A Young Man’s Take on Gay Marriage in Idaho
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the newsletter or RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
In recent editions of the Post Register, countless local residents have joined in an epic debate over whether or not it is appropriate that we, as a society, can accept marriages between one man and one man or one woman and one woman, or whether it is in better wisdom to make changes to our state’s constitution to ban such unions (if even just civil ceremonies).
I have no pretensions that this debate is anything but a political move by politicians to gain support from Idaho’s “reddest” residents, but it does bring up a valid point - why not allow gay marriage in Idaho and other states?
In my experience, the opposition boils down to a handful of arguments:
- “Marriage” is traditionally, and has always been accepted as, a union between one man and one woman.
- Allowing gay marriage violates the “sanctity” of marriage, as a blessed union approved of by God.
- If we allow such unions, straight men would marry other men simply to take advantage of the tax benefits.
- Society is not ready for such a drastic social paradigm change.
Of these arguments, it seems that only two seem to have any basis in reality and, in turn, are the only ones which we should really scrutinize. First, we can lump the first and last argument into one category, which I will call the “traditional society” argument. The next group I will call the “religion” argument, because it is based on select scriptural passages which seem to condemn homosexuality.
So, regarding the first argument, I cannot help but bring up the issue of slavery. When the issue of abolishing slavery was first presented to a well-meaning, rational society, it was met with the same violent opposition that the concept of gay marriage has seen today. The arguments seemed to make sense - how would the developing American economy survive without slave labor? What to do with the freed slaves, would they be citizens? Doesn’t God support the concept of blacks being taken as slaves?
Of course, in retrospect, we know the answers to these questions. We know that society, the economy, and the American concept of nation-building benefited greatly from abolishing slavery. However, the concept of allowing equal citizenship to blacks (and women) would take another hundred years or so to become a real issue. Again, in retrospect, we find it utterly absurd that we would not allow an African-American or woman to vote or own property, because our society has been reared to accept these things. We now look back in astonishment at how our fathers viewed those that we now consider equals.
Let there be no mistake - our childern will view the current debate over gay marriage in this exact same light.
Society has a funny way of becoming incredibly resilient when it comes to culture shock - from the Irish immigrants pouring into Boston’s harbors to the current integration of Mexican citizens into our own culture, America is not as frail as opponents of gay marriage would have us believe. We are a nation that, despite the desperate cries of the minorities, will survive and flourish under social shock and drastic change. We may even find that America is better off when gay marriage is finally accepted.
Now, as a Christian, I understand that I am very much in the minority when it comes to my position on gay marriage. It seems almost unanimous among Christians that we pay very close attention to certain parts of the bible - namely, the ones that let us get away with judging others and enforcing our beliefs on them. We read key passages out of the old testament, deconstruct it, and display it in such a way that we mangle its intent to suit our own bigotous agenda.
My response to the Christian community is this: have you forgotten the whole other half of the bible, the new testament? Have you forgotten that Christ commanded us (not recommended, mind you) to love one another, and accept everyone as they are, and never to allow our pride to let us judge one another? It is not allowed us the authority to judge anyone, for anything, regardless of how we interpret this incredible book we call the bible.
So, how then can we judge homosexuals who want to enjoy the blessing of marriage without assigning ourselves powers and authorities denied us by Him that we worship? Think about it. This is not an issue of God’s will, His sanctifying of marriage, or what the bible tells us about marriage - this is about your pride, your bigotry, and your fear of something that you don’t understand.
Jesus Christ was the original individualist - He tells us, don’t worry about what your neighbor is doing, just love him. Make sure that you live your life according to your relationship with me, and let me handle the judging. What a relief! We don’t have to be God’s secret police - we just have to love His creations! This should be very, very good news, friends.
As a happily married man, I can say that the prospect of having two men or two women getting married and enjoying the same happiness as I have found will in no way affect the vows I made on that day in July. Opponents of gay marriage seem to think that the second Adam and Steve get hitched, those of us who are already married will have to pack it in, because our sacred vows are now bunk. I fail to see the logic here - maybe one of you can enlighten me?
It is my honest belief that someday, we will shake our pitiful heads at this silly debate, the same we do now at school segregation, womens’ sufferage, and how we dressed in the 80’s. Society can handle more happiness, more blissful reunions, and more acceptance of all of God’s children.
If you’re still not convinced, look at it this way - America has a 50% divorce rate. Wouldn’t allowing more marriages at least help our odds of keeping those vows? We could use all the help we can get when it comes to keeping the “sanctity” of marriage.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Vote:
0 
0 Two main points:
1) Just because something was justified by the bible by some misguided fool doesn’t mean religion supports what they did. If you read the bible as it is, you will find a much different message than has been assigned to “religion”. Lest we forget that Jesus hung out with the outcasts of society - if Christ came today, he would chill with gays, Mexicans, and liberals.
