I am obsessed with the comment boards right now about Prop 8 and everything to do with it. I ran across this little analogy on one of them and I think it's a great way of putting it:
"A banana and ice cream together is called a banana split.
Two bananas are just bananas, not a banana split.
Two scoops of ice cream is just a bowl of ice cream, not a banana split.
You can try and redefine what a banana split is, but since the creation of ice cream it has consisted of a banana and ice cream.
If you don't like banana splits then that is fine, but don't try to confuse the rest of the banana split eating world by changing the ingredients and trying to call it a banana split. "
It can seem a bit trite, but I think the overall idea of it is good. We have talked about this a lot in my sociology class, and I have come to the conclusion that for religious people the most important thing is remembering the origin of marriage--it wasn't some legal decree from a legislator or judge or vote of the people, it came from God. Marriage is a religious ceremony that we've all been taught to hold sacred.
As a Latter-day Saint (Mormon), I have been taught my entire life that the family is the most basic unit of the Kingdom of God. Marriage is an eternal union--not till death do us part, but through eternity we will walk hand-in-hand.
Some people like to try and suggest that perhaps the Church will change its stance on gay marriage over time, since their stance on other things has changed. That's like saying that perhaps the Church will change its stance on murder--in other words, it will never happen.
From the creation, God created man and woman to be together (in every sense of the word). This was the first decree! Murder was...probably several decrees down the line, since it didn't exist on the earth until Cain and Abel.
My point is, while the Church has in fact changed its stance on some things throughout history as God has revealed it, to change what defines marriage would overturn the very foundations of what we believe.
For a really good read on what the Church of Latter-day Saints' stance is about homosexuality, you can visit this link: Same Gender Attraction.
14 comments:
Never much cared for banana splits, but no matter how unnatural you believe gay people to be(which seems to be the entire point of the analogy), that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Right now in this country there are wonderful, normal, productive people who are being denied the legal benefits and protections of marriage because you and people like you believe that your faith's morality should be law. I find that to be a horribly intrusive act, especially in California where the proposition came about to strip people of their marriages. I will never understand why other people getting married somehow harms your marriage or made your married less sacred.
There is little room for common ground here, and it is definitely a touchy subject. The whole traditions thing has never really made sense to me. Used to be tradition to own slaves, to engage in duels, for men to never shave, to not bathe, for women to fight wars, for women not to fight wars, for man/boy romantic relationships, etc etc. Tradition can mean anything depending on where you want to look.
Anyway, just annoying you with a completely opposed view. Glad we're in a country where we can fight this out over time with votes instead of civil war. Wish you two all the best,
love Tom
The analogy was not to make a point about gays--I believe in people's right to live how they feel best. Sure I’ll never understand it, just like you seem to admit that you’ll never understand my faith. But the analogy is about marriage. Banana split=marriage. Marriage originated in religion. The legal aspect was added later on as society became more complex and there were legal implications added to that union. So to say that marriage is a legal right seems out of place. This isn't to do with tradition for me! In my mind, tradition has little origin other than people deciding to do something and doing it and making it socially acceptable, which is what happened with slavery in the U.S., starting with court cases like John Punch's and climaxing after Bacon's rebellion. If I REALLY believe in my religion as I proclaim to, I could never call marriage a tradition that people just decided to create, because the LDS faith teaches that God sanctified marriage from the very beginning.
I know this is never enough for people who oppose Prop 8, but the LDS Church is not opposed to granting all the same legal rights of marriage to gays in civil unions. So many people say this is a civil rights issue, so why can’t that be enough?
Since it's hard for some people to relate to the idea that we want to protect the definition of marriage, it may also be important to point out that we wish to protect our freedom to practice our religion as we choose. Let's say gay marriage was legal. Who's to say that if things continued down that road long enough that someday we may be persecuted (maybe even in a court of law) for refusing to allow gay couples to be sealed in our temples?
I love political arguments! As a disclaimer though I'll just say that I in no way intend to offend in anything I write and I am thick skinned enough not to be offended by your views, moving on.
I'll start with Katy. The situation you just made up has everything to do with church and state. This country was founded on separation of church and state. The day that government regulates what a church can or cannot believe is the day... it won't happen. We won't let it happen. There would have to be a constitutional amendment to let that happen.
So I'll just say this: your horror scenario will never take place. The "slippery slope" is a classical fallacy.
Now that I've dispatched one foe it is time for another! :P
"Marriage originated in religion."
Did it really? Zoastrians? Zeus? Native Americans? There have been marriages since human civilization began, and there have been many religions since human civilization began. And, of course, these definitions have changed. Used to be getting married was like buying a car. That is some nice new property/woman you got there! Now it is two equals getting drunk in Las Vegas and waking up with a hangover.
But rereading your words I seem to find an age old argument that really cannot be challenged, but can be entirely side stepped: "I'm right because God says so."
And I say, "so what."
I could find Christians who say that your faith is entirely wrong. And what happens? You both grab a book and beat each other over the head with it. Some of them even believe that gay marriage is perfectly Christian.
