I am a big proponent of dredging the past for guidance and insights to issues and events that are unfolding in the present. You know what they say about history repeating itself. I firmly believe that there are enough moments throughout history that help form useful patterns that allow us to forecast how things will tend to play out.
With the recent events that have unfolded regarding proposition 8 and "gay marriage" I have started to search history in hopes of getting some insight. My church has been labeled as bigoted and hateful because of its support for the ban. This is a very "hot button" and fresh issue right now. This isn't going away and I want to be as informed as possible.
I've started to research the history of this topic with limited results. Despite the fact that outside of recent actions in Europe and Canada there doesn't seem to much of a precedent for formally accepting a gay marriage. Now homosexuality has permeated history and certain societies have had varying levels of tolerance regarding the practice but I have not found any group that ever gave a gay marriage equal standing as a traditional heterosexual marriage. If anyone finds anything different please let me know. If there ever was a society throughout history that allowed this it would be of monumental importance to see how it played out.
One thing that muddies up the water for my thoughts on this matter is the strong correlation that gay rights advocates are drawing between the Civil Rights movement and the quest for equal marriage rights. Does this assertion hold water or is it just exceptionally brilliant marketing? This is one area I would like to better understand. Is the right for a homosexual couple to marry and adopt children on the same fundamental level as the rights afforded to African Americans through the Civil Rights Act of 1964? I guess a lot of this depends on whether you feel that homosexuality is a behavior/trait or whether it is a fundamental part of who you are as a person.
Another area that needs to be considered is children. This is another area that I would like to better understand. Biology 101 teaches that it takes a man and women to form a child. Now I believe that mother nature created this structure for a reason and that children need parental figures in the form of both a mother and a father in order to be optimally raised. If there was one area that I would strongly side with traditional marriage it would be this. At the core, nuclear level a family consists of a child being taught and nurtured by a paternal and maternal influence. I do not believe that a homosexual couple can create those kind of optimal circumstances. Once again I would love to read up on this and get some kind of scientific study or historical precedent to help solidify my thoughts. Right now I'm going off my gut, what I see in nature, and several thousand years of accepted history.
This is an issue that isn't going away. I think it needs to be studied, discussed, and that both sides need to show respect. Accusation of sin, bigotry, and hatred only stand in the way of a meaningful dialogue and, in my opinion, only mask ignorance. As this post illustrates my thoughts on this matter are somewhat scattered and still gelling. Hopefully this helps me organize my thoughts, maybe find some kinship with other people who are likewise organizing their own, and start some kind of meaningful dialogue between two sides that seem worlds apart.
Authors Note: Like many people, particularly Mormons, I have been very interested in how this plays out. This interest is based on several factors including:
- History- I was thinking about the silent white majority during the Civil Rights movement. These were, for the most part, good people who were just victims of their time and almost universally held beliefs. I want to thoughtfully and prayerfully understand this history because I don't want my children to learn about how I was backwards and stood on the wrong side of history.
- Accusations of Bigotry- For whatever reason the church has taken the brunt of the backlash on this. I guess we are a much easier and politically friendly target then the droves of African Americans, Catholics, Evangelicals, Hispanics, Muslims, and other god fearing people who came out in droves to support the measure as well. When someone calls my church hateful and bigoted it grabs my attention. Why? Because those accusations don't square with the church that I've attended since a kid. I consistently learned about justice and the ten commandments and such but I also learned about love, forgiveness, and respecting those that don't hold your views or beliefs.
- Faith- I support this measure because I faithfully support my leaders whose guidance I believe is divinely supported. But it is hard to have a rational discussion when faith and God is brought into the mix. This is a very tough issue. I have to admit that a lot of my support is based on my faith in this church and its leadership. So I figure that by studying this out I can have a meaningful dialogue with a person who deals in fact and wants to only talk in a secular forum.
14 comments:
Good article. I agree with many of your sentiments. I believe that equating this fight to civil rights is fundamentally flawed, as at the core civil rights was about race and this is about lifestyle.
Fortunately, my studies in marriage, family, and human development at BYU provided me with access to all of the latest research concerning the family. While when defining extended family, love was more important than blood relations, the nuclear family is only such with a father and mother. Neither one is expendable, so says all research closest to being objective. The only research that supports the expendability of mothers and fathers is research that, whether obviously or not, somewhere down the line is being sponsored by a group heavily involved in or supportive of the gay rights movement.
In short, a man cannot be a mother and a woman cannot be a father. In extremely rare cases (as cited in gay rights research and distorted to give the impression that its occurrence is quite normal), hormones determining gender can exert such an influence on identity that the paternal and maternal roles of mother and father may be interchangeable, but even then by adulthood one side has won out.
Just the tip of the iceberg of my ideas on the issue as well as a small insight into several peer reviewed research articles I have on the topic. Quite an interesting discussion.
From what I hear... gay marriage was legal and equal in the time of Noah. Hence, the flood. Will you research that one for me and get back to me? Thanks!
