If you do not wish to discuss this topic...pass over it. But, I just thought I would start a discussion and hopefully we can be open-minded...especially since it involves some of our family members.
I am not one to be closed minded, and in fact my mind is probably more open now to different viewpoints than ever before, especially since I have experienced some things in the past ten years or so that has opened my eyes to certain legal aspects of the American society. That being said, I know that some people would rather not discuss this topic, and if so, feel free to move on and don’t follow this string of the blog. However, since some of us think that this kind of open discussion has helped bring the family closer in many ways, I might be good to discuss this…as I might learn something myself. Since Prop 8 in California passed, banning gay marriages and designating marriage as between a man and a woman there are obviously differing opinions. My opinion is that I agree with Prop 8. I think it should have been passed as it was. I am glad for that. I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman and that it is a “right” that all men and women have should they chose it. In my opinion, gay and lesbian couples have made the choice not to be married by choosing to live their lives with someone of the same sex. Free agency is always theirs and that should not be infringed upon. Let them chose to live together if they so chose. Let no one infringe on their choice of free agency. However, their choice also should have consequences. Those consequences should not entitle them to all of the blessings and privileges that society in general deems befitting to those who obey and follow the norms of society. Let me give you a personal and close to home example. Society has deemed that what I did many years ago merits me losing some privileges and rights that I once had. One of those rights was that I had the right to vote in all elections. While I was on probation, I could not vote, that right was taken away because I did not live up to society’s norms. On the other hand, as I came back into society’s norms and fulfilled my legal obligations, I was once again granted the right to vote. Society has stated that marriage and it’s rights and benefits should be for those relationships that are distinctly between a man and a woman. Those who do not fit that norm, are not being allowed the same rights. And, that’s okay. Here is where I disagree with the “majority” of society and probably agree more with Doug and Nick. I feel that some basic benefits and privileges ought to be allowed to those who chose not to be married but rather have a union or partnership. I feel that healthcare benefits ought to be extended to them, legal trusts and rights to powers of attorney and the like ought to be theirs. I do not feel that they should be allowed to file “joint returns” because joint returns were meant to benefit “families” and “families” were originally intended for “married” couples. I do not believe that adoption rights should be granted to non-“married” people/couples because I firmly believe that all children have the right to have a father and a mother in the home…both a male and a female role model. By the same token, because I broke the norms of society…much like gay and lesbian couples are doing….I cannot adopt nor even apply for adoption…I have broken the norms of society and I have to live with that! I know that these are just a few points of conflict or topics that could be discussed but to discuss everything would take days and days of indepth discussion. Maybe an evening at a family gathering could we all get together and discuss these or other topics…I think it would be interesting should everyone be willing to open their minds and view others opinions without getting upset of disgusted. I love you all. - Deric
Thank you, Deric, for continuing to open the discussion. As promised, I will makes some posts of my own.
But my first reaction has to do with the word norms. It is such a loaded word. Norms of course vary from locality to locality, from group to group. And norms change over time. A lot. Norms in some countries allow various forms of polygamy, various ages at which a child can be married or given in marriage against her/his will, laws regarding divorce etc. That a certain practice is a norm does not by any stretch make it moral. Two examples: it is now the norm (normal) in Canada for gays to marry and they do regularly across Canada in every province. However, many Canadian LDS still view it as immoral. Female genital circumcision (most often gross mutilation) is normal in many societies. That does not make it moral. The use of societal norms as an argument is not a good one for banning same-gender marriage.
Societal norms change as societies become enlightened and changed. There are myriad examples of this. Remaining with the marriage theme, interracial marriage has only recently been accepted as normal, was outlawed before.
Deric is being very honest, but I must respectfully point out that some norms have to do with breaking the law and others don't. The norms regarding gays and marriage do not (any longer) have anything to do with breaking laws. (There are still sodomy laws on the books in many states including Utah. Utah refuses to either enforce them or revise them, but this is the subject of another post.) So in this regard, I don't believe the comparison holds and may lead us intellectually astray as bad comparisons are apt to do.
The term "norm" caught my attention as well. I agree with Doug the the term is not quite accurate, though I think I understand what Deric is getting at. Society has clearly set forth laws that must be enforced and there are also laws that will never be enforced (e.g., in Utah, it is considered an offense to hunt whales). The reason why states including Utah do not enforce sodomy laws is that such laws have been struck down by SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US) and other courts. It would be pointless at this stage to try to enforce such laws. Such laws remain on the books because of lazy legislators. I have more to say on this topic (surprise!), but I am going to wait until Doug posts his views in the post he indicted that he would make in the future. I assume he is still in the planning/writing stage. (Good writing does indeed take time, so no rush.)
