Saturday, September 27, 2008

The Emotional Byproducts of a Yes Vote on Prop 102

Dear Thoughtful, Emotional Fans,

My last entry encouraged everybody in Arizona to vote yes on Proposition 102, a proposition that would make it clear that same-sex marriages are unconstitutional. I stick by my convictions. I'm going to vote yes on prop 102.

But let's stop and think about what we're actually saying when we vote yes on 102. How will a yes vote affect our friends? How do we simutaneously tolerate homosexuals and prevent them from marrying?

I've given these questions a lot of thought, mostly because in my studies at college, in the theatre department, I've delevoped friendships with homosexuals. So homosexuality has become a very real subject to me, unlike, say dragons and Eskimos.

After a lot of thought, I wrote one of my homosexual friends the following letter: (names have been omitted/altered.)

Dear JS,

Hi, this is Telemoonfa. Remember me?

I looked up your address on the NAU search thing so I could mail you this letter. I hope you don’t mind. I wanted to mail you a letter rather than email you a letter.

I’m writing you this letter because I’ve been thinking about you lately, mostly because of recent political developments. But first, we haven’t talked for a while, so some small talk is in order.

How are you doing? Are things going well? I saw your name on the brochure for the 2009-2009 NAU theatre season. Looks like you’re directing a play. That’s awesome! Congratulations. I enjoyed your work in Directing One and in Directing Two, so I bet your next directing effort will be solid as well.

I haven’t seen you lately, but from I know of your personality, I assume you’re keeping yourself busy in the theatre department with classes, rehearsals, clubs, activities and etc.

As for me, I’m doing pretty well. I’m still here at NAU, and probably will be until the spring of 2010. I’m a graduate student in the English department now. I actually teach English 105 and JM, a freshman theatre major in Twelfth Night, is in my class. My wife works as a teller at Wells Fargo. I have a part time job in a warehouse, too, so I’m pretty busy these days.

But I miss the theatre department. (Well, I miss acting; I don’t necessarily miss the NAU theatre department.) I miss being in plays and rubbing elbows with creative theatre people. I miss the thrill of being before an audience, under those stage lights.

I don’t miss theatre with an unbearable ache, though. Maybe being a teacher is satisfying my self-centered desire to act in front of people, because I get to stand up and perform in the classroom when I teach English 105. Or maybe I’m growing out of the acting phase of my life. (I’m being dramatic. It’s not like I’ve been uninvolved in theatre for years. It’s only really been five months.)

How much I miss being personally involved in theatre is questionable, but my love for theatre is certain. There’s a certain spirit in the creation of plays that I have found nowhere else, and a certain camaraderie develops among cast mates that is unlike any other type of camaraderie I’ve come across. It’s interesting; I’ve gotten to know more people better in the theatre department than in the English department, even though I’ve taken more English classes here than theatre classes. In fact, the only club I’ve been a part of in college, with any significant amount of my participation, has been ETC, the Educational Theatre Company.

Sometimes around campus I run into people from the theatre department and chat. I can go over to the Performing and Fine Arts building now, and run into some of the same people I remember from plays and classes and such. Next year, though, I’ll recognize fewer people in the theatre department. And the year after that, I’ll recognize even fewer people. Finally, in a decade or two, the whole building will be remodeled, and the current theatre students, the familiar people we now associate with, will be replaced by an entirely alien group of theatre students. Those future students will have stranger voices and stranger faces and stranger bodies. Maybe, in a decade or two, some of the familiar faculty will remain, but maybe not. The point is, in a few decades, I’ll be a foreigner to everyone in the NAU theatre department.

OK, now on to why I was motivated to write this letter to you. This is a touchy subject, but for some reason I really feel like broaching it. I’ve recently become involved in a political group that supports proposition 102, a proposition on this upcoming November ballot. Have you heard about this proposition? The proposition is trying to add an amendment to the Arizona State Constitution that would read, “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.”

I thought of you because you're the homosexual I know the best, and I consider you a friend.
I said I’ve recently become involved in a political group supporting 102. To be more specific, I’ve made lots of phone calls telling people about prop 102, asking them if they are registered to vote in Coconino County and asking them if they would like to have an early ballot mailed to them. I’m not sure how much I’ll do with this political group, but soon I might actually be sitting at a booth in the mall or maybe downtown, informing people about prop 102 and encouraging them to vote for it. I’ve imagined what it would be like if you happened to come to the mall and saw me sitting there, at a pro- prop. 102 booth. Would you think I was a traitor?

