Sunday, November 23, 2008

Sacramento Protest, Cho Blasphemy

Sacramento, CA -- On Saturday, Nov. 22, California's state capitol was the gathering place of a large crowd of disgruntled gay rights activists protesting Proposition 8. Featured headliners wooing the crowd were Gloria Allred, Hollywood attorney, and Margaret Cho, comedian. Below is a clip of the song Cho sang for the minority mass.


When Cho sings that "Jesus was probably gay," it reminds me of when The Beatles once claimed that they were "more popular than Jesus." To hope that she'll get the same kind of backlash is futile since media bias won't condemn the comedian and the public will probably wave a disgusted hand at her and move on. Argh. And, of course, the whole song is aimed entirely at the Mormons, preferred Proposition 8 scapegoat, spitefully mocking sacred beliefs and practices. It's disgusting that people were laughing and clapping at this stuff.

It's also getting old that the gay community is whining about needing minority protection from the government when it's obvious that it's not equality they want, but complete acceptance - a societal embrace of their lifestyle. This practice of foot-stomping demand is now resulting in overindulgence and unwarranted concessions. Take eHarmony, for example; they are an Internet dating group that was created for the purpose of matching Christian singles and creating long-lasting marriages. This business is designed around a compatibility model that does not service homosexuality. Just days ago, however, eHarmony settled a ludicrous lawsuit with a homosexual man, essentially agreeing to change their business model to include him and others who subscribe to his lifestyle. eHarmony will now offer a website called "Compatible Partners," and adjust their match finding technology to service men seeking men and women seeking women. So the next time you're eating at a vegetarian restaurant, just threaten to sue if they won't serve you meat, because now the precedent has been set. Or, if you want a hair salon to wash your car, or a hospital to make you sick, or a podiatrist to deliver your baby, or a food manufacturer to build you a car, and the list could go on and on. THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY DO! So, why are they being forced to include homosexuality? Because after years of lawsuits, the kind, little old man who created eHarmony has been beaten down, heckled and prodded into catering to a group of people his business model was not created for. That, my friends, is ridiculous - shouldn't ever have happened. There is a gay agenda. There is, and it goes something like this: "Accept me, embrace me, cater to me, or else...."
["The greatest single victory of the gay movement over the past decade has been to shift the debate from behavior to identity, thus forcing opponents into a position where they can be seen as attacking the civil rights of homosexual citizens."
From The Homosexualization of America, by homosexual activist Dennis Altman.]
To see a comprehensive list of "or else's" that have already occurred, click here.

And while I'm busy airing out my concerns about the existence of a gay agenda, let's add 'secular coup' to the list. Check out this comment on another marriage blogger's latest post about raising our voices and standing up for marriage, and the fantastic response by another defender:

C Smith said,
Where does it say that marriage is between one man and one woman?

Don’t go down the Bible path - its a slippery slope.


Lil' Beebop said,

“Don’t go down the Bible path - its a slippery slope.”

Wow. Wow. Hang on a sec, I’m still reeling from this. Millions upon millions of people around the world believe the Bible to be the word of God and you just completely disregard their opinion/belief because, as you claim, it is a “logical fallacy?” Like I said, wow.

You just brilliantly proved what MJ Sobran once said two decades ago, “Far from equalizing unbelief, secularism has succeeded in virtually establishing it….What the secularists are increasingly demanding, in their disingenuous way, is that religious people, when they act politically, act only on secularist grounds….A religious conviction is now a second-class conviction, expected to step deferentially to the back of the secular bus, and not to get uppity about it.”

Wow.

4 comments:

Jesurgislac said...

I disagree with CSmith. Not that I think anyone in the US should cite "the Bible" as a document that defines what marriage is.

But I think, for people who assert that they oppose the freedom of same-sex couples to marry on the grounds that they know their religion is against it, we should go down the "Bible path": to point out that they have no textual authority for their claim that their religion is in opposition to same-sex civil marriage: as I do here.

Liz said...

I like your post. It shows what we have to do to be Christian. People can always use that reminder. And I disagree with your "nemesis" because health insurance should be provided to everyone. Homosexuals having health insurance isn't going to hurt anybody else. I think "Christian" chose a poor example to prove a very valid point. Jesus loves sinners and is willing to help them...out of their sin. He doesn't help people to live in sin and He doesn't ever condone sin just because His children He loves are living it. We can serve (help) sinners without condoning their sins, but just as is the case with little children, "helping" does not have to mean "conceding" or "placating." Family research has shown that boundaries are healthy. Societal research has shown that marriage between a man and a woman is absolutely the "gold standard" and that nothing less should be regarded as equal; that would be to the detriment of children.

