Ok, since President Obama has so kindly thrown gay marriage back into the political spotlight, I thought I would weigh in on the issue. I start by saying that the opinions expressed in this blog are mine and mine alone.; they are not the thoughts or opinions of my husband, my family, my church or my political party- just me.
I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe he is my Savior and Redeemer. I believe he is the Son of God. This does not mean that I hate people that don't believe in Jesus Christ. There are a lot of people in this world who don't believe in Him- and I don't wish them any ill, I am not scared of them, I don't think they need to be sent away to live on island with all other non-believers- they simply believe differently than I do. And quiet frankly, that's their right! and I love that! Freedom to believe and worship however we choose is one of the most beautiful benefits of living in America! So, if a piece of legislation were to roll through- that would proclaim officially that in the United States, Jesus Christ is forever to be recognized as the Savior of mankind would I vote for it? Absolutely not. Yes, I believe in Christ with all my heart- however, the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States grants us that great and beautiful privilege to practice any religion we want. Who am I to vote for a piece of legislation that would take that right away from someone? Who am I to say that Buddhists, Muslims, Jewish, Atheists, etc. do not get to enjoy the same religious freedom that I do? Denying someone their constitutional rights, is unamerican.
Now on to the topic of homosexuality. Due to my personal beliefs and the teachings of the church in which I grew up, I believe homosexuality to be a sin. It's not an act that I believe is acceptable in the eye's of God, no matter how common place it has become in society. Premarital sex, drug and alcohol consumption, and pornography are also widely accepted nowadays, I however believe these things to be wrong also. However, my views on these topics aren't nearly a scrutinized as my view on homosexuality. Just because I choose not support gay marriage doesn't mean that I hate the gays. It doesn't mean that I think they don't deserve to be able to spend their lives with someone they love. It doesn't mean that I am "homophobic" or that I think they are icky. I don't think they all have aids, I don't think they should be cast out, I don't think homosexuality is a disease or that it can be electrified out of someone. It doesn't mean that I think I am better than anyone or that I pass judgment on them in anyway. Another thing I was taught in church "Judge not lest ye be judged-" and believe me- I have been no saint in my life time. The last thing I need is anyone judging the choices I have made- I have plenty of sins of my own, I don't need to worry about what other people are doing in their personal lives. And it certainly doesn't mean that I condone any mistreatment, bullying, or violence towards gays. For me, personally, what the issue of gay marriage boils down to is MY freedom of religion.
Who are you to tell me what I can and can't believe? Who are you to tell me that my beliefs are right or wrong? Who are you to snatch my constitutional rights out from under my feet and criticize me exercising my freedom of religion? My RELIGION believes homosexuality to be wrong. If legislation passes to legalize gay marriage- that puts my religion and many other religions in a pretty awkward place if you ask me. It is going to force churches that believe homosexuality to be a sin to not only recognize, but also perform gay marriages. Freedom of religion is a right guaranteed in the constitution-- the document doesn't say that I am free to worship how I please until my beliefs seem unfair or inconvenient to other Americans.
Like I said earlier, I am not saying that gays don't deserve to be able to spend their lives with someone they love. I have been in love, heck! I am in love in right now, and I have had the lovely opportunity to get married to the man I love. As I also mentioned before- it's not MY place to judge who you choose to love. I don't have to agree with it- and I will tell you straight out, right now, I do not agree with homosexuality, but I certainly won't judge you for it. There are plenty of straight relationships that I don't agree with either, but it's not my place to judge them either. It is naive to think that voting against gay marriage is going to keep gays from forming long term committed relationships. That being said, I don't think that gays should be kept from having civil unions and as far as government is concerned, I think civil unions should be afforded the same rights and "benefits" as marriages. I will still say 100% though that I am against gay "marriage" because of the religious implications associated with the term marriage and I will continue to vote against it. I am not trying to invalidate homosexual relationships- they are people, they are children of God, they have feelings too, and I believe they deserve just as much happiness, respect, and dignity as anyone else in this world. My stand is not against homosexuals, it is for MY religious beliefs and freedoms. I believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the
family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His
children- and that's my choice. I am not trying to convince anyone to agree with me- I am just stating my thoughts on the matter. All I ask is to let me believe how and what I want and do not vilify me for it. You are free to believe and vote however you like, and I'll do the same.
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
2 days ago
20 comments:
You're confusing the religious institution of marriage with the civil institution of marriage. It's a common and easy mistake to make since they are both simply referred to as "marriage" and the two often occur in parallel to each other. Typical church marriages today consist of two agreements. The first is the agreement the couple makes with their religion as officiated by the head of the ceremony, the second is the agreement you make with the state you are married in when you sign the contract of your marriage license. In reality, if you are married in the church you are holding two weddings at the same time.