Would you be shocked to see me openly opposing gay marriage, a cause that is so dear to you?
But you knew what my beliefs were all the time, didn’t you? All the time when we were in classes together, and in Rhinoceros together, and in ETC together, you knew what my beliefs were. I know you are familiar enough with the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to know its position on homosexuality. And you knew that I was and still am a devout member of the LDS faith. And so, sadly, this issue divides us.

I feel like broaching this subject because I’m tired of small talk. I love small talk, but there’s comes a time when it needs to be replaced by more important things. I feel like my emotional life has suffered because I have declined to get past small talk. In fact, maybe I’ve had trouble developing and maintaining meaningful friendships because I’m so emotionally unavailable. Or maybe I’m intellectually detached.

I often withhold my inner thoughts because my inner thoughts aren’t polite or safe. I remember some advice that my father gave to me before I started my first job. He said something like, “There’s two things that you should never talk about at work: religion and politics.” That’s good advice really. Following that advice prevents confrontations in the workplace, but I feel like if people never talk about anything that might be offensive, that creates a whole new set of problems.

I remember one time in particular, backstage, JH brought up homosexuality, and he read or quoted from the Bible a passage basically saying that God disapproved of homosexuality. It got kind of quiet in the dressing room, and then MA, on the costume crew, said “Let’s not talk about religion backstage.”

At that moment, I thought, but did not say, “Why can’t we talk about religion backstage?” In my view, religion is one of the most important subjects in the world; religion has largely shaped history, and religion answers the terrible question people have wrestled with for ages: what happens after death? So, what could be more important than religion? Why couldn’t we talk about religion backstage? Were we avoiding religion because we weren’t mature enough to discuss it? Were we avoiding a fight?

There we were in the dressing room talking trivially about pop culture, the play, gossip, whatever, and that was all fine, but somebody mentions religion and the room gets quiet and people are afraid to talk.

So, I’m writing this letter because I want to talk to you about it. (And writing about things helps me to sort out my own thoughts and feelings.)

I’ve wanted to talk with you about homosexuality before. Once when I saw you and AC kissing in the lobby of the Studio Theater, part of me wanted to say, “Wow, that’s the first time I’ve seen two men romantically kissing each other.” But I didn’t say that. I didn’t say anything. I was polite. I stayed silent.

Sometimes I’ve wanted to ask you, “What’s it like to be homosexual?” But the right moment for that discussion never seemed to come up.

Gosh, this is so hard…

I tolerate you; I tolerate the homosexual lifestyle. Please understand that this letter is not hate speech. Please understand that my moral and political stance on the homosexual issue is not one borne of hate or intolerance. (And by the way, for what it’s worth, some of my favorite artists, in theatre, literature, and music, are homosexual.) But, JS, the bottom line is, I don’t think that homosexuals should be able to marry the way that heterosexuals can marry.

Why? It all comes from my religion, from the wisdom of my forebears, and from my own thoughts and life-experiences. Please understand that my stance on homosexuality isn’t a thoughtless, careless opinion. It’s an opinion I’ve thought about heavily. I won’t go in doctrine now. You can look up my Church’s official stance and commentary if you so desire.

But I have to man up to what my stance is. I feel a responsibility to own up to what I’m doing. I realize that when I’m promoting proposition 102, I’m not just offending the abstract idea of homosexuality out there somewhere; I’m offending my friend, JS, a living, breathing person.

Please understand that I would regard myself as a hypocrite if I pretended to endorse homosexuality in social settings and then voted yes on 102. Wouldn’t it be deceitful if I, say, acted overjoyed when somebody came out of the closet, or if I acted ecstatic when a homosexual couple started going steady, and then voted yes on 102?

I despise hypocrisy. That’s why I’m writing you this letter. I feel as though telling you how I feel about homosexuality is a step towards owning up to my positions- and a step towards becoming an honest man.

I feel a responsibility to talk to you personally. Instead of creeping around, hoping that I don’t run into any of my homosexual friends when I’m out promoting proposition 102, I feel like it’s the right thing to inform you personally and up front about my recent political undertakings.
After all, I consider you a friend, and I think you ought to know my stance on homosexuality and on proposition 102.

I’d like to hear what you have to say in response to this letter, if you have the time or inclination to respond.