Marriage doesn't have to be provided to everyone. If that were the case, then we would have to redefine the word "everyone" so as not to include polygamists and those who wish to enter into legally sanctioned polyamorous unions. There is a very real slippery-slope here. In the beginning of this debate, arguers for same-sex marriage would say something like, "That will never happen! It's against the law. There's a clear victim in those cases." Now, ever so subtly, more and more gay rights activists are saying instead, "So what? I don't mind if polygamists get married. So long as there's not abuse. It doesn't hurt me if five people want to get married." There is a blatant disregard for society as a whole today. Too many of your cohorts are living in the moment and claiming that if something doesn't directly influence them, it couldn't possibly have an effect on society as a whole. This is a dangerous, narcissistic, and selfish idea, one that is most definitely false and narrow-minded.

Homosexual marriage gives the government stamp of approval to homosexuality; and the societal embracing of a destructive lifestyle will directly and negatively effect our children. They are the innocents that would be growing up without the very necessary influences of a mother and a father in their lives. I know that people on your side of the coin don't believe in the slippery-slope argument, and many on our side do. It creates an impasse of sorts.

In the end, I don't just cite the Bible for proof that God is in opposition to same-sex marriage. I believe in continuing revelation through the Lord's Prophet on earth. This is another "crazy Mormon belief" that many in your camp tend to roll their eyes at and mock. But I have a strong testimony of it nonetheless, and always will. So when you combine Jesus' own teachings in St. Matthew 9:4-6, with the word of the Lord through His Prophet and Apostles in our time (The Family: A Proclamation to the World), what you get is a confirmation of the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman.

Scripture:

"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Prophet:

"We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim 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....Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

So you see, we do have "textual authority" for our claim that religion is in opposition to same-sex civil marriage, because it is clear that God is in opposition to it.

Jesurgislac said...

Marriage doesn't have to be provided to everyone. If that were the case, then we would have to redefine the word "everyone" so as not to include polygamists and those who wish to enter into legally sanctioned polyamorous unions

How would we?

Giving same-sex couples the freedom to marry, equally with mixed-sex couples, does not involve changing civil marriage law one iota, except in those instances where civil marriage law has been revised to specify that a couple must be male and female. No one's marriage is affected when two men or two women marry.

Altering marriage law to make it possible for polygamists to marry does affect everyone's marriage.

That would be why, though round the world in country after country same-sex couples are able to marry - with no effect on anyone except for the happy couple themselves - this has not led, in any country in the world, to any serious argument for polygamy. It's not a slippery slope: it's not a slope at all.

Homosexual marriage gives the government stamp of approval to homosexuality; and the societal embracing of a destructive lifestyle will directly and negatively effect our children

Only if you make a point of telling your children that, if they're gay, it's a "destructive lifestyle". If they believe you, then for them it probably will be: being told by a trusted authority figure that their lives are bound to be destructive is a pretty good way of making them so.

And I do see it is a problem for parents who know their child is gay and have to make a choice between their own happiness and their position in the Mormon church - and the happiness and well-being of their child. Some parents choose one way, and their child makes a miserable fake marriage, or - more and more likely - simply leaves their family behind forever, or finds that their family can't quite bear to let their child go just because of their child's sexual orientation.

(Pat Califia, a former Mormon, wrote in the introduction to his collection of columns in the Advocate that the gay liberation movement in the 1970s was full of gay men and lesbians who had been Mormons, had been forced to leave the Church because of their sexual orientation, and had plunged into political activity because no Mormon can bear being idle!)

Arguments about how a sacred marriage can only be made between a man and a woman simply do not affect the issue of access to civil marriage. Judaism recognizes sacred only a marriage between two Jews: but the State of Israel recognizes any civil marriage from anywhere in the world, including, of course, same-sex marriages.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints have a right I would fight for - though it appears this would not be reciprocated! - to deny as religiously valid any marriage not made according to the truth revealed to t he prophets.

But the LDS Church does not have the right to enforce their religious rules on people who do not share their beliefs. No church does. Civil marriage ought to remain open to any couple, mixed-sex or same-sex, who wish to undertake it.

Pearl said...

“Giving same-sex couples the freedom to marry … does not involve changing civil marriage law one iota, except in those instances where civil marriage law has been revised to specify that a couple must be male and female.”

Right, so it does change civil marriage law.

“No one's marriage is affected when two men or two women marry.”

You’re splitting hairs. Just because same-sex marriage won’t affect my marriage doesn’t mean it won’t affect many other aspects of society.

“Altering marriage law to make it possible for polygamists to marry does affect everyone's marriage.”

How do you make this distinction and not accord the same to same-sex marriage? They will neither of them affect my marriage directly, except to decrease the sanctity of it, but they will both affect society in a negative manner.

“That would be why, though round the world in country after country same-sex couples are able to marry - with no effect on anyone except for the happy couple themselves - this has not led, in any country in the world, to any serious argument for polygamy. It's not a slippery slope: it's not a slope at all.”

Okay, first of all, I think you’re stretching it with that “country after country” bit. There’s a smattering in Europe and Canada has approved it, but country after country? However, that over-exaggeration aside, it doesn’t matter that no argument has yet been made for polygamy. It doesn’t mean that it won’t be. You can never know what the future will bring, except that we do know if the precedent for redefinition of marriage is set once, that will open a window for future redefinitions. Therefore, slippery-slope is alive and well...and completely valid.