3 comments:
I am not one to be closed minded, and in fact my mind is probably more open now to different viewpoints than ever before, especially since I have experienced some things in the past ten years or so that has opened my eyes to certain legal aspects of the American society.
That being said, I know that some people would rather not discuss this topic, and if so, feel free to move on and don’t follow this string of the blog. However, since some of us think that this kind of open discussion has helped bring the family closer in many ways, I might be good to discuss this…as I might learn something myself.
Since Prop 8 in California passed, banning gay marriages and designating marriage as between a man and a woman there are obviously differing opinions.
My opinion is that I agree with Prop 8. I think it should have been passed as it was. I am glad for that. I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman and that it is a “right” that all men and women have should they chose it. In my opinion, gay and lesbian couples have made the choice not to be married by choosing to live their lives with someone of the same sex. Free agency is always theirs and that should not be infringed upon. Let them chose to live together if they so chose. Let no one infringe on their choice of free agency. However, their choice also should have consequences. Those consequences should not entitle them to all of the blessings and privileges that society in general deems befitting to those who obey and follow the norms of society. Let me give you a personal and close to home example. Society has deemed that what I did many years ago merits me losing some privileges and rights that I once had. One of those rights was that I had the right to vote in all elections. While I was on probation, I could not vote, that right was taken away because I did not live up to society’s norms. On the other hand, as I came back into society’s norms and fulfilled my legal obligations, I was once again granted the right to vote. Society has stated that marriage and it’s rights and benefits should be for those relationships that are distinctly between a man and a woman. Those who do not fit that norm, are not being allowed the same rights. And, that’s okay.
Here is where I disagree with the “majority” of society and probably agree more with Doug and Nick. I feel that some basic benefits and privileges ought to be allowed to those who chose not to be married but rather have a union or partnership. I feel that healthcare benefits ought to be extended to them, legal trusts and rights to powers of attorney and the like ought to be theirs. I do not feel that they should be allowed to file “joint returns” because joint returns were meant to benefit “families” and “families” were originally intended for “married” couples. I do not believe that adoption rights should be granted to non-“married” people/couples because I firmly believe that all children have the right to have a father and a mother in the home…both a male and a female role model. By the same token, because I broke the norms of society…much like gay and lesbian couples are doing….I cannot adopt nor even apply for adoption…I have broken the norms of society and I have to live with that!
I know that these are just a few points of conflict or topics that could be discussed but to discuss everything would take days and days of indepth discussion. Maybe an evening at a family gathering could we all get together and discuss these or other topics…I think it would be interesting should everyone be willing to open their minds and view others opinions without getting upset of disgusted.
I love you all.
- Deric
Thank you, Deric, for continuing to open the discussion. As promised, I will makes some posts of my own.
But my first reaction has to do with the word norms. It is such a loaded word. Norms of course vary from locality to locality, from group to group. And norms change over time. A lot. Norms in some countries allow various forms of polygamy, various ages at which a child can be married or given in marriage against her/his will, laws regarding divorce etc. That a certain practice is a norm does not by any stretch make it moral. Two examples: it is now the norm (normal) in Canada for gays to marry and they do regularly across Canada in every province. However, many Canadian LDS still view it as immoral. Female genital circumcision (most often gross mutilation) is normal in many societies. That does not make it moral. The use of societal norms as an argument is not a good one for banning same-gender marriage.
Societal norms change as societies become enlightened and changed. There are myriad examples of this. Remaining with the marriage theme, interracial marriage has only recently been accepted as normal, was outlawed before.
Deric is being very honest, but I must respectfully point out that some norms have to do with breaking the law and others don't. The norms regarding gays and marriage do not (any longer) have anything to do with breaking laws. (There are still sodomy laws on the books in many states including Utah. Utah refuses to either enforce them or revise them, but this is the subject of another post.) So in this regard, I don't believe the comparison holds and may lead us intellectually astray as bad comparisons are apt to do.
The term "norm" caught my attention as well. I agree with Doug the the term is not quite accurate, though I think I understand what Deric is getting at. Society has clearly set forth laws that must be enforced and there are also laws that will never be enforced (e.g., in Utah, it is considered an offense to hunt whales). The reason why states including Utah do not enforce sodomy laws is that such laws have been struck down by SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US) and other courts. It would be pointless at this stage to try to enforce such laws. Such laws remain on the books because of lazy legislators.
I have more to say on this topic (surprise!), but I am going to wait until Doug posts his views in the post he indicted that he would make in the future. I assume he is still in the planning/writing stage. (Good writing does indeed take time, so no rush.)
Post a Comment