In reference to the protesters outside the mormon temple in L.A., I happened into a conversation / debate with two individuals whom I have never met, through a friend I have known for most of my life. It's the dumbest conversation ever and I'm not sure why I stayed engaged as long as I did, but it's kind of funny, so I present it for your horror and amusement.
Fanatic #1:
I love it when they say that they're all about tolerance...Yeah! So long as everybody agrees with them! If not, they will picket, harass, shout abuse, vandalize and sue until they get their way! Everyone is going to support gay marriage or they will make sure their life is a living hell!!! Yeah, that's real tolerance for ya!
me:
If someone told you that you couldn't go to the church you wanted or raise a family because you were mormon, you would have something to say about that, too. I think it is a violation of civil liberties to keep people who love each other from being legally recognized as married. If the church doesn't want to see them that way, that is the church's prerogative, but legally, it is unfair.
Fanatic #1:
It is no such violation. Marriage is recognized by God as a union between a WOMAN and MAN. The supreme court nor individual states have the right to redefine WHAT THEY DID NOT CREATE!!! The perameters of marriage were not outlined by the supreme court or any legal body. Marriage is not a legal union to provide equal rights to individuals. If same sex couples want to have a civil union, that is fine, but they do NOT have the right or authority to redefine marriage, pure and simple. Please...the people have voted on this TWICE and made their decision....why won't people let it go??? THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN!!!
Fanatic #2:
What if a 50 year old man and a 12 year old girl "love each other?" Is it a violation of civil liberties to keep them from getting married? What about the woman who is "in love" with a dolphin and wants to marry it? Is her civil liberties being violated? There will always be laws that some think to be unfair, because people come up with some pretty weird shiznit to practice. So the state decided to put it to a vote, and guess what? The people decided.
me:
So being gay is the same as bestiality? A 12 year old girl is a minor, whose parents would have to consent for her to marry the 50 year old man, so that argument doesn't work either.
And by "the people", you mean that since the majority are straight, that they should be able to override the rights of minorities then, yes?
Fanatic #2:
So, who decides that a 12-year-old is a minor? The people do! There are some who think that 12 years old is plenty grown up, After all, 12 year old girls menstruate, shouldn't they be considered women, able to bear children and be married? But no, the people have decided that 12 years old is too young to be married. How dare they discriminate against this 12 year old woman who is in love? How dare they take away her civil rights! You're accusing this dolphin of being a "beast"? You're willing to discriminate against a dolphin just because it doesn't look like you or act like you? That's discrimination! You're violating that dolphin's civil rights! That dolphin hasn't ever done anything to you! The dolphin and the woman love each other and so they deserve to get married! You're saying that just because YOU think the 12-year-old is a "minor",and YOU think the dolphin is a "beast", that they shouldn't be legally allowed to be married! And, since the majority of people don't marry 12-year-olds, and the majority of people don't marry dolphins, that YOU should be able to override the rights of THESE minorities?Everyone has to draw a line somewhere. Whether it be at gays or at dolphins, the definition of "marriage" is always going to have limits, it's always going to have boundaries. Otherwise, marriage would be meaningless; women would be marrying dolphins, and old men would be marrying children, and then what sanctity would marriage have anymore? No matter what, that "line" is going to discriminate against certain people and their choices. Apparently, the majority of the people draw the line before gay marriage.
me:
Wow. I am both amazed and appalled at your lack of logic. I grew up in a very religious household, went to church at least twice a week and attended seminary every morning, just like many others did. I was spoon fed the same rhetoric and managed to come out being open minded and having an understanding that the mormon god is only one collective group's opinion of religion and life.
Do you know the definition of bestiality? By that definition, a dolphin, or any other animal would fit right in. And being gay is in no way akin to being an animal.
Do you think that marriage or civil union will be any less sacred and important to two consenting gay adults than it would be to anyone else? Obviously you don't know a very large sample of gay people, if you think otherwise.
No one is challenging your family or your religion. They are only challenging the obvious discrimination which prevents able people from being married and living a happy life. Persecution against anyone is wrong.
Fanatic #1:
[quoting me] "They are only challenging the obvious discrimination which prevents able people from being married and living a happy life. Persecution against anyone is wrong."