Our nation was not founded on Christian principles. Most of the founding fathers were either agnostic, atheist, or deist. Our nation was founded on the principles explored during the Enlightenment Period (ie Humanism and Social Contract). I hate that argument … sorry. However, just because our nation was not founded on Christian principles doesn’t mean it couldn’t use some about now.
2) I’m not sure I agree with your argument against unions. “Marriage” indicates a religious ceremony, so maybe people should get civil unions for legal purposes, then get “married” for religious reasons. We can have the best of both worlds 
Vote:
0 0 I am not against gay marriage, but I have to comment on your comparison to slavery.
You cannot compare gay marriage to what slaves went through. They suffered way more than anybody supporting gay marriage has. The two issues have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
Vote:
0 0 It’s a matter of comparing how society will react and conform to the drastic changes. People today seem to believe that we will never recover from the social shock of allowing gay marriage, just like people believed America would collapse without slavery.
Please read before posting.
Vote:
0 0 I did read it, thank you, and I still don’t think the two issues are related or can be compared to each other.
You know,a lot of your comments and your articles you publish have a very negative attitude. In addition, you have made some sarcastic and down right rude comments back to people when they comment on either your comments or your articles you have written. A little respect and common courtesy would go a long way on your part. Just because someone does not agree with you, it does not warrant being rude.
This site generally has a positive attitude in its postings, it would be nice to see that continue.
Vote:
0 0 “You cannot compare gay marriage to what slaves went through.”
Ehhh, yes and no. I think of reports of gays being harassed, beat up, and killed (let’s never forget Matthew Sheppard next door in Wyoming).
I think they can be compared in terms of exclusionary concept, just certainly not in scale.
Vote:
0 0 Have gays been enslaved, beaten, and tortured like slaves? Of course not. But as Joe said lets not forget Matthew Sheppard and lets not forget that he isn’t an isolated case, he’s just the most famous case. There is still validity in the comparision because the mindset of the people who supported slaverly is similar to the mindset of the anti gay crowd.
Vote:
0 0 Jeremy — I gotta disagree with you on this one… Your entire argument on Christains and their requirements not to judge — love their neighbors etc. etc. You miss a very imprtant part of this whole concept. The Bible teaches us that we ARE suppose to love our neighbors and not stand in judgement. But it also teaches that we are to actually HATE sin. We are never to embrace sin — accept sin or encourage sin — period! You can love the sinner — and still hate the behavior. The Bible tells us that God hates sin, but he loves every sinner. You can feel sorry for — fogive — and totally love the homosexual without approving of the act itself. For a young Christian to think that he must accept this behavior — and to encourage or even allow it to be accepted is very very wrong. In the beginning you listed the primary arguments that are given by people who oppose gay marriage. You forgot the main one. BECAUSE IT IS WRONG! PERIOD. If you (or anyone else) don’t personally believe its wrong then put it to a state wide vote. You will find that a tremendous majority of people who live here believe that its wrong — and want no part of it. Two men who take pleasure in placing certain body parts inside certain body parts of other men — its sickening — immoral — against nature and just plain wrong. To think that we should allow these people to share in the benefits of marriage — and be allowed to adopt children and expose them to this sickness is so far gone it makes me want to throw up. Now I have a persoanl opinion of this particular sin that is a bit different than most and might surprise you. I believe that we are all sinners — HORRIBLE sinners for the most part. I am a hetro-sexual, white male — married — as happily as the next guy. My flavor of sin is this: Right now — at this very moment I am dreaming of having 3 beautiful woman in a local hotel room doing all kinds of things to my naked body — and me to theirs. Thats really what I want to do TODAY! — deep inside — being totally hionest with you. Does my particluar “flavor” of sin make me better than a homosexual? No. we are exactly the same. we were both born like this — yes we were. We both have an obligation to fight our demons and the temptations that we have — and to ask God to help us through it all. One is not better than the other — and knowing this allows me to not stand in judgment of homosexuals. God will do that on an individual basis — as he will with me and you. But I will never help promote — condone or accept this behavior (mine or theirs) — and will do whatever I can to resist and keep our society as clean, and tradional and as “inline” with Biblical teachings as I can. And for the athiests out there — I really feel sorry for them. There is no words for them. They can look at the night sky filled with stars — a newly born baby — a flower blooming in the spring and not see God. Thats the sadest part of it all….
Vote:
0 0 Guest - I think I agree with your general premise, that being that sin is a bad thing. We should hate it. However, we should hate it on a very personal level, not project that on others. This is what gets me about so many Christians. We are so quick to say that Homosexuals are sinners, and we hate the sin … but like you indicated, everyone is a sinner. There was only one person who ever lived without sin, and well just imagine, he turned out to be God, so that takes care of that.