The religious institution of marriage is defined by the tenants of whatever religion, denomination of religion or congregation of the denomination of religion that is in question. The various rules, regulations, ceremonies, practices and exclusivity of marriage under its religious form is now, and will always be up to that specific religion (denomination/congregation). Your argument that your church will be forced to accept homosexuality and forced to perform same sex marriages is invalid. I assure you, that will never happen. There exist today congregations that refuse parishioners ceremonial marriage for a multitude of reasons. In some cases, the congregation has developed the practice of sending a couple through various stages of classes and interviews with the head of the church in order to assess whether or not the couple is right for marriage. If they don't pass, the congregation denies them marriage. In more extreme cases, I guarantee you there are plenty of churches in rural parts of the country that will still refuse the marriage of two people of different race. No one is forcing these churches to perform marriages that they don't want to perform. No one ever will.
The issue of same sex marriage is one of the civil version of marriage. No one is fighting to force acceptance of homosexual unions in a religious frame of reference, they are fighting for the acceptance of homosexual unions in a civil frame of reference. That is, by the civil contract that is signed by two parties and filed with the state that affords the two parties certain rights.
I hope that by outlining these two very different, although often coincidental, connotations of the word "marriage" I have helped to alleviate your fears.
If you read my entire post you would know that I am not opposed to civil unions.
Also, I am not stupid- I am married, I know you need a marriage license and know that marriages can take place without any religion being involved at all. However- the laws that have been voted on so far regarding same sex marriage have all had complicated religious implications.
If a law is going to be passed- it needs to be passed for only civil ceremonies and with the expectation that churches who believe homosexuality to be a sin will not recognize the union.
Please show me the proposed legislation that would force churches to marry anyone they didn't agree with. You keep using ”civil unions” instead of marriage. Why can't two consenting adults be married in the eyes of the United States Government? Again this has everything to do with the Government and nothing to do with churches. There is no legal reason for denying two of age Americans the right to be,married. The Government can't force a church to perform a ceremony it is against. I can't demand a Mormon church to marry me as a Catholic.
So as for your slippery slope, there isn't one. If a church doesn't believe two people should be married, for what ever reason, they don't have to marry them.
Although I can appreciate your perspective having come from a Christian family and also having studied Theology to degree level, I ultimately cannot agree with your final decision. I feel it's seriously lacking the one fundamental piece of Christian doctrine that isn't open to interpretation (as all of the scriptures that reference homosexuality are) and that is: God is love.
I'd really appreciate your time, if you have a minute, to read my blog which offers another perspective.
http://bwhbad.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/stronger-than-yesterday.html
God Bless,
Luke
It's not my intention to hide behind anonymity, I simply don't want to do whatever I would need to do to get a screen name on this service. That being said, I can be found on Facebook under Jason Florez' friends list as Jason C Stauffer. I am the person who wrote the first response to your blog.
I would like to invite you to direct me towards specific legislation that has been proposed that you feel contains language that could possibly force religious institutions to perform ceremonies they don't agree with. I don't believe that any such bill exists, but I am open to being proven wrong. I will gladly read any bill or proposal that you direct me to and let you know what I think of it. Please help me to understand which laws concern you, so that I may better gain understanding of your perspective.
I would also like to ask you, out of curiosity, if you would vote for a bill that redefines marriage as the union between two consenting adults of any sexual combination (same or opposite sex) if that bill clearly stated that the final decision by any officiating person,(religiously affiliated or otherwise) that presides over the commemoration ceremony of that union, as to whether or not they choose to perform said ceremony or recognise the union within their own religious organisation be left completely and solely up to the officiating individual in question. That is, if the bill stated without doubt that a religious organisation would always be permitted to but never forced to perform the ceremony, would you vote for it?
I look forward to your response on these points.
Ok, guess I had to sign up to get my name to appear anyways, scratch the first paragraph.
There is no specific legislation that I can find stating that clergy must perform same sex marriages, but there is not legislation saying that they can refuse to perform or recognize- which leaves it up for interpretation and that's where things can get complicated and messy.
I know clergy within my church who ran into a mess of trouble when approached by same-sex couples insisting to be married by the LDS church. I don't know the ins and the outs of all the legal mumbo jumbo- but I know for a fact that there have been instances where this have become a legal issue.
I didn't write this blog to start any arguments or start hypothetical debate. I say clearly in the blog that I am not trying to convince anyone to agree with me. This is merely my opinion- such that I have the right to my opinion and my religious beliefs. If your stance on gay marriage differs from mine- fantastic! You have every right to have your own opinions and theology. Never did I say it was my goal to make you agree with me. I'm not saying that either of us is right or wrong- we are simply different. You chose to come to my personal blog and read MY opinions (why you did, I am not sure, since I don't even know you) that was YOUR choice. If you don't agree that is perfectly fine, and you are more than welcome to share with me your point of view; I can respect differing views without scrutiny and without cramming my theology down anyone's throat.
They found your blog thru me. Hi Tarin, it's Jason. We use to work together. I recently looked on my twitter account and I found I still ”follow” your tweets.
The mess that the clergy ran into in regards to same sex partners asking to be married, was this a lawsuit? If so that's a civil suit. People are free to file lawsuits against each other. Did the couple win?
