Another Point of View
Another Point of View
With everyone else up on soap boxes, I was starting to feel a little left out, so I thought I'd get up on one, too. It's just a slightly different one. Let me start by saying I support what the First Presidency has said 100%. I also realize that I don't live in a state that has been affected by protesters and therefore don't understand exactly how it is for those of you who do. All I know is that I feel strongly that the minute we starting calling those who are picketing for their rights names and painting them out to be horrible people doing a terrible thing, that we have stooped to below their level. We know the truth and how we should conduct ourselves. They are not so fortunate. And the truth is that if I didn't know via the First Presidency that gender is an eternal thing and about the importance of bringing children into the world, I would say, "Why not let gay people enjoy the same rights that we do? That seems fair." Brigham brought up an interesting point in our discussion the other night. Remember all of the persecution that was heaped upon the church back when polygamy was in because we were deviating from the traditional marriage? Obviously the difference is that the Lord commanded it, but it seems hypocritical to criticize people for standing up for what they feel is right when it comes to marriage, just like our people did hundreds of years ago.
One last point: maybe each of you knows a gay or lesbian person already, and this point isn't necessary, but I'll make it anyway. GAY PEOPLE ARE NOT BAD PEOPLE. One of Brigham's fellow medical students at Hopkins was a lesbian, and she was one of the nicest, most Christ-like people that I have ever known. Yes-- Christ-like. When we were going through the hardest time of our lives after Jacob was born, she was right there with a thoughtful card, sweet email, bucket of goodies, etc. She showed far more love and compassion than the majority of our LDS friends and family members. Was she a horrible person because she was a lesbian? Absolutely not. She was a wonderful person who wasn't fortunate enough to know what we know. And if I didn't know what I do, I probably would have voted to give her the right to experience whatever happiness she could in life. So how can I blame people for doing just that and fighting to give people like this girl the same rights I enjoy? Just keep that in mind as you see all of those protesters. They are not bad people trying to take your rights away. They are just fighting for what they think is fair and right. They deserve our compassion, not our anger.
With everyone else up on soap boxes, I was starting to feel a little left out, so I thought I'd get up on one, too. It's just a slightly different one. Let me start by saying I support what the First Presidency has said 100%. I also realize that I don't live in a state that has been affected by protesters and therefore don't understand exactly how it is for those of you who do. All I know is that I feel strongly that the minute we starting calling those who are picketing for their rights names and painting them out to be horrible people doing a terrible thing, that we have stooped to below their level. We know the truth and how we should conduct ourselves. They are not so fortunate. And the truth is that if I didn't know via the First Presidency that gender is an eternal thing and about the importance of bringing children into the world, I would say, "Why not let gay people enjoy the same rights that we do? That seems fair." Brigham brought up an interesting point in our discussion the other night. Remember all of the persecution that was heaped upon the church back when polygamy was in because we were deviating from the traditional marriage? Obviously the difference is that the Lord commanded it, but it seems hypocritical to criticize people for standing up for what they feel is right when it comes to marriage, just like our people did hundreds of years ago.
One last point: maybe each of you knows a gay or lesbian person already, and this point isn't necessary, but I'll make it anyway. GAY PEOPLE ARE NOT BAD PEOPLE. One of Brigham's fellow medical students at Hopkins was a lesbian, and she was one of the nicest, most Christ-like people that I have ever known. Yes-- Christ-like. When we were going through the hardest time of our lives after Jacob was born, she was right there with a thoughtful card, sweet email, bucket of goodies, etc. She showed far more love and compassion than the majority of our LDS friends and family members. Was she a horrible person because she was a lesbian? Absolutely not. She was a wonderful person who wasn't fortunate enough to know what we know. And if I didn't know what I do, I probably would have voted to give her the right to experience whatever happiness she could in life. So how can I blame people for doing just that and fighting to give people like this girl the same rights I enjoy? Just keep that in mind as you see all of those protesters. They are not bad people trying to take your rights away. They are just fighting for what they think is fair and right. They deserve our compassion, not our anger.
Comments
I don't think the majority of the protesters are evil people. I think the ones who spit on LDS, who spray-paint our church buildings, who threaten to kill LDS people and burn our temples ARE bad people. Those things are illegal, and anybody can see that those things are wrong and go beyond protesting. People can protest all they want. It's their right.
I do think it's wrong for them to have singled out the LDS church, when the church itself made a political contribution of $0.00 to support proposition 8. There were other churches who expressed support for p8. The $70-something million came from individual church members. When the "protesters" ask people to vandalize/terrorize contributors' homes, and then vandalize any LDS home / church / temple, that's wrong. It's a small percentage of the "protesters", but it is more widespread than I would have expected.
The protesters need to think about what they're really protesting, too. Their points are way too easily disputed. "SEPARATE...CHURCH AND STATE!". Yeah, but they have no problem with the churches that were vigorously against prop8. They have no problem with the black churches that blatantly preach Obama and now thank the lord that he's in the presidency.
Lose the double standards and think about what you're protesting.
Finally, Prop 8 doesn't take away their everlasting rights. It was briefly granted to them by the California supreme court, but prior to that, society understood that marriage is between man and woman. Most of society does understand that still. I want homosexual people to be happy too, but the fact is, you HAVE to redefine marriage to allow it in for a same-sex couple. God gave the original definition; society has understood that definition for many millenia, even when they were godless themselves. They can't redefine Marriage. Marriage is something special that no redefining can change.
Don't mistake taking a stand for the Lord's side, as being hateful to the gays and lesbians out there. God loves them as his children, so why would I not?
Dictionary.com (as of today) defines marriage between husband and wife. As one of the listed definitions, it also now includes those who have pledged themselves to another person, including homosexuals. It is interesting to note that they have marked one definition as "obsolete": the definition that specifies that man and woman join in wedlock.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary from 1913 is available to search online. It makes no allowances for homosexual marriage. The only way it could be stretched is the figurative usage of the word marriage, "Any intimate or close union". Gay people can have intimate and close unions, but they will never have a true marriage. It is impossible.