Daily GUIDE-ance:

Sunday, November 16, 2008

Prop 8

There's been so much buzz in the blogosphere about the people of California passing Prop 8, which constitutionally defined marriage as between one woman and one man, and the uncivil protesting that followed, that I want to drop my 2 cents here.

First off, I really hope that somebody reading this does not share my views. If that's you, I invite you to be cogent and logical, civil and polite and respond, if you can.


Here's some of why Prop 8 makes sense:


Redefining marriage to include gay relationships is not a small leap-its friggin' huge! It would be a much smaller leap to redefine marriage to include polygamist relationships, for example. In fact, there are plenty of people -the FLDS come to mind- who would fight to redefine marriage to include more than two spouses. I myself come from some polygamist stock, and to me polygamy makes 100% more sense that gay marriage. I don't want either though, and here's why:

After you have allowed gayness and polygamy, obviously you have to include polyandry (that's multiple husbands for one wife- I can never remember the word for it and had to look it up- sounds like "gang rape" to me...)

After that, the next logical step is to accept things like partnerships between two or three men and two or three women as equivalent to marriage. After that, what the freak? Where do you stop?

That's when we notice that "redefining" marriage didn't change marriage- it destroyed it.


Think about the problems a society without marriage (or with a sprained definition of it) would have. Custody battles. How do you determine who has authority over who's children without marriage? More importantly, how do you determine who has responsibility for the nurture and care and protection of which children? Long and short, without a clear, simple definition of marriage, these critical things cannot be determined without a cumbersome, lurching (and inherently cruel) bureaucratic process- in other words, children no longer really belong to or with anybody except to the state.

The basic equation is simple:

Marriage defined legally as between one man and one woman protects children. That's why it's good that Prop8 passed.

I just started the John Adams miniseires. (It's good BTW!) John Adams speaks at the end of episode one about certain rights and principles being pre-existant to the law. Somethings are simply true regardless of what any king, judge or law may or may not say about them. Marriage being a male/female relationship is one of those concepts.

Again, I do hope that this reaches somebody with differing views, and makes you think. If that's you, please don't get all crazy and hateful, like so many people who opposed Prop 8 are doing in Cali. Such behavior is babyish, hypocritical, devoid of clear thought, and reflects very poorly on their cause.

23 comments:

timpani76 said...

Man, I did not even think about this as another ploy to get the government to take over more of my children's lives. People wonder why home schooling is becoming so popular!

My biggest fear is that the gay rights people will take it back to the courts and get their way regardless of the vote.

Bruce said...

this is supposed to be by the peeps and for the peeps. if it becomes us and them, well we seace to be a republic. and lets just say i a afraid that there are a lot of people who would not like that very much. a lot

timpani76 said...

Stop moderating the comments! It's driving me crazy!!!

And, I think it's stifling the discussion since we can't debate in something close to real time.

Bruce said...

timp is right. if some jack off want to say stupid stuff. you can delete him.

Eyepoke said...

Hmmm.... It would be nice if Blogger had an "always accept comments from this user" option in thier moderation dialogue, but they don't. Thinking... thinking...

Eyepoke said...

On the other hand, there is something to be said for slowing the debate down occasionally. When you have 7 people writing paragraph after paragragh, all making basically the same point, that main point often gets lost in the goo...

timpani76 said...

Yeah, but then we could all be saying the same things, and then we just would not know it because you have not filtered all the comments yet!

Eyepoke said...

True...

lemme try something here... I have an idea...

Brad Carter said...

You can all blame me for bringing the weirdos here. I'm very sorry.

I really don't care if gay people can have marriage. I don't see how it'd effect me in any way. But maybe instead of fighting for marriage, they should be fighting for "partner" health care benefits. Isn't that what they're really after, is sharing their employers health care benefits with their significant other?

timpani76 said...

Brad- in CA they have this right, and all the other rights that come with marriage, through civil unions. That's why I'm confused why they are making such a big stinking deal about having to call it "marriage".

Eyepoke said...

I agree with Brad. If I were gay and wanted to be married, I’d rent me a church and a tux, throw myself a wedding, then settle down to keeping house and trying to be committed to this other person for life. If a bunch of other people thought I was a freak, OH WELL! Seriously, if you are happy, what does it matter what the rest of everyone thinks?

I am ok with shared healthcare benefits I guess, and if that was all that I thought was going on here, no big deal. That can be done with some type of civil union.

However, that is not all that is going on. The attempt to invent “gay marriage” is a attempt at social engineering. It’s an attempt to delegitimize the family. That’s what I see anyway.

There is a uniqueness about the husband/wife commitment that no other relationship can duplicate.

Eyepoke said...

i'm with timpani in that i don't get what their deal is. it's not like they're going for "traditional" lifestyles anyway, why do they want a "traditional" marriage to begin with?
liz

Brad Carter said...

By delegitimize the family, are you saying you feel like allowing gays to marry is making a mockery of the whole marriage system? Seems like a bigger mockery would be the crazy divorce rate in America. People getting married and divorced, over and over, like it means absolutely nothing.