What I firmly believe that when it comes to government, the only test should be whether or not it interferes with the public good. By supporting the separate but equal institution of civil union you are saying that there is no cause for concern here. Which is great, I dislike going into all the "gay people aren't scary" arguments.
So, you simply in favor of creating an awkward language gap where gay people say "I got civil unionized" instead of "I got married." Where little boys and girls who dream of getting married someday just get used to using a different term for the exact same thing.
I think my mind just crashed.
Love, Tom
I could volley back and forth about this all day, but I won't. Let me just say this one last thing, then I won't be back.
My Mormon ancestors were robbed, beaten, tarred & feathered, raped, murdered, driven from their homes time and again, sought relief and protection from their local and national governments and were refused.
Call us crazy, but we're pretty skittish when it comes to religious freedom. Your assertion that it "won't happen" is meaningless to a group who suffered under an extermination order from their own state governor.
Whew! I'm done.
Cindy, sorry to debate with the in-laws. I'll really be better in future.
I guess the elephant in the room is our religion, and while you find it simple to "side step" that, it kind of permeates every aspect of our lives--including our political views.
Were my Mormon ancestors robbed, beaten, tared, etc as well? I'll have to ask my aunt later.
I wasn't trying to trivialize your faith. I'm just saying that faith shouldn't be law. There is a reason why this country has separation of church and state, and that is because every religion or non religion that is not a state religion gets screwed over. I think most people realize this and the current make up of our country won't allow it to happen. This is a country of Mormons, Catholics, many different Protestants, Jews, Muslims, atheists, and more(speaking of bad things happening, INDIANS). I don't see any of them taking over the United States to make their religion the only one. In fact, the closest they can get is the "moral values" voters, and that isn't large enough block to sustain a national party right now.
So while I completely understand that your religious beliefs influence your politics, I don't think it should be determining factor for determining laws for a diverse secular nation.
Anyway, as I mentioned earlier I wasn't trying to be offensive. Though by Katy's reaction I might have failed miserably in that. If so, I apologize. And you should never feel bad about debating me! Though I think we've exhausted this topic.
As I promised, I won't debate anymore. Just wanted to tell Tom I'm not offended. Just passionate.
WOW, I want to say more, but I'm not going to. Is anyone else impressed with my self-control? I think I deserve some kind of medal.
I am so impressed, Katy ;) And who is Tom?
I've noticed a huge division between people of faith and those who claim no religion on this matter. It is really interesting.
I hear "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" all the time and I think it is being used WAY out of context. Like it or not, this country was built on Christian ideals. They are built into our country. Separation of church and state just means that the pope isn't also the president and the two organizations are led as one. If someone went to our forefathers and suggested that we take God, and anything Christian for that matter, out of the constitution and foundation of the country they would throw them out.
The dollar bill: In God we trust
The Pledge of allegiance: one nation under God
Courts: (with hands on the bible) God as my witness
So please, when you talk about separation of church and state, think about what it REALLY means and remember our history.
A church did not vote for Prop 8. The people of California did. They made their decision based on their own morals. Churches did not force a yes vote on the government. That should be enough in a democratic nation.
To me, the banana analogy represents what is often said, but ne'er with such eloquence... :)
As for churches not being persecuted, here's a quick snippet from Editorialist Rod Dreher last week:
"If courts place homosexuality on par with race in civil rights jurisprudence, a host of penalties against traditionalist religious organizations – including the loss of tax-exempt status – will kick in. Georgetown's Chai Feldblum, a gay rights activist and legal scholar, points to irreconcilable differences between gay rights and religious freedom.
Though Prof. Feldblum believes justice is on the gay rights side, at least she admits how high the stakes are for the faithful. Most gay marriage proponents deny or elide this, and the media aren't especially interested in examining the competing rights claims of religious believers.
What's more, as gay marriage backer and UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh has observed, one goal of the gay rights movement is "delegitimizing and legally punishing private behavior that discriminates against or condemns homosexuals." Though anti-Prop 8 campaigners said that no one would ever try to yank a church's tax exemption, days after losing the vote, gay protesters at a Mormon temple demanded exactly that. And a beloved Mormon theatrical director was forced out of his Sacramento job because he gave money to the Prop 8 campaign."
ps. yo eric, when we gonna start actually swimming for this tri club thingy?
Tom is Eric's cousin. He was at the wedding representing his side of the family. The tall, handsome, red-headed kid. I am really enjoying this repartee. And, yes, Tom, your ancesters were right there alongside Katy's. Family tradition says that Joseph Smith gave his sword to Joseph Bates Noble your great,great, great grandfather, just before he (Joseph Smith) was taken to jail and eventually murdered.
tyler, we need to start swimming again. I agree. Maybe we can do the whole 9pm or 8pm thing. I can do either everyday. I need the exercise while finals are pressuring me, so that i can get some energy and lose some stress.
I think the separation of church and state is often misused. If you go back and quote George Washington in his farewell address he called morality "A necessary spring of popular government" he also said "And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion."
Interesting discussion!
Post a Comment