Tera,
This is probably what you saw.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64769
It's an interesting start. I am going to dig deeper and find something a little more concrete.
In regards to the time of Noah, I've also heard it postulated that violence was the reason for the flood.
Hey Ryan -
As usual a well thought out and articulate posting. I was also aware of the link that you sent to Tera regarding one Rabbi's view of the world at the time of Noah. Besides this article I have not read this anywhere else, but I am planning on looking into it. Coincidentally, my Dad has his weekly Torah study group at the University of Judaism tonight and so I asked him to talk to the Rabbi that teaches his class about it. He has had the same Rabbi for several years now and they have a great relationship. In fact, his Rabbi called my dad during the demonstrations at the LA Temple to express his outrage and sympathy. Anyway, he is a very smart guy and I am curious to see if there is any merit to this "Jewish tradition". I will let you know.
Scott
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3337.html
Outstanding article - highly recommend it. It also mentions the time of Noah.
Scott
Hey Ryan, This is Erika, Jodi's friend from San Diego.
I really enjoyed reading your post. I do have two things I wanted to comment on. First, the Civil Rights Movement was about race, this is about gender. They are two totally different things. Allowing blacks the same rights as whites did not take any rights away from the whites (same with allowing women to vote, which is another angle they have used). I refuse to let a minority group (homosexuals) make decisions for a majority.
Second, I'm not sure if most people know this, but out of all the homosexual couples in California, only less than 20% have been married since the judges lifted the ban in May of this year. 20%!!! To me this says their agenda is not about having the same equal "rights" and "benefits" as heterosexual couples, but more about the forced affirmation of homosexuality itself -- and the eventual silencing of all who disapprove.
Great blog and beautiful photos. Thank you for sharing your articles, thoughts and opinions. Keep up the great work.
Well, i have to chime in. This issue is near and dear to my heart for absolutely no reason. Obviously I'm not gay and really don't know any gay people beyond casual acquaintances but, for whatever reason, I have been moved to fight and fight hard on the pro-gay marriage side of this issue. As such, it has caused me and my wife to leave the church until it reverses its stance on the issue.
All of that being said, I just wanted to touch on a few points.
1. The reason "Gay Rights" has "marketed" itself as a "Civil Rights Movement" is because we believe that marriage is a "civil right" (sorry about all the quotes). Multiple judges has affirmed that the "right to marry" is one that we, as Americans, are allotted. Even a prisoner who has lost many of his civil rights (like voting) is still given the right to marry. While the issue at hand may be more akin to the suffrage movement than the CRM, the anti-8 crowd wants marriage to be recognized as a civil right and therefore, something that they are afforded.
2. All of this research-mongering is fundamentally flawed in both directions. We, as a society, have no actual way to prove the implications of a same-sex parental unit's impact upon a child. While you can allow for two men to care for a baby, those two men are not wed to one another and are not given the same rights/privileges that another couple would have. There would be a variable that was hidden in every instance. Only recently have we seen gay marriage and only recently have we seen gay married couples adopt. Their children are not old enough to study and, even if they were, the sample size would be too small to base anything from. As misleading as some claim the pro-gay studies are, the Pro-8 people threw around all sorts of statistics about families with a mother and a father having greater success and better kids. The flaw is that their comparison was to single-family homes. Despite your "natural inclination" that there should be a mother and father present, doesn't the prospect of two parents watching over a child always look better than a single parent? And I say that coming from a single-parent home, myself.
3. Your idea of natural mother-father units is a bit skewed as well. Most animals are actually raised in packs. Sure they require a mother and father to create the baby but those babies are raised in communities of multiple mothers and fathers. On top of that, I can point out hundreds of instances in nature where the male is killed or the father carried the babies to term or where the parents simply abandoned the babies. Just because it occurs in other animals does not mean we should use it to determine how we live. By your own logic, all of those gay dolphins, dogs, and other animals prove that homosexuality is not a choice or a "lifestyle".
4. I think you feel the LDS church is getting more criticism than others because you are in the middle of it. Most african-american talk shows on tv and radio have dealt with immense criticism of their community for not standing up for other oppressed groups. The essential difference between Catholics, Mexicans, Blacks vs the LDS Church is that only the Mormons were commanded by "God" (through the prophet) to vote Yes. The Pope does not claim to be a prophet of God. The Mexicans and Blacks are merely a product of a macho-misogynistic-religious culture that they are raised in.
5. Because I am out of time, I will just make this point. They didn't choose to be gay any more than you chose to be straight. How would you feel if it were illegal for you to marry your wife? How would you feel knowing that, if you had kids together, you wouldn't have the same rights that she does over them? How would you feel not being able to give your dying wife the health care that she needs because your employer doesn't recognize your love for her with regards to health insurance? It would be tragic. It breaks my heart to think about how my life was before I married my wife and how it is now. How could I possibly want to deny someone that happiness? It would be shameful and anti-Christian. Let those who sin be responsible for their own actions. It is not for us to judge or to dictate through a doctrine that a small percentage of the population believe in. We are Americans and, as such, we have vowed to treat everyone the same. Denying someone basic human rights is not treating them the same.