Why are we so reliant on the bible to define sin for us, when Jesus tells us that a relationship with God is the most valuable, rewarding way to understand Him? Why trust in one person’s recorded experience when we can have our own. I am not entirely convinced, scriptural evidence or not, that homosexuality itself is a sin anymore than heterosexuality is a sin. It’s about intent, not disposition.
Anonymous: Obviously, you did not read it, or you wouldn’t have made the argument you did. It’s not about comparing gays and slaves, it’s about comparing society’s reaction to that issue. I made that very clear. It seems to me that you’re the one being negative - I’m standing up for a discriminated section of society, while you seem to be content to demonize them.
Vote:
0 0 Jeremy — I have to make one last comment. Read your last paragraph and really THINK hard about it:
If you’re still not convinced, look at it this way - America has a 50% divorce rate. Wouldn’t allowing more marriages at least help our odds of keeping those vows? We could use all the help we can get when it comes to keeping the “sanctity†of marriage.
How do you keep the “sanctity” of marriage by completing letting go the “sanctity” of marriage? And why would we try to correct one horrible and sad statistic by creating another one? I bet there are better ways to try and correct the high divorce rate and uphold the real “sanctity” of marriage. Don’t worry — its ok. You are quite young. Rookie mistake.
Vote:
0 0 One more note, Guest. You mention about having a state-wide vote on whether homosexuality is wrong. I agree that the vast majority will say that it is - but does that make it right? As a Christian, you must know that the majority “voted” to murder Christ. The majority is very, very rarely correct. Nazi Germany came to be because of the Tyranny of the majority. What’s popular is rarely what’s right.
Vote:
0 0 Well Jeremy — In regards to your questions in paragraph 2 of your last post — Time goes by very very fast. You are too young to really know how fast it goes. As a matter of fact — you are almost the exact same age as my currnet pair of hunting boots. I can tell you — I am over half way “done” and it went by in a flash! Soon — actually much sooner than you think — you can take these questions that you have — and ask Him yourself….
Vote:
0 0 And you are correct — there have been times in history when the majority got wrapped up in a cause or an idea and they were wrong. In time — the majority of the people in the US and Idaho for that matter will no longer believe that it is wrong. Idaho is one of the few states which tends to hold onto to traditional values a bit longer than some others — so for now — at this time — my state wide vote comment was correct. More people feel the way I do than the way you do. Hang in there cause in another 50 years (or much less) that will change. Guess I used a bad example to make my point. So are you saying that Homosexuality is right — and those that say it is not right are wrong? If so — add that one to your list of questions to ask him when you get there… He’ll probably be happy to explain it to you….
Vote:
0 0 What I’m saying is that I don’t believe that it’s as simple as homosexuality being “right” or “wrong”. We tend to try and capsulize things as “immoral” or “moral” and it’s never that simple. My point in that homosexuality can be immoral just like heterosexuality can. I refuse to believe that being born a certain way can qualify as a sin … if that is the case, can we then say that being born a woman is a sin? Black? Short? I believe that it is the way in which we live our lives that dictates sin. Someone can make mistakes and even commit horrible sins and be closer to God than the sinless (”All of these commandments I have kept from my youth.”) Need we forget that the people who could not recognize Christ were those who lived closest to the Jewish law?
Your last post indicates that maybe you know something that I don’t about how God views homosexuals. I think that if this is true, you may have a responsibility to let us all in. However, I suspect that you and I believe in the same God, and in doing so, we believe that it’s possible to have a personal relationship with Him. So maybe we should let those who struggle with homosexuality (or don’t) take it up with Him directly … we don’t need to speak for Him, He can do that Himself.
Vote:
0 0 Jeremy,
You’ve already established in other posts via your partial username who your relatives are. That being said, I read your posts based simply on YOUR experiences, not theirs. If your relatives wish to express their thoughts, from my viewpoint, they can register and say what they want to say.
Unlike some who have lived their entire or a great majority of their life within a three county area of eastern ID, you have lived in different states and cities. Since you have probably had far more exposure to the polygamist culture, when you were younger and maybe even went to school with or knew kids whose parents were practicing polygamists, how do you feel about plural marriage? Should we be tolerant and accepting of adults who decide to live their lives in that lifestyle relationships?
Before anyone says anything, I have two disclaimers: First, IN NO WAY AM I SUGGESTING JEREMY’S FAMILY HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH POLYGAMY. Rather, I’m simply saying you lived for a period in your life close to about 5-10K polygamists.
Secondly, I want to clarify that I have worked in the area where you use to live - not f/t, but worked there every month. So I have opinions too, based on the polygamists I met. However, given my work, I met perhaps a more skewed population than you. Probably, you had exposure to a more accurate cross-section of people living this lifestyle, perhaps even some of the students in your school, than I did working there monthly. If you didn’t have classmates that lived as polygamists, I’m still willing to bet you knew some.