I look forward to seeing all the NAU plays this year, and I wish you success in all your endeavors. Thanks very much for your time and I’ll see you around.

Sincerely,

Telemoonfa

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

Did he respond?

The Boid

telemoonfa said...

No, he did not respond. Although, I'm not totally sure if he got the email, because NAU is in the process of switching over to a new email system and so my email to JS might have got lost in the mix up. But I think JS just does not want to respond, and that's fine, I guess. I can understand.

telemoonfa said...

Oh yeah, um... I forgot to say that I ended up emailing him the letter instead of mailing it because I could'nt find his mailing address on the NAU search thing, so I changed the letter slightly when I emailed JS, but not very much.

Anonymous said...

In Arizona, same-sex marriage is not allowed and out-of-state marriages between same-sex couples are not recognized. Despite anyone's view (yours or mine), legal union between persons of the same gender is by no means unconstitutional. That's why supporters of the prop want to go in and change the wording. A petty gesture.

In your bolg you seem to be tripping over your conscience quite a bit. I'm interested to know: Do you in any way feel threatened?

telemoonfa said...

Dear anonymous person who left the last comment: Thanks for leaving a comment that's interesting and challenging.

Right now, I don't think same-sex marriage is unconstitutional or constitutional, really. I don't think that same-sex marriage is mentioned at all in the constitution (either the federal or the state constitution). Of course, maybe laws regarding homosexuals is in there somewhere. I have'nt read the whole thing. I just think we ought to make the constitution as clear as possible, so we ought to add an ammendment to the constitution clearly outlining what the law about same-sex marriages is.

About feeling threatened, I'm not sure I know what you mean.

Anonymous said...

Well answered. It's true that most state constitutions state absolutely nothing about homosexuals. It's like our very existence would be better left ignored than acknowledged. As it stands, a ban on same-sex marriage (in this or any other state) would, in fact, be unconstitutional.

And I agree with you: The constitution of Arizona needs to be more clearly defined. It needs to be amended into something that is more up-to-date with the current social climate. I simply can't see how legalization of gay marriage can possibly endanger the status quo. I don't see - can't imagine - how it could ever prohibit or discourage heterosexual couples from going about their business as usual. It shouldn't matter.

I consider the supporters of 102. Many of them are people I love. They seem threatened by something I'm unable to fully comprehend. The question persists: Do you feel threatened by the possibility of gays marrying, and if so, why?

telemoonfa said...

First, here’s official stuff from official people on homosexuality, gay marriage, etc:

http://www.princetonprinciples.org/
http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html

The following is copied and pasted from www.lds.org.

"We believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. We believe that marriage may be eternal through exercise of the power of the everlasting priesthood in the house of the Lord.

"People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.

"We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families" (Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).

Second, here’s what I have to say about gay marriage: I guess I do feel threatened by the idea of gay people marrying. Why? Because homosexuality radically changes the status quo. For a long long long time, men have married women. That’s the way it has been for a long time, and that’s the way I believe God intended it. I was taught as a child that males are supposed to marry females, and that’s what I intend on teaching to my children one day. (I know appealing to a tradition is a logical fallacy, and I know that appealing to God isn’t exactly “logical” but… when it comes right down to it, after all my reasons about sociology and utopian ideals and secular humanism have been challenged or criticized, all I have left to defend my position on gay marriage is this: God says that gay marriage is bad.)

I consider myself a deep thinker.

I consider myself smart in some ways. (Read my blog to read see some of my deep thoughts) But logic and reliance upon your own mind to make sense of the world only takes you so far. Ambrose Pierce said that philosophy is “a route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing,” and I sort of agree with him.

Relying soley on emotions, too, is troublesome. So…

I get my whole concept of the universe from religion. And religion is not an “opiate of the people” as Karl Marx once said, and organized religion is not “a crutch for weak-minded people” as Jesse the Body Ventura once said. I think by and large religion (and especially my religion) has been a force of good in the world. Of course there have been horrible atrocities committed in the name of religion, but let God be the judge of which acts are holy and which acts are sinful. God the Father is perfect, all wise, all-knowing, pure, just, merciful, loving, kind, and all the things the Scriptures say about him.
You may think I’m misguided, ignorant, or naïve, but remember that Christ said in Matthew 11:25, “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou has hid these things from the wise and prudent and hast revealed them unto babes”

Oh, I just thought of something, though. My church and my God say that alcohol is a no-no, (D&C 89) but I’m not totally sure if I would support another Prohibition. Hmm… mixing church and state… hmmm… really, I think this country was founded on Christian ideals, and I think that God had a hand in establishing the U.S. Constitution. D&C 101: 77, 80 and I know it’s a big gray area… mixing church and state… I’m not totally endorsing an LDS theocracy… but maybe I am… I actually do think that an LDS theocracy would be great. It’d be Utopia! Well… check out this quote: Jeffrey R. Holland said in General Conference, April 1996, “the gospel of Jesus Christ holds the answer to EVERY social and political and economic problem this world has ever faced.”