The proposed law doesn't need to say anything about churches because the law doesn't have anything to do with the religious cermony of marriage.
Actually, Jason you just started following my tweets in the past six months- I remember being confused by the email notifying me of this because last I had heard from you was like 3 years ago when you deleted me from your facebook friends for our differing political opinions stating "Let's face facts. We have nothing in common so why just piss each other off. I'll live my life and you live yours. I wish nothing but good things." I was quite happy with that arrangement, especially considering that it seems we still have very little in common and all you want to do is debate our differing opinions.
I already mentioned in my last response, that I was unsure about the legalese that went into the dispute with clergy and the same sex couples. Either way- that wasn't the point of my blog entry. You seem to very hung up on what was only 1 or 2 lines of the 5 paragraphs that were written.
Though I have seemed to have said this many times already- you are welcome to any opinions you have, whether they be about me or any other topic. I do not use my blog as a platform for debate- only as a means of expression. Perhaps you should start your own blog as an outlet for your political assertions.
Also, not sure why you are trolling my blog- and sharing it with all your facebook friends, as I haven't "tweeted" anything regarding my blog in at least 2 years- probably more.
I reactivated my twitter at that time. I forgot why I had lost contact with you. After reading this (and posting it facebook) I remembered just how little we have in common.
I shared this with others to show the typical uninformed arguements against same sex marriage.
Nobody has been ”trolling” your blog. All I have done is ask you to explain your position with facts. I haven't been,rude. I honestly wanted to know why you think same sex marriage somehow infringes on religious freedom. You haven't presented anything to support yout argument. If you do find it please share it with me. I don't want the government forcing people to go against their beliefs.
I have the right to believe that it is wrong based on the teachings of my church and to vote against it plain and simple. I don't believe that my religion should have to recognize a lifestyle within our church that is contrary to our teachings and core values. Voting against it and believing that it's wrong does not make me a hateful homophobe. I have addressed all your inquiries to the best of my knowledge. If you want further information you will have to seek it out for yourself as I wrote this blog only as an expression of my opinion- not as any authority on the topic.
Also I don't think anybody is trying to change your mind about your beliefs. I think all we have done here is try to aleviate your concerns in regards to your suggesting that Government will try to dictate churches docturines.
Oh ok, well thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Take care Tarin.
I really love how the exact reason you said you deleted me from your facebook friends 3 years ago is because I "insulted you for your opinion"- and yet without even initiating any conversation with me you thought it was acceptable to seek and post publicly my personal blog insulting MY opinion and sharing how dense I was having my own opinion on a topic. You also mention on your facebook post "Denying facts doesn't make them any less real." What exactly did I deny?? If you want to stir shit up- leave me out of it. I'd appreciate it if you'd keep me out of your life and off your facebook page like you said you would back in 2009.
Hey Jason, you are "trolling". Obviously you have no personal relationship or friendship with Tarin, and in posting her personal blog to your Facebook calling her misguided and stirring up people opinions of her in a negative manner is inappropriate. This is HER personal blog, and it states her opinions and feelings. Who are you to post her personal blog on your Facebook bringing people with their negative words and opinions of hers and causing a political debate to blow up her comments area of her blog. She is entitled to her opinions just as everyone else, just as you are. But you posting on your Facebook TWICE about it is obsessive and seems kinda personal. For you to be that adamant on sparking political debate on her blog, while you having unfriended her due to your political disagreements seems like you are seeking her out to start problems.
I have to just say it again Jason, your actions are INAPPROPRIATE!
Again, my purpose for posting the link on facebook was to show how some are so misinformed. Tarins assumption that legally allowing two people of the same sex will force churches to go against their doctorines. I believe everyone who posted mearly tried to alieveate those concerns. Nobody insulted her. Nobody tried to change her mind. All that was said is that perhaps you are misinformed. How is that an insult?
Trolling usually involves saying crude and insulting things. If I have insulted you I appologize. I mearly say someone I use to associate with and thought I would check in. once I saw this blog I realized why we no longer speak. I used your blog as a reference for others to see just what the other side believes. Difference of opinions are great as long as both sides have all the facts. So we tried to give you some facts to help you realize that nobody is coming after your religious beliefs.
Yeah, you are totally right, Jason- in all the time I knew you, you never ever antagonized anyone whose political opinions or morals differed from yours. I'm positive the ONLY reason you came poking around my blog and then plastering my opinions all over your Facebook page was to "alleviate" this concern you seem to think that I have. I'm sure that you continually pointing out how misinformed I am was in no way supposed to be a jab at my intellect. I suppose I should be thanking you for being so concerned about my personal beliefs even after you have stated repeatedly the that I am unworthy to have any part in your life. It was wrong of me to assume that your intention in linking up my blog was to share with all those people special enough to be in Jason's world how ignorant you think I am. That's not insulting at all! How could I have possibly come to that conclusion. I must apologize... I have obviously completely misjudged you! Why on earth aren't we still friends???
Post a Comment