Answer: Prop 8. The proposition that will be on the ballot in November of this year, which states that:
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."
61% of California voted for this in 2000 and yet 4 San Francisco judges have since overturned the majority vote.
My initial response. (I hate to admit this now) but it was "Big deal. How does that affect me? Why do I need to 'stretch' myself to a point that it appears I am being insensitive towards others? And how come this is so important to the Brethren?"
Well, now it is a few months later and I have studied the proposal at length, heard talks on the subject, have given one myself, and now fully understand the implications of what could and will happen if this proposal does not pass. (For the record: We want to vote YES on prop 8).
Here's what I have come to find out and now have answers to my previous questions.
Question #1: How does Prop 8 affect me? Answer: If you are part of a family, relationship, and/or denomination then you will be affected someway. If the proposal does not pass, say goodbye to the family structure as we know it, marriage as God intended, and religion as we understand it.
Most think (as I did) that this is just about Porchia and Ellen wanting to get married.
Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe we have been very "bamboo-like" for a long time. We have "bent" on every issue and have yet to "break"; however, this is the final straw. The alternative lifestyle wants there to be no religion. It wants there to be no family structure. And it wants there to be no marriage between a man and a woman.
Why? Because then they win. They can then do whatever they want, whenever they want. They can sue churches for not allowing them to marry. They can sue adoption agencies for not allowing them to adopt. And they can sue schools for not teaching that marriage can also be between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
Question #2: Why do I need to 'stretch' myself to a point that it appears I am being insensitive towards others?
Answer: You are NOT being insensitive. They are. They want us to believe what they believe but refuse to acknowledge our beliefs. They are the ones trying to tear down our families, our marriages, and our religion....not vice versa. All we are trying to do is uphold our beliefs in the face of adversity. If you truly believe that, then you will "stretch" yourselves. You will do everything in your power to withstand the onslaught. You will go door to door with your wards, friends, and family to try and get the word out because there are people like me who originally will think, "So what?" We want to reach those people and give them information. It's uncomfortable....yea, it is. But it's important. If you can't be a door knocker, then be a phone caller. Be a letter writer. Get involved! It will make a difference.
Question #3: How come this is so important to the Brethren?
Answer: See everything above. They are prophets, SEERS, and revelators. They can see things in the future that we cannot. They know what will happen IF this proposal does not pass.
Aldous Huxley wrote a book in 1932 titled Brave New World. It was a novel based on a futuristic society where there were no families, no moms, no dads, and no religion. It was a society based entirely on Satan's plan. No freedom to choose but instead a government that controlled the actions of the people. "Everyone belonged to everyone else." No one thought this society would ever be possible.
If this proposal does not pass...we are very close to Huxley's Brave New World. We are very close to families, marriages, and religion becoming obsolete.
If you want that to happen because you think you could be construed as being "insensitive" then do nothing. If this proposal passes, it will be too late and those with an alternative lifestyle will be laughing all the way to the bank!
It's time to wave the Title of Liberty and not let that happen.
9 comments:
fabulous comment on your blog about prop 8..
thanks for writing it
( kristen's mom)
When gays ask the state to recognize their marriages, they cheapen marriage by implying that it's nothing more than a ceremony wherein two people profess their love for one another, rather than the legal beginning of a family.
This perception is also fairly common among heterosexual couples. When live-in couples ask why they don't get married, they respond, "We don't need a paper to tell us we're in love."
In societies with arranged marriages, the bride and groom often don't even know each other. So marriage clearly has more to do with starting a family than with being in love.
Western society provides a 'best of both worlds' situation: you can start a family with someone that you're passionately in love with. Unfortunately, many shallow-minded people think that marriage is only about being passionately in love.
Let's keep marriage how it is. It's in society's best interest to have children raised in loving families. People who are simply lovers should not usurp the rights of those who have committed to raising the next generation in a safe and loving environment.
So in order to be considered a family, the parents have to be married?
I'm not a lawyer but wouldn't two peoples name's on a birth certificate of their child or children make them a legal family?
I looked up the definition of a family and this was the first entry: Parents and their children, considered as a group, whether dwelling together or not. Now this is from dictionary.com so I am not sure this is a credible source.
So if "gays" as you put it Jim adopt a child, they are not considered a family? Interesting view on things.
Is prop 8 a California thing or is it nation wide?
I am against gay marriage unless the chicks are hot.
Yes, prop 8 is for California and the purpose is to provide a legal definition of marriage, which would make it exclusively between one man and one woman, the way God intended it to be. To me, I'd prefer the Proclamation's definition of marriage versus the definition from dictionary.com.
Prop 8 is by no means "anti-gay", it strictly seeks to define marriage to be exclusively between one man and one woman. This is extremely important as the broadening of the definition of marriage to include plural marriage, and/or homosexuality and/or incest will lead to significant moral consequences to our society. There's no denying this as history has proven this point over and over.
EZE
I agree with that definition of marriage, I support the brethren and the proclamation.
Not living in California anymore, I havnt heard too much about prop 8 and going off what Jim said, it didnt make sense to me.
I believe people can and should marry for love and not just to start a family. What about the people that can't have children or don't want children, should they not marry if they are in love?
The best scenario for children is to have a mother and a father in the same home raising them. And personally I believe that can be accomplished without being married, it would be ideal if they were but it still can be done. And even in some cases better than when the parents are married. And I say this understanding the being an example to our children argument.
Even though I would vote yes on prop 8 because it goes against the proclamation, I do personally believe right now that if two men and two women want to marry then they should be able to. But right now I don't know and understand the full repercussion(dont know if that is the right word) if I did vote no on prop 8. So I will follow the brethren on this one.
My favorite show is "three men and a baby".
"adam and eve" not "adam and steve" that's all i'm sayin!!
Post a Comment