But I wouldn’t want to force my religion on other people…

Anyway, I’ve brought up a lot of stuff that may or may not be helpful to you. My thoughts aren’t totally straightened out. I realize that, but, whatever, you get the gist of what I’m saying.
Let me explain something else. I do think that homosexual actions are sinful, but don’t feel too offended by that, because I think a lot of things are sinful. I think a lot of people are sinful, too. I’m sinful sometimes. I’ve done plenty of things that I’m ashamed of.

But I’m against gay marriage because gay marriage changes the definition of marriage for all of America. Marriage isn’t just about two consenting adults agreeing to share sex and money; marriage is also about children. I believe that God established the male and the female genders (Adam and Eve) in the beginning so they could be helpers to each other and friends with each other, but also so they could raise their children, Cain and Abel and Seth and all the other ones, in a family with a father and a mother.

See, I do think that if homosexual marriage is legalized in the USA, it will be bad for society. The bedrock of America, I think, has been a solid wife and husband striving to raise a good family.

One of the things that bother me is that homosexuals think that their actions are “no big deal” that it’s not hurting anyone. I know this sounds crazy, but I do think that it is hurting people. Every thought we think has a negative or a positive affect on the world. Even if it seems like we’re not directly hurting anybody, we are. There’s a bunch of spiritual energy going around and we’re affecting it with our actions.

Another reason why I hope Prop 102 passes: in California in 2000, the people voted to make a law prohibiting gay marriage, but then in 2008, Supreme Court Justices overturned that decision. In a democracy, the people, not a few supreme court justices, should be making the laws.

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage

I know we differ. I don’t expect to change your mind on this subject, and I’m sure you don’t expect to change my mind, either. But hopefully through this exchange we’ve come to a better understanding of each other’s viewpoints.

Please understand that by supporting prop 102 I’m only doing what I think is best for America and what God would have me do. I hope I don’t get intolerant or nasty in the process of supporting prop 102, and I don’t think I will.

Whew! I wrote a lot!

I have to go do homework now.

Anonymous said...

my grandfather joined your church years ago when black people were not allowed to be baptized. they had no rights then either as far as the constitution was concerned. your church hung onto it's stance for years, because it could. now years later when your church has be forced to rethink it's views on allowing African Americans to be part of it's machine, I his grandchild, am embarrassed that he would embrace an organization that proclaimed love and acceptance then turned it's back on a populace because it was seen as bad and wrong. Ever wonder if, in 50 years when gay marriage is the standard, your grandchildren will be ashamed of you for trying to deny people their basic human rights?

Anonymous said...

All religions are a form of non-secularized government unto themselves. They can establish and enforce whatever rules or ideals they feel to be important and members of their group will follow it. I think it’s important to be around others who share your heart, your faith, your view of the world. But I also think it’s just as important that we reach out from our points of origin and try to gain a better understanding of those people outside it; people we don’t understand or are afraid to understand. We cannot be afraid of change. As a nation, we need to be able to adapt.

I personally believe that religion is an outmoded tool. Nothing is more terrifying to me than millions of people claiming to strive for one unvarying notion of spiritual fulfillment. And as much as I think religion is totally primitive and paranoid and wrong and sinful (yes, I believe in sin), I would never tell someone they shouldn’t practice. I would never support any motion to rescind freedom of religion from the Constitution, not just because it was written down 232 years ago but also because it would be heinously unconscionable.

Homosexuals do not pose a threat to you. That’s as irresponsible as saying blacks or Jews or Muslims or the developmentally disabled pose a threat to you. Denying people their basic civil liberties based upon the precepts of your own faith is not the first step on the path to a better, more unified world.