By your own logic we should not persecute against 12 year olds who want to marry 50-year-olds or women who want to marry dolphins. Don't these people want to live their definition of a happy life? Should we challenge the obvious discrimination that prevents them from living a happy life?I'm not saying that gay marriage is the same as bestiality, not at all. I am simply pointing out that the talking points you use to justify gay marriage could just as easily be used for far more heinous crimes. You could use the same "right to a happy life" to justify rape, pedophilia, bestiality, abuse, neglect, theft, abortion, bigamy, drug addiction, larceny....the list goes on and on. Most people would not say that gay marriage is as bad as these incidents, but again, where do we draw the line? The people have decided where the line should be drawn.Gay partnerships already have the same rights in California as heterosexual couples, married or not. Prop 8 was not about discrimination; gays are already allowed all of the same rights. This was a decision made by the people to determine what the definition of marriage is, nothing more, nothing less. A paper certificate should not be the deciding factor between whether a person is leading a "happy life" or not. No one is challenging a gay person's "family or religion" with Prop 8; we are not preventing them from being together as a couple or living happily together for the rest of their lives. We are not preventing anyone from being happy, merely preserving the definition of marriage as per tradition.
Fanatic #2:
I'm just wondering what the point of voting is when the sore losers refuse to hear the MAJORITY's answer and try to overturn it? If Prop 8 had not passed, we would have to accept it, but guess what? IT DID!!! Live with it already! Enough! Nobody is stopping same sex couples from being together so quit crying about it! Rachel you are missing the point.. Prop 8 goes SO FAR past the marriage issue...look at MA and how they are indoctrinating school children as young as kindergartners that gay marriage is acceptable and good. Parents who oppose this are powerless as to what their children are taught in school! Rediculous!!! They do not even have the option of taking their children out of the classroom and can be jailed for this. You tell me, who is not tolerant and who discriminates!!!
Me:
Teaching children to be open minded and accepting of the world they live in is absolutely not intolerant, in fact it is quite the opposite. Forcing children to listen to prayer in class is just as offensive, to many people. And you do have an option to change schools. There are plenty of schools that teach creationism and discrimination all over the country.
Gay marriage IS acceptable. Using the majority as a bully crowd is the same thing that happened when blacks and women were denied the same rights and privileges as white men. Funny how quickly we forget. Discriminating against a minority group who contributes so greatly to our society and culture can easily be likened to the LDS people being driven out of Nauvoo and having to take a century or so to gain acceptance by the mainstream population.
Using the 12 y.o. / 50 y.o. example is faulty because if the 12 y.o.'s parents consent, then it is perfectly legal for that to happen. Frightening, but legal. Religion has no place in govt.
Fanatic #1:
Why should my children have to "change schools" because we don't want to swallow the "gay is okay" kool-aid??? Gay marriage is NOT acceptable - homosexuality is a sin. Don't even compare this to blacks or the saints driven from nauvoo. Nobody is being driven out of anywhere nor told to sit on the back of a bus. We are standing up for what we believe in because is it THE RIGHT THING TO DO. Do you remember Soddom & Gamorah (sp?)...Maybe you should reaquaint yourself with the definition of a sodomite! Sounds like someone needs to dust the cobwebs off their Book of Mormon or Bible and read up on the last days.....
me: (at this point, I am getting tired and it's not as funny to argue with ignorance anymore)
Why should my children have to suffer through a bunch of religious nonsense, in a publicly funded learning institution? Who says being gay is a sin? Your god? Certainly not my god. No god that I would believe in would ever be so cruel as to deny anyone the right to live and participate equally in the world with everyone else. Those books were written and interpreted by men and are interesting historical allegories.
And if you really want to go there, why were blacks not allowed in the church until conveniently, god came down to president kimball to tell him that it was suddenly okay?
Sodom and Gommorah blew up because the entire area was like a sulfer-filled powder keg, not because people were gay. Don't be so naive.
Excluding people from what is supposed to be a free society is not the right thing to do, ever. I wouldn't agree with it if someone did it to anyone based on religion and I don't agree with it based on sexual preference.
**I gave up on it after this point, mostly because it wasn't fun to debate it anymore and it started to make me sad how vehemently some people will hold onto beliefs that are just asinine. Then, I had to laugh, because the whole discussion was surreptitiously removed and the comment I had sent to the person who started the whole thing was not replied to and deleted. Funny stuff. This is why I love religion.....it makes people so logical and rational.
No comments :
Post a Comment