If it's not the benefits they're after, I am surprised they're making such a fuss over it though. Like you said, just have a private ceremony, give each other rings, print up a symbolic marriage certificate to frame and screw whether or not the government says it's legitimate.

Eyepoke said...

Right. The crazy divorce rate is also crazy.

My basic thought here is that the mother-father-kids family ought to have a unique and protected status in our laws.

kellyfamily4 said...

do you care if i repost you prop 8 post?? My husbands family are huge liberals, and your post put all of my thoughts into words.

Eyepoke said...

Flattery will get you everywhere! ;)

Thank you! please do!

pie-seas79 said...

check out this article written by a friends husband...it's really good.
http://makemyvotecount.blogspot.com/2008/10/defense-of-traditional-marriage.html

The Marinator said...

I saw this post the other day and I wanted to comment on it, but then my internet crashed. I then forgot to come back and reply. All I wanted to say was that I like how you brought every argument for homosexual marriage to it's fullest logical conclusion. Even farther than I had thought out. I like that. Along those lines, though we should also consider the possibility of marriage between adults and children or people and animals, if they should ever happen to fall deeply in love. Just a thought.

Also, and this may sound like a barb, but it isn't meant that way, you talk about polygamy as if it is a bad thing, but it is something that was practiced by your church for quite some time before it was stopped, mostly for political purposes. If I am correct (and I might be wrong) the LDS church still believes that polygamy will be practiced in the afterlife, and that in an ideal world it would still be practiced here in this life. If this is the stance the church takes on this issue, how is the idea of polygamy offensive to you?

Eyepoke said...

Hay Marinator!

Not a barb, perfectly ok question/thought. Seriously, I dont think there is a religion question out there that you would hurt my feelings by asking. I have heard alot of them and thought through alot of them. Plus, these sorts of questions are good for me to think through.

(speaking of barbs and religion, you never noticed the last comment I put at the on the Obama/Abortion post video post!)

Drat. I just deleted a large amount of response to your polygamy question, because there is just so much there and it's my bedtime and I would like to respond to your comment intellegently! I think I'll tackle it in the morning, with a wide awake brain.

ttfn!

Eyepoke said...

Morning came. Just FYI I did answer Mary's question via email. It was too long to be a comment and too boring to be a post of it's own. I am telling you this in case you have been champing at the bit to hear my sagacious response for weeks now and are getting disappointed. I'll happily post my response here, if anyone is sweating bullets to hear it.

The Marinator said...

Oh, I DID read what you posted about preachers being paid for their work. But I noticed it the same day I posted the polygamy question, and I thought it was too late to respond to it. I'll go back and read the email you sent me.

As for pastors being paid to do their job, here's the thing of it: Yes. Some people go into preaching for the money. Those people will receive their reward for their work in this life and the next. I want you to know that the vast majority of vocational preachers do NOT make tons of money doing it. My father-in-law for example, has had to supplement his income for much of his career by driving a school bus, using food stamps, working nights, and doing odd jobs for people. Today he STILL has to mow lawns in the summer to make ends meet. Being a preacher is NOT glamorous for most people.

The Levites in the Old Testament were the priest class of the Jews. They were paid for their work as well. That was part of what the tithe was for. Not only to run the church and care for the poor, but also to care for the priests and their families.

So there's the argument for paid preachers. The majority of pastors do it, not because it's a great paying job, but because they love the Lord and want to dedicate their lives to Him and helping others to learn about Him. Believe me, there is a lot more stress (DC can attest to this) and frustration when people think that because THEY pay your salary, they should decide what the preacher preaches about, and where the coffee pot should go, and exactly how to set up the manger scene out front. That is one thing I think the Mormons do better: organize. The biggest problem with paid preachers, is that the congregation tends to get lazy. They think that since the preacher gets paid to share the gospel, it gives them a pass. And the preacher ends up doing the majority of the work within the church and without. That's my only beef with paid preachers.

Eyepoke said...

Good, MC, but I must disabuse you of that notion about the Levites.

They did not get a financial tithe from the rest of the tribes to pay them for thier church work- the support that tribe recieved from the others came because they were the only tribe to not recieve an inheritance in farm and grazing land when the Isrealites were divding up the spoils from the land of Canaan... So I think that you cannot establish a precident for a paid ministry from them.

(pretty sure that's how it went down, but I am not going to try to source it right now)

Eyepoke said...

MC,

That last comment of mine comes across all snooty and know it all ish doesn't it? I now grovel for your mercy and forgiveness. I didn't realize such a PIG lived inside me!! On top of it all, I don't really know what I am talking about in it... just thinking I remeber it a such and such way! Oh the humiliation! I DON"T KNOW and I CANT EVEN ADMIT IT! iM SCUUUUUUUM!!! I SUUUUUUCK! i'M SOOOOOOORRRY!

BTW swell, seeing you and J the other day. was the drive home evil?