You cite the Bible a lot and tout its truth. I’m not interested one wit in the Book of Mormon, but the Old Testament says a few things about homosexuals. I always think of Lot’s reaction when the mob of gay rapists comes to his door:

5and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them."
6Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, 
7and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.
8Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof."
(Gen. 19:5-8)

Whenever I think of homophobes and anti-gays and heteronormatives, I think of Lot and his stupidity and try not to hate them the way they seem to hate me.

You’re a person of solid faith. You say you don’t wish to force your religion on other people. But by voting yes on 102, you are doing just that. I don’t believe morality has any place in contemporary politics. A truly Utopian society cannot be founded upon a moral code, but an ethical one. Thomas More knew this. He was no dummy. He knew it was unattainable. He called it Utopia, because, literally translated it means “No Place”. I don’t seek a perfect world. It’s saddening to think anyone would be so naïve to think it possible.

Anonymous said...

no defense, huh? shame on you.

telemoonfa said...

Dear anonymous,

I don't really feel like talking about gay marriage stuff anymore. You bring up some really good points, and I'm not sure how to defend my stance anymore. That's why I didn't respond. But I'm glad that you commented so much and made my blog more interesting and I'm glad we got to talk about this subject.

We just come from such different paradigms/worldviews/whatever that it's hard to communicate. I get most of my views on reality and everything from religion. I think religion, well, my religion, the LDS religion, is great. Really I feel like arguing via comments on my blog is not going accomplish very much. I think the best thing to do now is just agree to disagree.

I'd like to refer you again to those links/ web adresses I gave you in my previous comment. For official stances from the pro-prop 102 people, and for official statements from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, you can go to their website or you can read the Book of Mormon and ask God if it's true.

It's weird not knowing who you really are. I've never been one to talk to strangers on the Internet. I think I personally know, in real life, most of the people who leave comments on "Telemoonfa Time" But since I don't know who you are, it's hard for me to communicate with you. I'm not asking you to identify yourself; I just think that leaving comments like this isn't the best medium for communication.

Maybe your right about gay marriage being the norm in fifty years or so. Maybe people will come to view me as a bigot, or maybe people already do think I'm a bigot. Oh well.

I am excited to see what happens on November 4th. I'm actually a little more interested in Prop 102 than I am in the presidential election.

Anonymous said...

I'm definitely offended by same sex marriage. And I'm not ashamed of my being offended. I absolutely despise it. I also feel threatened

I have homosexual friends. I do, they want me to be gay too but I say "no way" And so they spread lies about me that I'm in the closet gay. which is untrue in the name of all that is secular.

An opiate is an opiate, the people who use them are the idiots. Its like: If there were no guns there would be no murder. Are guns evil or the wielder of the weapon?
Religion is merely a tool for Natural man to abuse.

"Homosexuality: an Opiate to sinners."
If you don't like me for saying mean things about gays then try to stop me. maybe if you get angry I'll think better of you. (that's the Catch-22)

And go KKK. They're people too that need to be loved and appreciated, just like the "African Americans" ( I prefer derogatory terms)
Lets also love: Child Molesters, Nazis, Communists, Mexicans, Scientologists, Queers! Be it who ever! We love who we choose, and suppress who we choose, And I'm not going to justify my "Straight-White -Christian" dominance, because that wouldn't change my stance on Prop 102 or any controversial subject. It would make me a hypocrite if I justified my vote 102 to one of my homosexual friends.

I'm voting yes on 102 baby.

There are somethings in life, where you can't everything you want. whichever course of action you take. Sometimes there's no easy way out and you have to endure a bit of pain.

Anonymous said...

i was raised in your church. i read the book of mormon. i have my seminary copy sitting on my shelf.

we do know each other.

however, not all of the anonymous comments are mine, only 2. but i stand by what has been said....all of it that defends the rights of people. i think if you think real hard, you'll know who i am. and i am surprised at how narrow minded and closed off you've become from the guy you could have been.

there may come a time in the future when you really wish that you'd been more accepting and loving to the gay community. or maybe you'll at least wish you'd kept your mouth shut so your poison didn't influence people you love. this is something that will hit really close to home for you some day. and by the time you realize the damage you've done it could be to late.

don't let it be to late.

also, blogs have comment sections for communication... if you don't want to communicate through your blog and it's comment section, why blog at all?

Anonymous said...

This is my fourth comment.

Yeah. There are at least two anonymous commentators here, myself being the one who capitalizes his sentences. Sorry for the confusion. I intended to leave only one comment but then gave up and decided to be long-winded.

