like this, which is why I appreciate this discussion.
Reply
Sophia Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 10:41 am
TH, I was assuming that your opinion of homosexuality was the opinion of the LDS Church- that being gay is not a sin, but acting on it is. I’m sorry that my assumption offended you, however I don’t think it’s that big of a leap on my part to assume that a devout, temple going Mormon would have beliefs in line with the Church they are a part of. But I don’t like it when people make assumptions about me, and I’m sorry I made one about you- it doesn’t contribute to open conversation to go into it with pre-determined ideas, and I did in making that assumption.
Also, your clarification that you agree with civil unions clears a lot of things up for me as to your stance. I’m not one of those people who insists it be called marriage- if civil unions give gay couples all the same rights and protections under the law as married heterosexual couples get, I’m happy.
Honestly, my comment was more of a kind of realization thing happening in my mind, of thinking “you know, maybe it’s not that people disagree on gay marriage, it’s that they disagree about what being gay is or isn’t”. My only point in even addressing the issue of what being gay is was to try and wrap my mind around that sticky point where people on one side feel the other side is being discriminatory. It wasn’t in a mean tone, more of a “hey, maybe this is where the issue is, other than over here”, me trying to better understand.
Reply
TH Reply:
April 26th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Sophia, you didn’t offend me, and I know my directness can come off as being angry, but that was not my intent.
I think the key miscommunication between our comments is around three ideas:
1. Whether same-sex attraction is a choice
2. Whether acting on that attraction sexually is a sin
3. Whether we should legalize same-sex marriage
Now, these three ideas are disjoint - you can hold any view on any of them without affecting the others. Since I am a devout Mormon, I think your assumption about #2 (sin) was warranted and correct. I was frustrated about your assumption about #1 (choice), because it wasn’t my opinion (and to my knowledge is not the stand of the LDS church), and it was the foundation of your comment. I was also frustrated about your assumption that #2 (sin) dictates #3 (law), which to me it doesn’t. I believe many things are sins and I don’t do them, but I don’t promote legislation to ban them (e.g. pre-marital sex), which is what the LDS church does as well. In all instances I have seen, the church has good arguments for taking a legislative stand, not merely a belief that something is sinful.
So, I also appreciate the conversation, and if you disagree with me on anything, I do welcome discussion - I really have learned quite a bit through the comments on this post.
Reply
April 21st, 2009 on 11:25 pm
Jenna, I’ve never commented, although I’ve followed your blog ever since hopping over from WeddingBee. This post made me come out of my lurker-status to say bravo.
You took a chance, speaking openly about your beliefs in this matter-sometimes it seems that our general society belives that freedom of speech only applies to liberals. There are plenty of topics in which I would disagree with you, but I applaud your willingness to voice your opinion on them all.
Reply
April 22nd, 2009 on 2:12 am
This is a fascinating topic, and I’m really impressed with the level of thoughtful discussion that’s going on here.
I thought I’d throw in my own point of view.
I believe that God created each of us perfectly. We don’t choose our height, or our eye color, and I believe that we don’t choose who we love or are attracted to. I do see love and attraction as being two different things. But, I do not think that sexual preference is a decision.
That said, I also feel that homosexual partners should be granted full and equal legal rights, if they are committed as life time partners, as those of heterosexual married couples. It is not right, in my opinion to deny someone health care, or visitation rights, or parental rights because they are a same sex couple. I would argue that these are inalienable rights, and by denying homosexual couples these rights, it is not much different from saying that racially mixed couples should not be allowed to be married. It is a different time and a different age, but I think we will look back on these events and see them similarly to the civil rights movement.
Lastly, I believe that same sex couples should be allowed to have children, either by adoption or other means. If same sex couples are committed, loving, and have the means to raise a child, I think this is good for the child and for society. I can not see what harm would come to a child by being raised in a loving, caring environment.
Jenna, I applaud you for speaking your mind, and having the integrity to bring up this topic and be true to your belief system in addressing it.
Reply
April 22nd, 2009 on 11:24 am
Just some food for thought to those that mentioned the “separation of church and state”:
http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state.htm
This is a very informative article. I wish you would read it.
Reply
April 22nd, 2009 on 6:03 pm
I don’t support polygamy, but if it became legal to participate in it in all 50 states, I would be pretty outspoken and fiercely against limiting the polygamy to only being one man and x number of women (and all the combinations of limiting it as such based solely on gender alone).
Not all people identify with societies ideas of “normal” with regard to gender. And anyone who speaks out against same-sex marriage is not sympathetic to that one bit.
Further, to me, marriage is a contract. A civil, legal contract between my husband and I with the government. It has NOTHING to do with God. The fact that your marriage has to do with and involves God is great for you, and I don’t desire to take those spiritual elements of your marriage away from you. Why would you want to take away my right to have the civil, legal contract?
Reply
April 23rd, 2009 on 6:01 pm
Jenna, I sent you an email, but you probably didn’t see it with all the mail that comes your way.
I’m curious to know: Do you (or do you plan to) photograph same-sex couples?
Reply
Jenna Reply:
April 24th, 2009 at 10:56 am
I did see your email, I just needed some time to ruminate.
Coming from such a conservative background/environment, the thought that I might be faced with such a request had never crossed my mind. I believe that most same-sex couples do their research before choosing a photographer, because same-sex marriage is such a hot button topic I believe they want to choose a photographer who is supportive of that right. Photographers who put up pictures of same-sex couples on their blogs become recognized as someone who would be good to contact in the event that you were looking for such a service.
I think there are two different possible situations.
The first is that someone contacts me to set up an engagement session, never mentioning that they are in a homosexual relationship. I show up to meet them and because I am a professional (I would like to believe I am), I treat them no different than any other couple I work with. I do my best to capture photographs that they will love. The one thing I would do differently, is I would not make their images public. I would make this choice because I think it is important to display images that project the kind of sessions you would like to focus on, and I am not looking to break into the same-sex market. Right now I am not making any money, so I’ll take pictures of pretty much anything you want to pay me for, but in the future I plan on focusing in on a specific target market. Thus, this policy of not putting up certain pictures on the blog would not only apply to same-sex couples, but pets, or babies, or family sessions, whatever type of session might be different from my target market.
The other situation I can imagine is that the person who emails me mentions that they are in a same-sex relationship, and ask the question that you asked above. I would email them back, and let them know I do not have a policy against doing such sessions, but I be honest with them and tell them that I think there are photographers out there who would be a better fit for them. Because I truly believe that it is not only important to find a photographer who is good, but most importantly someone who is good for you specifically.
Overall I think it is highly unlikes that either situation would occur. The majority of my clients know about my personal blog, and I am very open about my conservative Christian belief system. Once you know I am Mormon, it can only be assumed that I am opposed to same-sex marriage, as most Mormons are. Understandably, those who are in homosexual relationships are highly offended by this stance, and usually do not want to have any association with me whatsoever. I do not think it is something I will be facing anytime soon, especially while living in Texas. Thank you for giving me the chance to think about what I would do in such a situation though, it may come in handy in the future.
Reply
April 25th, 2009 on 2:24 pm
You said, “One of TH’s closest friends, also a groomsmen at our wedding, was a member of the Church, left it, and is now living in a committed relationship in California with his partner.”
Just out of curiosity, since he is such a dear friend, does it bother you both at all that he can’t enjoy married life like you?
I can’t say that I agree with your views, but I applaud you for be brave enough to put your opinions out there.
Reply