Disregard this blog. A response to WanderD's frustration. · 5:05pm Mar 30th, 2013
Recently, a certain highly-visible individual on FimFiction made a post that may or may not have been in poor taste. I posted a comment on that blog that I still stand by:
I'm not going to argue whether this Mr. Cooper is a bigot or not. I have no idea who he is and for all I know, his behavior is really unacceptable. I'm not even going to touch on the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality. However, it really bugs me when people are not allowed to judge a given behavior as wrong without being labeled as a hate-monger. Morality is complicated, and people have been drawing lines in the sand for as long as there have been groups of people living together. There is nothing wrong with making a decision about what is right and wrong, and making your opinion public. There are bad ways to go about this, and forcing a sort of behavior on others can be immoral if it isn't life-and-death, but the act of moral judgement is not inherently wrong.
While investigating the issue, I came across something refreshing and wonderful. While bigots tend to make the news, not everyone on the opposition is as loutish. I was heartened to see the official statement from my own church take a humanizing and conciliatory tone towards those they disagree with. To quote the page:
The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.
Would that everyone on both sides of this discussion could respond with as much understanding.
It's still discrimination. Telling one group of people they cannot have the same accesses to government benefits based on sexuality, what else is it?
958637 Yes, the case in front of the government is imbalanced and fundamentally flawed. There is a violation of rights inherent in both sides of the decision. The fact that this sort of thing would be enforced on anyone with the license to perform marriages is something that is often overlooked.
Honestly, I just don't understand why the government can let these small little things be. Just allow gay marriage to be allowed and we can move onto better things. Like actually making sure everybody can get a job.
958649 That would definitely be a much better subject for them to discuss. Government shouldn't be used to enforce belief, it should be occupied with security and prosperity alone.
958653
Exactly!
And honestly, I kinda wish the economy would get better.
Make it so that maybe my future financial life in college would be easier.
958644
Is that the case? I thought a church would have final say in who can and cannot marry in their facilities. Technically you would only be giving them the right to perform gay marriages if they chose to.
To act on one type of love is a sin, to act on another is alright? Kind of a double-standard, Blue. Love is love, and people should be free to act on it. This is very similar to the military's now-repealed 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy. 'Oh, it's alright if you're gay, as long as no one knows about it.' That kind of thinking is outdated. Not to say it's hate-mongering, but it's definitely outdated. The aforementioned policy is now repealed for a reason.
Me, I'm a 'live and let live' person. I'm perfectly alright with someone who's gay. I myself am not, but I won't criticize their lifestyle based on what gender they're attracted to. But if a gay person hits on me, I'll tell them, politely, that I'm not gay myself.
958660 The government issues the right to perform marriages. Anyone who receives this license is in a sense an agent of the government and must actively abide by its decisions. It's a fundamental and hidden breakdown of the separation of church and state. That was one of the big problems with Prop. 8.
958667
Are you certain? I know for example that the Catholic church won't marry a couple if one party is divorced and there's no annulment, even though legally there's no reason they can't marry in the eyes of the government.
I sometimes wish people were a bit more cynical. Instead of arguing the morality of gay marriage, they should ask, "What do I get out of this?".
As I understand it, weddings cost a lot of money. Money can't disappear, it only changes hands. Let the gays marry=moneymoneymoney.
Ka-fucking-ching.
958664 Everyone is absolutely entitled to live the life that they choose. However, every cause has an effect, and every choice has a consequence. You have to understand a bit of Mormon doctrine to know the whole story. We believe that certain blessings in the afterlife are directly connected to marriage and the procreative and faithful union of man and woman. We do not believe that those who act otherwise are damned to an eternal hell, but we do believe that they are not able to receive everything they otherwise could. There is no reason to spew invective against those who are in non-traditional relationships, but there is reason to encourage them to consider their ways.
958664 - In the context of religion, it's not a double-standard at all if your religion considers procreation to be the primary point of marriage (note that I said procreation, not just child-raising). Now, whether that's a good enough reason to make laws enforcing one definition over another is shaky at best, but you can't pretend that everyone agrees that marriage should be about love.
958674 They can do that because the government hasn't said anything about that. This threatens a specific and binding statement one way or another.
Hooray for people who appreciate peaceful, reasonable discourse and can look past their own positions! I may or may not agree with your position, but that's all right as long as we don't cram our metaphorical heads up our own plots so far that we can't hear each other. If I could thumbs-up a blog post, I would. I can't, though, as far as I know, so have this brohoof instead.
/)
Glad to see a fellow Mormon brony writing awesome fics, by the way. Waiting eagerly to see how AJ handles more of the hurdles of goddesshood.
958686 Exactly. And I agree that the fact that there is legal wrangling on this subject is quite distressing.
958687
Then it seems like the best compromise would be to advocate for the right of a church not to perform a marriage, gay or otherwise, rather than restrict the right from everybody.
The government can't force a church to recognize a marriage, any marriage, as spiritually legitimate. Only the legal status
958694 And that would be reasonable, but reason is a stranger to the halls of government these days.
Please tell me that this is a joke.
958689 Brohoof!
(\
Also, I'm over halfway through the next chapter.
958702 Pardon? That's a really vague and incendiary statement on a very sensitive topic.
958700
So... is it fair to say that you're pro gay marriage as long as your church wouldn't have to recognize or perform them? I'm not trying to jump in with a 'gotcha!' here, I'm just trying to highlight that there's a difference between being opposed to a particular restriction within a piece of legislation and gay marriage on the whole.
958713 It would be more accurate to say that I am pro-freedom and anti-legislation.
958706 For once, that's not how moral relativism works. You can't say that all opinions are valuable, and then insist that it's only your opinion that's right.
And this:
is no conciliatory statement, it's thinly veiled hate- mongering.