I'm glad we got to banter over this. Reaching an agreement isn't a goal here, and I think that, for a change, it's refreshing.

And we have our anonymity. You, me, and whoever that other one is. I assume Telemoonfa is not your legal identity? Does it matter if we don't know who the other is? If I post comments on your blog in the future, I will leave this guy behind:

>8D

Anonymous said...

Being more loving and accepting to the gay community is the equivalent of giving up. I can "hide behind religion" I have the right and the mind to do so.

I hate it, whether or not religion is involved. And I'm going to fight it.

According to my religion the only other person you absolutley NEED (you can care about more in fact its wlecomed)to care about is your spouse. You and your spouse are top priority in your lives.

and Two men or two women are nat spouses to each other.

Anonymous said...

you're wrong, sparrow. you may not have a same sex spouse. but others can and should be allowed to. your choices are yours alone. you should not try and choose for everyone.

Anonymous said...

anonymous at 11:11,

I think part of the discussion going on in states across the country is whether or not the state should legally recognize same sex couples as "spouses" and as being "married." If homosexual couples feel they are spouses to each other and refer to each other as their spouse, that doesn't bother me, people can call themselves whatever they want, but that doesn't mean the state has to legally equate their relationship to marriage.

The Boid

Anonymous said...

the state should legally equate same sex relationships to marriage. what does it hurt the hetero crowd to give same sex partners the same rights they have? really...what would it hurt? this is basic human rights we're talking about here....

Anonymous said...

To Sparrow,

A man who goes through his life fighting himself can never truly win.
Hide for as long as you can feel safe where you’re at.
Continue the fight as long as you need to, but be open to finding new ways of winning.

>8D

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 6:33,

In California, where I live, domestic partners by law have the same rights that spouses have.

But more to the point, in my view, everyone has the opportunity to avail themselves of the rights of being married by getting married. Not everyone gets married and that is their choice to not get married.

I know that many homosexuals feel they have no choice but to be gay and I don't dispute that some people are more naturally inclined than others to be gay, but I do believe there is a component of choice involved in being gay.

I think it ultimately woud hurt society to promote gay marriage in the same way that traditional marriage is promoted. No society or civilization can be perpetuated by gay marriage, it will never procreate enough. I don't want my kids to be taught that gay marriage is equal to traditional marriage. It's not. Only one builds society. I am not offended by gay couples, I know many of them. But I don't think their lifestyle is equavalent to marriage.

The Boid

telemoonfa said...

I saw Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist last night and I sort of enjoyed it but I also sort of did not enjoy it. The movie was kind of a cute love story, but there was a lot of sex and drugs and there were some sexy drugs, too. The movie made me think, "What is the world coming to?" and "Kids these days!" I know I sound old, but uh...

One of my biggest problems with the movie was all the homosexuality and all the wimpy men in it. The movie made me miss John Wayne and Clint Eastwood and James Bond.

Homosexuality is just not good for the building up of a strong society. And I think the gay lifestyle is not healthy emotionally, either, because homosexuality is against God's plan. It makes families not fantastic!

Yee-haw! That's right! I'm a cowboy!

Yee-haw! Yip-yip!

Get along, little doggies!

That's what I think. That's my opinion.

But I think sparrow sounds a little crazy. I think I agree with him, but wow does sparrow sound radical and in your face. I wonder if sparrow would be as in-my-face if he were actually in-my-face. I doubt it. I bet I would not be as bold as I am being, either, if I were talking in person... well, it depends on the situation. Maybe I would be pretty bold. I don't know.

Two lines from Bob Dylan and the Grateful Dead seem fitting here:

"The times they are a changing" and "what a long strange trip it's been."

It times like these when I want to sit on a porch out in the middle of nowhere and whittle or read a good book.

Happy Halloween everybody!

Anonymous said...

gay couples can have kids. they do all the time. i would want my kids to be taught to be themselves, whoever they feel they are. i would want them to grow up in a world where they feel secure knowing that they have rights regardless of their sexual identity. i would want my sons and daughters to know that they can marry, be parents, and do whatever they want. it would build society.

and if we're talking about this from a procreational standpoint, there will always be both straight and gay people. there will always be enough straight people to populate the planet. and there will always be enough gay couples ready and willing to adopt the babies that the heteros didn't want. people being gay isn't going to end the world.

neither is giving them rights.

also, it's not like all straight couples breed....

just because i would want to have my wife covered by my work health care, and have her raise my kids if i died and just because i'd like to enjoy the same rights as any straight couple doesn't mean the government would be promoting it. they'd just be making it so people have equality....isn't that what the country is supposed to be about. it's not like their going to be telling everyone GO BE GAY NOW OR ELSE!!!

come on.

oh, and as far as choice goes? did you get to choose yours?