I’ll be interested in reading your thoughts about this subject and how it pertains to what we traditionally know as marriage (between one man and one woman). Lots of people talk about polygamists and have had NO experience with them or have known none personally. What do you think, based on your own experience?
Vote:
0 0 What’s the first thing that pops into your mind when you hear or read the word “gay?”
I’m willing to bet it ain’t: happily excited, or merry, or exuberant, or in high spirits. That was the primary meaning of the word “gay” when I was growing up.
I don’t want the first thought that pops into people’s minds to be “homosexual” when they hear of read the word “marriage.”
So, if the homosexuals want to become legally bound to each other, then let ‘em — just don’t let ‘em steal the word “marriage” while they are at it.
I have a question you, Jeremy. (Others who agree with Jeremy are welcome to answer, too.) Would you put any restrictions at all on who could “marry” and who could not? What would the restrictions be and why?
There are biological reasons why a male can not, and should not, engage in sexual intercourse with a closely related female. Incest, I believe, is a crime. Those biological reasons are not biologically applicable to homosexual relations, so would you allow brother to marry brother? Sister to sister? Mother to marry daughter? Father to marry son? If not, why not?
And what about plurar marriage? If the definition of marriage can be expanded to encompass homosexuals, why can’t it be expanded to encompass multiple wives and multiple husbands?
Vote:
0 0 Jeremy — I think I can help you out — seriously. As you are obviously a young Christian and a brother in Christ — it is easy for you to find out the answer to your question. Go out to Calvary Chapple — East side of Idaho Falls. IF is very fortunate to have a very serious man of God on what I believe to be almost the “Billy Grham scale — time will tell if I am right about that. Go there and meet with Pastor Brown and ask him to explain this to you. Then take what he tells you and pray about it. I promise you that at some point in the near future you will find the answers to the questions that you have about this. Trust me….give this a try. Let me know…
Vote:
0 0 Jeremy,
I never said that gays are not discriminated against and I do not “demonize” them. I in fact do agree that they experience discrimination and that it is not right.
I simply do not think that it compares to slavery. I think I just chose bad wording in my first comment. Joe said it better when he said that it just doesn’t compare in scale. That is what I meant.
Vote:
0 0 Just to clarify, my post # 15 was posted at 4:21 p.m. Ironically, 8B posted at 4:23 p.m. and at the end of that post the author asks a similar question to what I did about polygamy.
In no way were my remarks a coordinated effort with any other person visiting this site. I imagine that 8B and I were writing at the same time and my post just got posted first.
I don’t know who 8B is (and probably vice versa). I admit it is odd we both asked questions about polygamy and they were posted within 3 minutes of each other. However, please contact 8B, if further clarification is needed to ensure this was not a “team effort.” Coincidental -yes, but not planned.
Vote:
0 0 8B and OK4Now - I can see where you’re leading the discussion, so I’ll cut right through the pleasantries and address the “slippery sloap” argument right out. Allowing gay marriage is an altogether separate issue than plural marriage - in fact, I wonder how the two events could possibly be connected. Gay marriage is recognizing the validity of a loving, faithful relationship between two consenting adults, regardless of gender. Plural marriage would present legal and tax problems that would take ages to overcome. Plural marriage is the threat to the idea of marriage, not gay marriage.
But the point is moot when it comes to the gay marriage debate. This is about one man and one man or one woman and one woman - not two or three. So unless someone can explain the logic of one leading to the other, I don’t see a reason to go further into it.
Now, someone brought up my family history. I don’t see the significance, but I’ll bite. As far as I know, my family has never engaged in polygamy. While Mormon, most of my family converted long after the Mormon church abolished this practice. There was a second cousin marriage on my mother’s side, though. And speaking of, I’m against family marriage as well, and here’s why.
It would drain the gene pool. Simple enough.
If we allow close family to marry, we must assume that these marriages would produce children, and incestual or family breeding produces far-reaching health effects including mental disorders and immunity issues.
However, this doesn’t apply to the gay marriage debate either.
Guest - I may or may not check out the church you mentioned. Firstly, because I am happy as pie with the Presbyterian church that I attend. Second, I am not gay, so I don’t need guidence from Pastor Brown on the issue, especially when deciding on my personal view of civic policy. I do appreciate the invitation, though. (ps for the record, comparing someone to Billy Graham or any other televangelist is not a good way to impress me.)
Now, let’s get this discussion back on track - can someone, anyone present a logical, strong argument against the idea of gay marriage that does not rely on religious interpretation or slippery sloap logic? I am yet to hear one, from anyone, anywhere.