Glen,
Thanks for your comments. This is a very difficult issue and one that probably needs more civil discussion on both sides of the line. Here are a couple of comments regarding your post:
- I believe that the Church has said that it will support those rights that you mention regarding civil unions. If that is the case then I guess it comes down to the feeling or notion that a "civil union" is not equal to "marriage" and therefore making them a second class group. I can empathize with their assertions there. So besides the difference of name between the two are there any differences in rights?
- This movement has really gained steam in the past decade and it seeks to radically change a notion that has been pretty universally accepted throughout human history. From God commanding Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth the present day heterosexual marriage was the way that society has perpetuated itself. (I'm not an expert so pull up any examples would refute that) Homosexuality has been pervasive throughout history but I haven't seen examples of societies that successfully treated a homosexual marriage as an equal of a heterosexual marriage. So for me the burden of proof is on the gay community.
- I know you will say that this is difficult to do since this is a relatively new idea and is only available in a few countries and states. Is it possible to have an objective look at the past ten years in Europe?
One feeling lately is that is very disconcerting to suddenly be labeled a bigot for merely perpetuating a belief that has been pretty universally held for so long. Now I'm all for a meaningful dialogue that can explore both sides.
I try and be civil about this issue. While I don't find the PEOPLE who disagree with me to be "bigots" I do find things like Prop8 to be bigoted and hateful despite their "letter of the law" approach.
Civil Unions vs Marriage
A marriage must be recognized between states (thanks to the Full Faith & Credit Clause in the US Constitution). That means that an 18yo man can marry a 14yo woman in Utah legally and move to AZ where it would be illegal and the state has to recognize their marriage. A couple getting Civil Unions does not get their union recognized and, in fact, some states ban them because they disagree with them.
Many private contracts/companies (and some public ones) stipulate marriage as a legally binding junction between two people. As such, rights and responsibilities assumed by one person can be transfered to their spouse. In other words, Blue Cross Blue Shield allows you to give your spouse coverage, it does not give you the ability to give your "partner" anything.
A Civil Union does not make a foreign member of the Union a citizen of the United States. If you are "partnered" with a man you love from Mexico, that man must get a green card or stay here illegally just to be with his partner. He does not automatically become a citizen.
Civil Unions do not get the same tax breaks that marriages do.
The Defense of Marriage Act, signed by Bush II, ensures that no state is forced to recognize a gay marriage or union if they choose not to.
There are 1,400 legal rights that you assume when you get married. Many you never think of. These are all denied to gay couples.
Some examples:
# Joint adoption
# Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
# Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
# Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
# Crime victims recovery benefits
# Domestic violence protection orders
# Judicial protections and immunity
# Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
# Public safety officers death benefits
# Spousal veterans benefits
# Social Security
# Medicare
# Joint filing of tax returns
# Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
# Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
# Child support
# Joint Insurance Plans
# Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
# Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
# Estate and gift tax benefits
# Welfare and public assistance
# Joint housing for elderly
# Credit protection
# Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans
So there you go. Besides being unconstitutional to have "separate but equal" designations, there are a plethora of reasons that gay couples need to be "married" over simple "unions"
Also, and quickly before the Office starts.
There are multiple instances of gay marriage (or what one of that era would consider marriage) in history and other cultures.
It was common in Native American cultures.
Arisophanies eludes to it in the Origin of Love. A story of three sexes (male, female, and lesbian) where Zeus strikes them down and forces them to wander the earth.
Finally, there are multiple greek holy texts that preach of gay marriage. One example:
Forasmuch as Thou, O Lord and Ruler, art merciful and loving, who didst establish humankind after thine image and likeness, who didst deem it meet that thy holy apostles Philip and Bartholomew be united, bound one unto the other not by nature but by faith and the spirit. As Thou didst find thy holy martyrs Serge and Bacchus worthy to be united together [adelphoi genesthai], bless also these thy servants, N. and N., joined together not by the bond of nature but by faith and in the mode of the spirit [ou desmoumenous desmi physeis alla pisteis kai pneumatikos tropi], granting unto them peace [eirene] and love [agape] and oneness of mind. Cleanse from their hearts every stain and impurity and vouchsafe unto them to love one another [to agapan allelous] without hatred and without scandal all the days of their lives, with the aid of the Mother of God and all thy saints, forasmuch as all glory is thine.
Read more at http://www.enotalone.com/article/4358.html
Boswell's book would probably be a good place for you to start if you are going to research ancient marriage customs.
Glen,
Thanks for posting that. I think I'll be doing some reading over the next few days.
Here is a concise article about the LDS and Prop 8 that addresses all the myths and concerns leveled against the Church. It's lengthy, but effectually debunks all the myths through verifiable substantiation.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Latter-day_Saints_and_California_Proposition_8
Post a Comment