958716
'Pro-freedom' is a bit weaselly isn't it? Everybody's pro freedom. Two women or two men walk into a courthouse and asked to be considered a married couple in the eyes of the law. Let them do that or don't?
958644
Very true, and the government should absolutely NOT tell a church they had to marry someone.
But when speakin about the legal aspects, which is what the core of this argument really is, then they should extend those same benefits to same sex couples, regardless of if the church recognizes it or not. People forget that the Christian bible does not have a say in legalities.
958721 I am not a moral relativist. There is a right and a wrong. However, I am someone who values people regardless of their personal choices. Don't look for enemies. Disagreement is healthy and necessary, but it need not be combative.
958723 I say it has nothing to do with me. I won't condone it, but I won't picket the marriage or spit on them for their choices. Fair?
958733
I suppose, as long as you won't object to their right to do that in the first place which is what the case before the court is about.
958724 As I said, the case highlights a breakdown in the separation of church and state. It's all very frustrating.
958721 Also, let me say that while I do believe that there is one truth, I do not necessarily believe that I am in command of it.
958729>>958733 If I was not already following you, these two statements alone would have made me follow you. It's good to see another person who isn't afraid or ashamed of what they believe, and is able to stand on what they believe without being hateful or a bigot. Thanks for showing that not all people who do not support gay marriage are hateful. As someone who is a follower of Jesus, this is really refreshing to see. Thank you.
I don't know if any of you saw the comment I left on Wanderer's blog so I'm going to repeat it here, just because.
tl;dr get the state out of the marriage business.
958721 You've taken a complex issue and boiled it down to "I don't agree therefore they hate". Well done.
958911 Sorry if it came across as that. Yes, I do believe the stance to be stupid, but that is not what is bugging me about this statement.
What's bugging me is that instead of showing outright hate for gays, which is something that I could at least accept as a opinion albeit a stupid one, instead they offer pity for somebody elses opinion. If they don't want gays to marry, fine. If they don't want gays in their curches, sure whatever floats your boat. But instead treating being gay like it's some kind of sickness which has to be cured, that is downright insulting and really just incredebly hatefull.
958723
Not everyone is pro-freedom. The phrase has only become weasely because people just try to label themselves in whatever manner they've learned is "favorable". They don't actually dig in and start making decisions based on it. The word freedom has become corrupted. There's still a valid underlying concept, and sometimes people are using that concept when they use that word. (Blue Print's "let them be" stance does appear to be aptly summarized as pro-freedom.)
958911
Politically speaking (because you must understand political types see EVERYTHING as being associated with state action), this makes you 'anti-marriage', a stance I wholeheartedly agree with. Get the government out of marriage. It should stop regulating that aspect of culture. Let people handle their own arrangements.
I also agree with not using the courts to force people to do things, even if this is likely to result in shunning for people who live unusual lifestyles, such as by being overtly religious. We live in an age of extreme information transfer. The individuals suffering hostile bias can network and route around the damages. Meanwhile, people who are arbitrarily unfair suffer consequences for it - damage to their reputation, loss of customers, shaming and ostracism in return.
Something that's interesting is that I'm approaching this from the other angle. I'm not Christian, and not a voice for traditional arrangements. Top-down state-centric solutions end up restricting everyone. I think that culture would accommodate a greater variety than it currently does if the law were opened up to allow people to do as they please.
958800 Thank you! After all, regardless of our personal flaws, we're all God's children/part of the human family, however you believe.
958911 Well reasoned and well said. While I may not quite align with you point for point, I agree with you on the whole. Interestingly, most Mormon weddings are two or three stage affairs. First comes the obtaining of the marriage license, the completely uncelebrated legal aspect of the wedding. Then comes the covenantal wedding which is entirely between the couple and God. Finally, there's sometimes a public ring ceremony to go along with the reception and silly partying. (Seriously, Mormon receptions can get... odd.) All in all, the legal aspect, while required, is generally the least important part of the whole event.
958978 No, you're reading the comments of others into an innocent statement. If you were to look at the actual website, you would see that they are trying very hard to be very understanding and to acknowledge the reality and sincerity of what these people feel, while remaining firm to their convictions. They are opening a dialogue, and inviting those who understand this issue intimately and first-hand to discuss the problem. They even acknowledge that they don't have all the answers, and that there is more we all need to learn about the subject. That is phenomenal, rare and precious. It is also the exact opposite of hate-mongering.
959007 I have been described as anarcho-capitalist. While I do think government is necessary, I also believe that it is tantamount to violence. It is a last resort, for when society has broken down completely, rather than a court of first appeal.
So, yes, bro-hoof for a fellow iconoclast! /)
I've never understood the accusations of hate coming from all sides on a belief that just says 'I don't think it's right'. Where's the hate in disagreeing? I don't agree with people who go out and get drunk every weekend, does that mean I have to hate people who do it? Exactly the same situation. Similarly, I've always disagreed with the lifestyle of living and sleeping with someone before they're married, but I've never in my life been accused of hatred against my friends and family who live in such a way.
I think people narrow their viewpoint so much these days and don't look at the entire context. If a Christian doesn't hate a person because they choose to ... eat meat on Good Friday, for instance, why would we hate people who live a homosexual lifestyle?
I don't know if I made my point well at all, but I really resent being accused of hatred at every turn when the basis of the gospel is love.
And you keep impressing me. It's nice to see someone standing up for those of us who aren't hateful towards homosexuals, yet still take a firm moral stance that marriage between same-sex couples is wrong, and homosexuality is a sin.
All my yes.
All my very large and crazy wild yes.
Fireworks.
Airplanes.
A triumphant six-piece trumpet harmony.
And a little squirrel singing in the rain.
They all accompany my yes.
(Mennonite by heritage, Christian by faith)