One Thousand And One Parsecs

Bigotry? Hatred? Intolerance??

November 15, 2008 on 4:01 pm | In Thoughts and Reflections

Alright, I don’t usually use this blog as a platform to express my political views, but this is becoming such an enormous issue in the United States that I can’t sit by and do nothing about it.

Prop 8 in California was the latest battle in an ongoing war between Gay Rights activists and a broad coalition of religious and social conservatives. I’m not a California citizen, but I wish I were, because I would have proudly voted YES on the ballot initiative banning gay marriage. Not because I’m motivated by hatred, or because I want to deny people their “civil rights,” or because I want to be in the business of telling people what they can and can’t do with each other in our free society–contrary to what the other side would have you think, I wasn’t motivated by that at all. As a believing, practicing Latter-day Saint, I fasted and prayed that this initiative would pass for a whole set of different reasons–a set of reasons that the gay rights activists are systematically and undemocratically trying to silence.

When Prop 8 passed, the gay rights community showed its true colors: sanctimonious hypocrisy as self-righteous as anything ever seen in a corrupted religious community. Cries of “Stop Hate!” mingled with hateful epithets of “Mormon Scum!” and “Go back to Utah!” as they vandalized our temples and meeting houses in California and Utah. “Don’t take away our rights!” they screamed, even as their strategists planned ways to go around the clear majority of voters that approved Prop 8 in a lawful, democratic election. They cry for tolerance and acceptance even as they slander my religion with blatant lies meant to paint us Mormons as the boogey man that everyone should fear. They accuse us of suppressing their minority rights, even as they target the LDS church while largely ignoring the more substantial members of the Prop 8 coalition. Clearly, everybody loves to hate the Mormons, and the LGBT community is no exception.

This is not about hatred. It is about a “tyranny of tolerance” that is trying to redefine the basic premises of our society. If it succeeds, it will erase a number of our freedoms by undermining basic, unquestioned principles such as personal responsibility for one’s actions, marriage and family as a set of moral duties and responsibilities, and the role of the government in staying out of the beliefs and practices of private, law-abiding communities. Although the Gay Rights community is trying very hard to frame this conflict as a civil rights issue, the truth is that this is not, never was, and never will be a civil rights issue.

A quick search for “civil rights” across numerous online dictionaries finds civil rights defined as unquestionable rights, rights that are not legally granted by the state, rights that are inherent with citizenship, rights that belong to people regardless of circumstance, etc. In order to create the argument that civil rights protect homosexuals and homosexuality, you have to argue that homosexuality is an inherent, inseparable part of someone’s identity.In other words, you have to define a “homosexual” as a person whose homosexuality is inherent, undeniable, inseparable, and unchangeable.

But wait? What does the word “homosexual” actually mean? According to Marriam-Webster online, homosexual means:

1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex 2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

In other words, “homosexual” describes a set of behaviors, not a set of character traits. Homosexuality is the act of “directing desire” towards the same sex. It involves “sexual intercourse” with the same sex. It is a word connected with behavior, not with an inherent character trait.

Why does this matter? Because the distinction between private urges and acting out on those urges is at the heart of this entire issue. Today, in a classic example of doublespeak, we label as “homosexual” people who feel sexual attraction towards the same gender. We identify the urge with the behavior, as if the two are inseparable. If you feel same sex attraction, it is natural and inevitable that you will act out on those urges.

By doing this, we erase responsibility for personal behavior. Think you feel same gender attraction? Don’t worry, it’s ok–you have a right to act out on it. You have a right to make other people accept your behavior by calling it marriage. Those who teach that you should restrain your behavior on moral grounds are intolerant and bigoted. They are not attacking your behavior–they are attacking you as a person. After all, your homosexuality is more than a behavior–it is who you are, and you cannot deny or change that.

Gay Rights activists turn this around and use it as a weapon against their political opponents. Got an objection to homosexual behavior on moral grounds? You’re a bigot. You are overstepping your bounds to define homosexuality as something immoral. You don’t have a right to believe that, and you don’t have a right to practice according to that principle.

Prop 8 is not about denying people rights. It never was. It was about the definition of a word–and how a redefinition of that word would force religious conservatives to give up their freedom to believe, teach, and practice the longstanding moral principles of their religions. Civil unions had and still have all the same practical rights as marriages under the law of California. Prop 8 isn’t forcing anybody to sit at the back of the bus, or drink from a different drinking fountain. It isn’t a civil rights issue at all.