Vote:
0 0 Some things to ponder. Idaho Falls like most towns has a problem with men having sex with other men in parks. While I don’t have the stats in front of me as I don’t think anyone has ever actually tracked the stats I can tell you this with fair certainty. The vast majority of these men were married to women. One was even a “general authority” in the LDS church who was married with kids. Its the exception when you find an openly gay male there.
What that tells me is that like I believe being gay is genetic. These men have “chosen” to try and ignore their primary attraction for religious reasons or a desire to fit in with what society demands but every now and then they give in to biology.
Vote:
0 0 Also, I’m glad that so far no one has made the moronic argument (unless I missed someone saying it) in the the slippery slope debate that people would try to marry animals or rocks or crap like that. Because your doing nothing but showing your own idiocy by doing so. Its about CONSENT. If you can’t consent to marriage then the marriage won’t be legal. So it won’t lead to marrying animals, it won’t lead to marrying children, and it won’t lead to marrying inanimate objects. Of course there will be the occasional nutcase, as there is now, who tries but they won’t suddenly pop out of the woodwork any more than now. Its just a red herring argument.
Polygamy is another matter and I’ll grant that allowing homosexual marriage would possibly crack the door open on it. Because its theoretically possible for multiple adults to consent. I say theoretically because in the mormon world of polygamy there isn’t a lot of consent since girls are basically sold into it at a young age.
Still though its better to open the door a bit with a risk of polygamy and be on the side of decency and righteousness than it is to be no different than the slaveowners of the 1800’s were - bigoted and inhumane.
Vote:
0 0 You know, I think some of what bothers folk about gays is not the gay marriage but the in-your-face attitude. I’ve lived all over the country and met hundreds of people and worked dozens of jobs. Although there were exceptions, for the most part, the heterosexuals didn’t discuss their sex lives. There were some undeniably crude people who did, but management was allowed to shut them down. Too many gay people want to be allowed to force their sex lives down our throats whether we like it or not. Think I’m kidding? Ask your human resources department what will happen if you talk about your sex life at work and someone objects. You’ll get reprimanded or fired. Now, if you’re gay, it’s protected under freedom of speech for some reason and the rest of us are forced to listen to it. I don’t want to hear the details of anyone’s sex life, homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual or otherwise. I have some wonderful friends who are gay and they know I care about them very much. They also know I don’t want to hear the agenda. This issue is very complicated and convoluted. I’m glad I’m not gay because they are discriminated against, but I get tired of the dialog.
As for the religous side of it, well, I remember when Christ came up on the adulteress (not personally) and he said, “He who is without sin cast the first stone.” But he then turned to the adulteress and told her, “Go and sin no more.” That really encompasses a lot of issues for me. He loved her but he didn’t approve. I don’t know if this applies to the gay issue or not. I fall back on the second greatest commandment when I find myself in this spot. “Love they neighbor as thyself” and also “judge not lest ye be judged.”
Isn’t it great to live in America where we’re all guaranteed the right to not only have our own opinion but are allowed to vocalize it as well? It makes for some “interesting” discussions, no doubt, but would you really have it any other way? Who would you choose to decide for everyone else?
Vote:
0 0 Jeremy,
I don’t appreciate your comments directed to me in post #20, as they aren’t factual. You ASSUMED I had an agenda about gay marriage and polygamy. That is not correct as far as gay marriage. It is correct in the fact I’ve wanted to ask you for a while (like since Warren Jeffs got put on the FBI’s 10 most wanted list) what it was like to grow up around and potentially have classmates who lived that life. I DID NOT connect anything about being GAY and POLYGAMISTS! Please read what I wrote in #15 again.
You would have no idea what has or hasn’t happened in my life this last week that would make me think of polygamy today when reading some of the discussions (and no I don’t practice it). However, having worked with polygamists previously, perhaps I have work that pertains to further information than I know or have personally experienced with the skewed population with which I worked. I don’t think it’s fair to me or anyone else for you to assume what our “motives” were without asking. And I would certainly appreciate it, at least with me, if you would ask for that clarification. There may be limits of what I can say given my work, but I could at least say something like there was an issue at work today, or I’m worried about violence in that culture, or I was blown away as I met someone who was a polygamist or I wondered about the support groups/agencies that have formed to help those who have left that culture. You have a unique perspective that I’m not sure if many writing on this blog have experienced.
So you don’t think I’m limiting my polygamy comments to you, as I don’t think they relate to gay marriage (or at least that isn’t what I was thinking), let me make this a wide open question.
If anyone who reads this knows facts about polygamy would you just identify yourself as anonymous and a #. Then I can create an anoymous e-mail address for me that perhaps I can ask you so more direct questions. AGAIN, I asked Jeremy because I do know where he lived and the approximate dates. I don’t know about anyone else reading this….so if you have knowledge, I need your help in trying to figure something out.