Anonymous said...

Haha. "sexy drugs"! XD

But really, cowboys are pretty gay.

That's what I think.

>8D

Anonymous said...

Would I be as "in your face" if I didn't have the luxury of a computer? That is a question. but being a mere child, I abuse my nature of being immature.

I throw temper tantrums left and right.

I doubt anyone of the gay crowd apprecaited my hate for them.
I realized I would not be liked when leaving those comments.

Homosexuals cannot reproduce. It takes sperm and egg. not two of the either. In Vitro isn't passing on genes from your own body, its using someone elses genes. Its not you're own flesh and blood your raising.

Although I do support In Vitro for infertile women who wish to be mothers. And I support adoption but its not reproducing. (to be once again offensive) Adoption and In Vitro are equivalent to picking up the leftovers.

And There should be some sort of cooperation between church and state. The state shouldn't say what marriage is if it goes against religion, especially since religion invented marriage.

If the state defines marriage against that which religion then there is gonna be some bad feelings against the state from people who stand with their religion.

to, >8D: I'm not hiding. I don't feel safe. I'm still threatened by homosexuals killing the sacred union that is marriage!!
That's why I'm excersising my right to vote yes on 102. and commenting on this blog post.

to,telemoonfa: you know who I am. and my personality. Kids are into sex and drugs and I despise it too.
I'm a kid but I know better.
My favorite thing to say is a Bob Dylan Quote.
"Don't stand in the doorway don't block up the hall for he that gets hurt will be he who has stalled."

This is like a call to action!!
To Homosexual supporters: Sorry if I offened you all. but its my true thoughts and feelings. now shouldn't you embrace my thoughts and opinions if you want me to embrace yours? but the problem is: My thoughts and feelings and your thought and feelings do not go together. You will never embrace me and I will never embrace you, the only way it may happen is if one of us changes or there's a compromise. but I wouldn't count on either, so i suppose it is futile to even write these comments.

To, the Boid 6:33: There is definately a choice in being gay or straight. Children, aren't occupied with sexual attraction so at some point they need to decide if they're to conform to the straight crownd or conform to the gay crowd. So I say: raise your children so they'll know which orientation is right.

In response to that last line: It is a matter of opinion as to which sexual orientation is correct, but as Fathers and Mothers, they need to raise their children into what will make them happy and successful. I don't believe going against your parents in such a dynamic matter such as sexual orientation will be either happy or successful.

of course that's my opinion which seems to offend people easily..

"Families not Fantastic"

Cowboys are not gay. if they were having sex with the same gender as themselves then they would be gay cowboys.

You're not gay because of your profession, being gay is left to intimacy. There's no difference between a cowboy and a straight cowboy when it comes to the work they do. Wrangling cattle and such, where's the sexual implications?

If were gonna talk about rights (as far as healthcare and such goes) business is not really occupied with the morals, its all economics. If they don't view gay couples as people they want to cover then they don't. for whatever reason.

As Far as government goes,(tax cuts on married couples and such) If they majority of people do not want to include gay couples then majority rules. thats the beauty of a democray. Hence the prop 102.

I'm worked up over this, I'm feeling emotional byproducts of a vote on 102.

Anonymous said...

I was of course being facetious with the cowboy remark.

Sexuality is an innate characteristic. Being homosexual is never a choice. Living as a homosexual is. The distinction is plain.

“With baby-blood
upon their hands
they saw our love
and named it sin.”
- Alan Moore, The Mirror of Love

While being a monumental element in humankind’s development, religion (specifically Western religion) has done just as much to keep people apart as it has to bring them together. I don’t imagine most gay couples would wish to be married within an institution that wants nothing to do with them. I believe the union of marriage between a man and woman is sacred and should be treated as such. It’s not such a trifling thing that it can just be “killed” or made obsolete. People's love and faith are stronger than that.

And being raised by two parents with opposing genitalia who may or may not be sexually active with one another guarantees nothing for the child. By promoting this sentiment we only undermine the complexities of the American family.

>8D