So please, whether or not you agree with what I’ve said here, I plead with you: approach this issue with an open mind! Question the fundamental premises of both sides in this argument! Don’t accept the propaganda from one side or the other without asking yourself “is this really true?”! As much as the Gay Rights activists like to shout “Question Authority,” don’t accept their claims at face value. Look a little deeper, to the things they are trying to hide from you–the questions they don’t want you to ask–and uncover the TRUTH. That’s the thing that I’m most afraid of–that the truth behind this issue will go unnoticed while the side with the meanest thugs will terrorize all the others into submission–into a Tyranny of Tolerance.

Because if there’s anything antithetical to a tyranny, it’s TRUTH.

9 Comments

9 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

i like what you say here. i think you make really excellent points. how can they ask for tolerance when they aren’t tolerating us? how can they ask so many people to change their religious beliefs and accept something that interferes with their core values?

Comment by Sarah — November 15, 2008 #
As usual, your comments are astute, concise, and powerful. I appreciate the thought you’ve given to this. I appreciate the candor with which you write about your moral values. I like how you separate the underlying REAL issue from the superficial SURFACE issues. Where would I find the links for the commercials?

Comment by papa — November 15, 2008 #
My only concern is that posting a link to that obscene and utterly ignorant anti-Mormon commercial propagates its viewing.

Sick sick sick things.

Nice writing, though!

Comment by Kate — November 16, 2008 #
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-responds-to-same-sex-marriage-votes

Comment by onelowerlight — November 16, 2008 #
As a former Mormon I realize that it must be incredibly frustrating when people say hateful things about your faith. Please realize that I empathize with you on that matter and that I am not attempting join the ranks of the intolerant–there are those who don’t love to hate Mormons.

That said, there is a more fundamental issue at play here. Marriage in the United States has historically been a religious practice, but at some point it was acknowledged as a legal status. This was a breach of separation of church and state and we are now facing the consequences. By the government acknowledging marriage as something more than a religious practice, the term marriage began to represent two distinct ideas: there is the traditional religious interpretation and a more symbolic, non-religious interpretation. This is truly a case of doublespeak and until society acknowledges it, we risk legislating back and forth on the more controversial, yet related, issue of gay marriage.

It would be easy if society could just choose one definition and go with it. Suppose for a moment that there actually was separation of church and state here. Governments need a way to acknowledge family units at least for tax purposes, so there would be a legally recognized status that resembles the non-religious definition of marriage. Then the religious concept of marriage would be preserved for religions. The government does not, nor should it, get involved in matters like which genders can receive the priesthood. Similarly, the government would not interfere when a church refuses to marry two people of the same gender. However, there would be an alternative venue independent of religion that would allow the couple to receive the same legal benefits that a committed, heterosexual couple receives. Furthermore, if a same-gender couple wants to get married, they should be allowed to do so at the discretion of their faith. In no way does any of this inhibit the ability of people from any given faith to practice their religion and it grants everyone the rights they deserve.

Unfortunately, society will not go in this direction because people have grown accustomed to the two definitions of marriage. I know many married heterosexual couples, some who follow one definition and some who follow the other. Rightfully so, neither group would approve the government suddenly choosing one definition of marriage over the other. This leaves society in a strange position.

As an agnostic who sees doublespeak in the term ‘marriage’, even I’m left confused. I fully intend to have a life-long commitment to a woman someday. That coincides with the more symbolic definition of marriage that is currently recognized by the government, but it doesn’t account for the other definition. Despite realizing the problem, I will almost certainly get married someday because it is the commonly understood convention for making such a commitment. From a religious standpoint this should be just as infuriating as a same-gender marriage: I do not know whether there is a god, yet I will engage in a practice you associate with god.

If you find that you are not that upset about the prospect of me someday getting married, consider why you do not see this as prejudice. Otherwise, consider why you seem relatively content that the government uses the term marriage in legal context.

Forgive me if any of this seems like a near-sighted attack. I do not intend to make a rock-solid argument against your opinion; I just want to continue the dialog.

Comment by Jake — November 16, 2008 #
Thanks for your comments, Jake. I didn’t find them offensive at all. It is true that “marriage” is a complex term with different meanings and associations in different religious and secular traditions. Certainly too complex for stock phrases like “love makes a marriage” to have any real meaning, but that’s a tangent.