If you want to be offended Jeremy, that is your choice. As I’m sure you’re learning in school, as prep to training as a LMFT, I have NO CONTROL over how you feel or how you perceive what I write. I know how I intended it, which is why I would greatly appreciate the courtesy of you asking me for clarification of what I wrote before making assumptions and firing off something that in this case is totally inaccurate.
As far as your family, I’m the one who brought it up in this thread. Please read that part again. You have openly told us on this board things about your family. NEVER did I say anything about your family and polygamy, except as a disclaimer. Please read it again.
I did write a comment after I saw the comment of 8B posted so quickly after mine (3 minutes) as I wanted to clarify there was no joint attempt to prove a point.
Perhaps I should have submitted an article writing about polygamy. I really don’t know if I could have written certain things, given limitations of what I can openly ask. For that, I apologize to you Jeremy. And I would appreciate you taking a breather then re-reading what I wrote so you don’t confuse my comments with homosexual marriage.
Vote:
0 0 Ok4Now - I was never offended, I was making pre-emptive clarifications and comments before the discussion got to that point. I lumped yours and 8B’s comments together because you were both addressing the same issue - setting limits on marriage, ie. defining it, which innevitably wanders into realms of polygamy, etc.
I assumed by the tone of your question that you would wander into the question of polygamy, because since you seem to know a bit about my past, you know that I once lived in St. George, Utah, which is adjacent to a highly polygamist-settled area.
It was never a matter of being offended, but of keeping the discussion on track. We’re discussing gay marriage, not polygamy, marriage of a dog and cat, or anything of that matter. If my reply seemed defensive or aggressive, it’s for that reason alone. It was never personal.
Vote:
0 0 Ok4Now, I’m wondering when you say in comment #24 that Jeremy has a “unique perspective”, are you referring to his experience living next to a polygamist colony, or his claim of having correct knowledge about the LDS church?
I am interested in your inquiry.
Vote:
0 0 Anonymous - I think you’re in the wrong topic. We’re talking about the politics of gay marriage - the religious discussion is on another page … and I’m still awaiting your response to my request for you to refute any of my points.
So unless you would like to contribute to the topic at hand, let’s take the LDS issue to the correct forum.
Vote:
0 0 Gosh, I would think anyone who wanted homosexuals to stop having sex would be in favor of allowing them to get married. It works like a charm for heterosexuals.
Vote:
0 0 Ba-zing!
It’s about time someone lightened up around here.
I was kicking around the same joke … but you told it better than I could. Kudos.
Vote:
0 0 Wrong “anonymous”, Jeremy. I was responding to a request by OK4Now. I have not received a request from you. I am willing to discuss religion with people who aren’t full of hate, who don’t prejudge, and who don’t take particles (tiny particles) of truth and distort them to be fact. Therefore, I will not discuss specifics of religion (lds religion) with you, until the anger and hate leaves your dialog. I can respect your opinion about religion, and your choice of religion, even if I don’t agree. What I don’t appreciate is when you present information as fact,that is not. Now, Jeremy, I also,probably have church shoes as old as you. I too went to seminary for four years, and my church shoes have taken me to church for lots of years. I do know the truth about your claims, but I will not ARGUE with you. It is not my intent to change your opinion. Maybe you could redirect some of your hatred for mormons, towards doing more good in your new found religion. After all hate, anger, and resentment only hurts ourselves. Lastly, I know the topic is about the politics of gay marriage. You opened the door, and I chose to voice my opionion–I don’t care if you disagree.
Vote:
0 0 Anonymous from #26- my question pertained to the fact Jeremy had lived close to polygamists. And potentially even had interaction at school or socially.
I didn’t think it was a good idea to post a seperate topic about Polygamy, because as Jeremy so rightly points out - it is ILLEGAL. I don’t want to write a post about an illegal subject.
If you might be a resource I could ask more information, please just give me a # for your anonymous (like anonymous #7, or whatever) so I can address you and not someone else by error. Then, I can set up a different e-mail account so questions can be asked there instead of here.
And Jeremy, in your post # 25, my point was NOT ABOUT YOU be offended - it was about ME! As you even say there, you ASSUMED.
Thanks anonymous. Hope we can connect. I think some would have a difficult time to find other threads that didn’t introduce other subjects, generated by previous posts in the current thread. If I’m wrong, then perhaps someone could reference which threads and posts addressed nothing but the listed subject and no other subject somewhat related. As I read information from others who write, questions, thoughts etc. in my brain get triggered about other things.
As I stated before, I will not post a formal discussion about a subject that is illegal.
Vote:
0 0 Anonymous# - okay, if I have in any way demonstrated a hatred for Mormons (not an ideological disagreement about Mormonism), then I need to be made aware of it. In the religion thread, I asked that someone, anyone please point out anywhere that I made a hateful remark toward Mormons or judged them as people. There have been no replies. And yet, while I wait for some kind of justification for your assigning me as being hateful toward Mormons, you just keep throwing around judgements and labels without cause or justification. So right now, either show me where I have been hateful (not argumentative) or stop staining my reputation. Enough is enough.