Homosexual marriage gives the government stamp of approval to homosexuality; and the societal embracing of a destructive lifestyle will directly and negatively effect our children

“Only if you make a point of telling your children that, if they're gay, it's a ‘destructive lifestyle’. If they believe you, then for them it probably will be: being told by a trusted authority figure that their lives are bound to be destructive is a pretty good way of making them so.”

Huh, did I ever say anything about teaching children homosexuality is a “destructive lifestyle?” No. As with everything in life, there is an age-appropriate way to teach. I will teach my children that homosexuality can never bring true happiness as it is against the Lord’s commandments. I will teach them that we always love people, but we do not love their sins. Being told by a trusted authority figure that their lives will be happiest when following the commandments of God is a pretty good way of helping them to stay on the right path. What you’re admitting to is that a trusted authority figure has a great potential for influence in the lives of children. This is why I voted yes on Prop 8, because I do not want my children’s teachers being allowed to use that same power of influence to teach that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle.


“And I do see it is a problem for parents who know their child is gay and have to make a choice between their own happiness and their position in the Mormon church - and the happiness and well-being of their child. Some parents choose one way, and their child makes a miserable fake marriage, or - more and more likely - simply leaves their family behind forever, or finds that their family can't quite bear to let their child go just because of their child's sexual orientation.”

This is sad if you think this is true. Just because someone has a homosexual child doesn’t mean that they have to leave the Church. Homosexuals themselves don’t even have to leave the Church. It is only those who pursue homosexual relationships that lose their membership. Their parents, whether they agree with them or not, can still be members. And by saying that the actions of the child are dependent upon the reaction of the parent is to create the false impression of helplessness. Homosexuals need to stop acting like victims. They’ve told themselves so often that they are oppressed and hated that they are starting to believe it and ceasing to take responsibility for their own actions. Free agency is central to the Lord’s plan of salvation. He will not make us choose the right, we have to do it ourselves. He has given us the tools by which to make an educated decision (Prophets, scriptures, etc.). The chasm between homosexuals and heterosexuals is a problem, as you have said, but it doesn’t mean that the only solution is to go ahead and teach that homosexuality is okay. Gay rights activists have tunnel vision in this respect. Perhaps a better solution for all of society would be to help many more (if not all) homosexuals to learn to abandon those desires and attractions; especially considering research shows that pursing those attractions leads to much sadness and pain. Perhaps a better solution would be to teach the truth that homosexuality is a choice and many people have walked away from it to live happy, heterosexual lives.

“(Pat Califia, a former Mormon, wrote in the introduction to his collection of columns in the Advocate that the gay liberation movement in the 1970s was full of gay men and lesbians who had been Mormons, had been forced to leave the Church because of their sexual orientation, and had plunged into political activity because no Mormon can bear being idle!)”

Disgruntled, anti-Mormon, ex-members breed and disseminate anti-Mormon literature. His ideas are purely speculation and they are absolutely ridiculous. Gays and lesbians have never been forced to leave the Church because of their sexual orientation. It is only if they choose to act upon their feelings that they lose their membership. We have many homosexual members who struggle daily against these unwanted feelings and I have the deepest respect for their determination and testimony. Please do not reference “The Advocate” again as it is widely known as an anti-Mormon website. Church policy is best found at lds.org or by calling Church headquarters in SLC.

“Arguments about how a sacred marriage can only be made between a man and a woman simply do not affect the issue of access to civil marriage. Judaism recognizes sacred only a marriage between two Jews: but the State of Israel recognizes any civil marriage from anywhere in the world, including, of course, same-sex marriages.”

Good for them. So what?

“Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints have a right I would fight for - though it appears this would not be reciprocated! - to deny as religiously valid any marriage not made according to the truth revealed to t he prophets.”

We have no such rights. That allegation is equally as ridiculous as some of the others you have voiced here. We have the right, as citizens of the United States, to voice our opinion and vote our opinion whether we subscribe to religious thought or not. You are implying that the Mormons determined the vote when it has already been shown that while we were strong supporters both monetarily and physically, Proposition 8 would not have passed without the support of others as well.

“But the LDS Church does not have the right to enforce their religious rules on people who do not share their beliefs. No church does. Civil marriage ought to remain open to any couple, mixed-sex or same-sex, who wish to undertake it.”

We are not forcing our religious rules on anyone. We were encouraged to support Proposition 8, but many did not. Many LDS supported it based purely upon family and societal research. Still other LDS supported it based on research done in other countries. Many LDS based their support solely on the teachings of the Prophets, which is fine, too. Religion is not the only factor here, and obviously many in California, despite attempted bullying and intimidation, believe that civil marriage should not remain open to any couple because the possible repercussions would be too great for society to bare.