The thing to remember is that marriage is a public issue, not a private issue. By saying that two people are “married,” we are not defining their relationship with each other so much as we are defining their relationship with the state and with other people. Thus, to be “married” means, in practical terms, that the state can intervene to enforce the terms of the commitment made with each other privately, and that other people will recognize the two people as being committed, on some level, to each other. It is possible to be informally committed to each other privately without going through the formalities of marriage (indeed, many cohabiting couples do just that), but marriage puts a formal, public face on that commitment and adds a legal enforcement mechanism.

Because “marriage” is a public institution, then for it to have any meaning, we have to agree as a society on the definition. In other words, there has to be a standard that we all agree on. Thus, as a Mormon, I can accept that people are married and committed to each other even if that marriage is not solemnized in the temple. I don’t see it as the same as a temple marriage, but it is still a marriage.

The problem, as I see it, is that the LGBT community is trying to use marriage as a tool to get the wider community to accept their standards of morality. If we, as a society, redefine marriage according to the homosexual standard, will that standard be used against us? Will churches that teach that homosexual behavior is immoral be forced to perform gay marriages on their properties? Will they be forced to adopt children to gay couples? Will they be forced, ultimately, to abandon their moral teachings in order to comply with the “equal rights” of the LGBT community?

Are “gay rights” compatible with religious freedom? I worry that they aren’t, and worry that the gay rights movement is, at its core, an attack on religious freedom. That would certainly explain the fanatical zeal with which some in the LGBT community approach this issue.

Regardless, the more I study and think about this issue, the less I am convinced that it is fundamentally a civil rights issue. In some ways, it’s turning into a holy war.

Like you, I’m not satisfied with the way we throw the term “marriage” around today. There is hypocrisy in the way we use the term. Let’s not turn it into a weapon to attack religious freedoms.

Comment by onelowerlight — November 16, 2008 #
Marriage cannot be construed as a civil right. Civil rights are inalienable rights of individuals, and the constitution of the United States protects those. Marriage is not the right of an individual by its very nature – it concerns more than one person. And there is plenty of precedence of the government deciding who can and cannot marry. Siblings cannot marry. In some states, first cousins cannot marry, even though they may love each other and even though they’re not “hurting anyone else.” (the fact that they’re potentially hurting future children is the basis of those laws) I know plenty of single people who would love to be married but haven’t yet met the right person – marriage cannot be a civil right, or they would have the legal right to demand it.

Jake, your arguments are well thought-out and civil, and I really appreciate that. In this case, though, I think we need to acknowledge the legal sense of marriage because that’s what the debate is all about. I’m afraid that by legally declaring a homosexual union as a marriage, my church will lose some of its legal rights when it refuses to agree. It’s already happened in Massachusetts – a church lost their legal tax-exempt status on a pavilion they owned when they wouldn’t let a gay couple (who didn’t belong to the church) rent it for a wedding. Catholic charities lost their right to operate an adoption agency because they refused to acknowledge a gay couple’s legal right to adopt.

The government of France, which is historically vehement about the separation of church and state to the point that they don’t let Muslim girls wear headscarves in public schools, decided to ban homosexual marriages. Why? Were they imposing a religion on someone else? Certainly not. They decided that civil unions were plenty for gay couples. But they would not go so far as to call them marriages because that would make a legal imposition on the rights of children. It was protect the civil right of children to be raised by a mother and father wherever possible (as stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948) that they declared that adult lifestyle choices are not a valid reason to change the legal and societal definition of marriage. (An English translation of the report, in pdf form, can be found here.

This is not an issue of religions wanting to deny anyone rights. It’s an issue of religions seeing the dire need to protect their own.

Comment by Anneke — November 19, 2008 #
As onelowerlight said: “Are ‘gay rights’ compatible with religious freedom? I worry that they aren’t, and worry that the gay rights movement is, at its core, an attack on religious freedom.”

I have contended from the beginning this is the case.

Comment by American Yak — November 20, 2008 #
[...] Mormons and/or their Church. The hypocrisy of these signs is well-described at this post at the One Thousand and One Parsecs blog, here. I would only add that the Flikr gallery evidences vandalism on Temple walls, vandalism of sacred [...]

Pingback by Intractable terms – the gay marriage debate — September 2, 2009 #