If I made a hateful comment about Mormons, I will retract it immediately. As I’ve stated, I love many Mormon people, but disagree with them highly on a number of ideological bases. In fact, in one of my replies, I stated a list of things that I like about Mormons and Mormonism.
So, until the time comes that you either retract your comments about me being hateful or present evidence of the truth of those accusations, I will be waiting.
Also, if this site is going to be about dismissing someone’s view because of their age, I’m getting the hell out of here. Give me a break.
Vote:
0 0 “Also, if this site is going to be about dismissing someone’s view because of their age, I’m getting the hell out of here. Give me a break.”
Trust me, the site’s philosophy is age does not matter so long as writers are civil and mature (it’s the passions that get even adults into trouble).
Therefore early high school to one foot in the grave is allowed to express their opinions.
And I must say I’m older than Jeremy but have always hated those ‘i’ve got crap older than you’ statements. I always smirked at the difference between respecting elders or betters.
Vote:
0 0 Okay4Now, I would look forward to communicating with you “anonymous26″ would be fine.
Jeremy, I will retract my age comment, and apologize for it. I don’t enjoy those comments towards me either.
I will not retract my statements. So, you may wait if you want to.
I find it interesting that you choose to write articles about issues that have such varing and emotional opinions, then act surprised when you get emotional and intense comments. Maybe you should “lighten up” your choice of subjects–if you can’t handle people disagreeing with you.
I liked that quote on your link: “Wisdom is thinking something stupid, and not saying it” , or something like that.
Vote:
0 0 Chiasm–FYI-I know who you were talking about in the park, and he was not a “general authority”. Do you know what a general authority is?
Vote:
0 0 Please keep this discussion on topic to gay marriage in Idaho.
Vote:
0 0 Anonymous - I will reply to your last point. Gay Marriage is emotional, but why can’t we discuss it in a rational, intelligent way without resorting to personal attacks and slander? Humans are rational creatures - why can we not look past emotions and compare and exchange ideas without emotions boiling over?
See, I do not agree with homosexuality, because I am not homosexual. However, just because I don’t belong to a group doesn’t mean I can’t empathize and understand their plight. I believe that marriage is a good thing, maybe the best that society has created thus far, and I see no reason why we shouldn’t extent this gift to a segment of the population just because biology created them to be of a certain inclination.
So again, I plead with you all, anyone who is against gay marriage, tell me why. Help me understand. Maybe I just don’t “get it”. Please, someone present the case against gay marriage from a rational, intelligent point of view. It would help in my battle to avoid cynicism.
Vote:
0 0 I do know what a general authority is. Although, now that its brought up I may have mixed it up with stake president. Regardless it was an upper level muckity muck of the LDS church in the area.
If your thinking of someone else then there obviously has been more than one bigwig in the church.
Why this is relevant to gay marriage though, just so its clear we are still on topic, is that this man was married to a woman but couldn’t control his biology and his predominant attraction no matter how he tried to use religion to obey societal mores.
So if you accept my supposition that being attracted to the same sex is not a choice but rather biology then in all deceny you have to allow them to marry as well.
Vote:
0 0 I don’t have any comment myself, but I read an interesting quote in this week’s TIME magazine:
“Marriage is not about love. It’s about a love that can bear children.”
Spoken by Republican Congressman Todd Akin (Missouri) in support of a ban on gay marriage that failed.
Wow, I thought my marriage was about love.
Vote:
0 0 Anonymous #26, from post #34. Didn’t want you to think I was ignoring your generous offer to help me understand more about polygamists. I had technical difficulties with my computer today and it took a while to resolve. Give me 24 more hrs. to get you an address.
I look forward to being able to clarify some confusing things, for me.
Vote:
0 0 Jeremy,
Let me see if I can put a train of thoughts together to help you understand how some of us may be feeling.
First, you claim this isn’t about age, but it can be. Those of us with a few more years on our waistline have seen the slippery slope in action. A few decades back, Hollywood was asking what it could hurt to bare Barbara Eden’s belly button on I Dream of Jeannie. Now, we’re baring Janet Jackson’s breasts, Dennis Franz’s butt, Girls Gone Wild, etc. Then it was what could it hurt to say “hell” on tv? Now, every dirty word ever coined is heard every hour of the day and night in music, in public and on tv. On tv, married people slept in twin beds. Now we get to see all the skin, all the sweat, every touch, every thrust short of the actual penetration, at all hours. A hundred years ago, women “just” wanted the right to take birth control to prevent pregnancy. Now, we’re sucking the brains out of viable eight-month old fetuses - under the same argument - it’s MY body.
Second, most folks feel morality in our nation is on the decline. We say it’s okay to lie, cheat, steal and even murder if you can come up with a reason. You may not think this is a moral issue, but some folks reading this thread think it is. That’s their right!
Third, you say this is about equal rights. When slaves were emancipated, that was the right thing. When they were given the right to vote, that was the right thing. When they were desegregated, that was the right thing. But now, we have affirmative action and reparations. They’re demanding MORE rights than the next guy. Are gays on the same track? I don’t know, but I have the right to ask if that’s where they’re headed.
Finally, most folks don’t like being pushed outside their comfort zone. Fanatics and zealots love to push the status quo “just because.” Sometimes it’s the right thing to do to push people outside their comfort zone, but sometimes it isn’t. That’s why we’re having this discussion.
Adultery and pre-marital sex used to be illegal. Now, if it is still illegal, it’s rarely prosecuted. So, we already took the first step down this road. Now, through same-sex marriage, we’re trying to take another. People have a right to be concerned that, like in so many other issues, it won’t stop here, and someone may demand the right to marry their dog, three sisters, or their ten-year old “lover”.
So, that’s what this thread is all about.
Personally, for the record, I haven’t made up my mind about this issue and was hoping to gain some insight through the postings. Can we restrict ourselves to comments about the issue and not make personal attacks.
By the way, Mormons aren’t the only religios group that disapproves of homosexuality, so can we leave a person’s religion out of it and speak only from the religious aspect. Religious belief is a factor for some in this debate, but let’s leave the denomination out of it.
Nothing worth having is easily gained, Jeremy. If this is worth having, you’ll accomplish more by giving people more than just “what can it hurt?” and “it’s ridiculous to think it would go further than this.” You have a challenge on your hand to convince us. So I say go for it. I, for one, am listening.
Vote:
0 0 I very much appreciate your response. A few counterpoints.
First, I see your point regarding the slippery sloap. However, isn’t it possible that the “lower” standards on television is a reflection of where society is at, rather than television forcing these things on the viewing public? In other words, does life imitate art or vise versa?
Second, I see your point about affirmative action. However, I think that allowing two consenting adults to marry is on the same plane as womens’ sufferage, not affirmative action. It is a basic civil liberty that should not be limited to what have been called “accidents of nature”.
I truly do not believe that allowing gay marriage will lead to polygamy, underage marriage, or legalized beastiality, but maybe these are points we should consider as we move forward. As we pass laws allowing gay marriage (it will happen), we should keep in mind that slippery slopes need not happen if we are cautious.
I will do some thinking and respond to your last point sometime in the future. I think that making the case FOR gay marriage is much less dramatic than making the case AGAINST it because we tend to want to restrict others rather than enable them … it’s a mystery of psychology.
Vote:
0 0 The State should treat all marriages as legal contracts only, and end the government-endorsement of marriage, including heterosexual ones. If the State no longer endorses marriages, there is no inequality, and gays, lesbians, polygamists, etc., can all draw up their own private agreements, just the same as heterosexuals could. The best resolution of inequalities under the law for gays would best be resolved by eliminating all State involvement in marriage (for heterosexuals, gays, polygamists, etc…), rendering every living human exactly equal under the law.
Vote:
I’m an atheist so the whole religion so I could care less about the whole religion argument except to point out the problems with the religion arguement. Throughout history religion has been used as an excuse put down certain segments of society. Religion thrives on creating seperate classes of society - those who are god’s beloved and those who are going to burn in some fiery lake.
Women are inferior to men because the bible says women should serve them. Society still hasn’t escaped this one completely. Women can’t be priests or their equivalents in many christian religions. Catholics and mormons to name two. Our nation founded on christian principles didn’t even think women should vote for a long time.
Blacks and Indians suffered horribly under our christian justified policies. Many religious people believe blacks are the descendants of Cain and thus its okay to discriminate against them. I’ve heard this exact thing come out of two my mormon coworkers mouths. And while blacks have gained a lot more equality there is still a a lot of racism out there.
Now its gays the religious people are after.
I’ll be utterly blunt on my opinion. If you are against gays you are within your rights as an American citizen just as you are within your rights to be a racist. But as an anti gay person you are in my opinion no better than a KKK member.
I 100% believe being gay is genetic. You can’t change who your primary preference of attraction is. The only time choice comes into the whole thing is who you choose to actually have sex with. Then its called bicuriousity or bisexuality.
I also believe civil unions are no different than seperate but equal drinking fountains, schools, and resteraunts.
And lastly, if your going to use the religion arguement the only way you can do so without being a complete hypocrite is live by ALL the bible, not just the parts you cherry pick. Thats means if your going to use the verses against gays you better be out there throwing rocks at kids who curse their parents since thats only a few lines away.