Response to Anonymous 1...still no pictures

This post is in response to a comment on my previous post...I don't have the patience to post it in 4,000 words or less in separate comments, and because I believe this person to have posted, in sincere intent this comment:

So what's your take on the huge, vast difference between RELIGIOUS marriage (the wonderful relationship you have with your husband) and CIVIL marriage (a merely legal distinction)?

Before you say they shouldn't be different ~

Religious marriage is a privilege created by God.

But civil marriage?

In America, civil marriage was created for the express purpose of persecuting Native Americans, black people and Hispanics.

The US government started requiring civil marriage certificates because they wanted to prevent whites from marrying blacks, or Native Americans, etc.

It was pure hateful racial bigotry.

So exalt and preserve religious marriage all you want, but be real about the legal/civil thing. They're different.

My point: If you don't want gays having religious marriages under God, then I get that. But to prevent them from having civil marriages... well that just extends the bigotry and hatred that gave birth US legal marriage, and that's flat out wrong. Jesus wouldn't support persecution.

Racism and hatred of minority groups like gay people... those are worse than immorality -- because they're immoralities people actually think they can justify. Jesus was never cruel. He certainly didn't condone sin but he didn't spread hate either.

Is there room for a distinction in this country?

Can we cooperate to end our embarrassing history of hatred?

Can we grant civil marriages as a right and protect religious marriage as a Godly privilege?

What do you think?

This is my response, please note that this is my own opinion and I recognize that not all mormons feel the same as I...additionally this is what I believe from a more political standpoint and is therefore not reflective of my religion, although it is heavily influenced by my religion. Additionally those who are are interested in the official position on any topic, please ask me and I would be happy to refer you to official statements on any subject.

Dear Anonymous 1:

I’m choosing to take your words at face value and ignore what could very easily be construed as a veiled attempt to point out that many people who have an opposing view on the issue of same-sex marriage consider me to be racist, bigoted, hateful, cruel, oh and I believe you mentioned embarrassing.  I don't know who you are or what your personal standpoint is, so much of what I respond will have to be based on inference from your comment and questions.

1)   1)  I believe I addressed that I believe civil marriage between a man and woman should also be a protected, privileged institution.  I believe I expressed that I believe the purpose of this institution should be to give special privileges (notice I said privileges which include rights but actually are more than rights, like little social presents from the community, ie. Health care benefits, special laws: for example spousal privilege, tax breaks, social institutions, media interest, education: acting married with a baby in a high school class for example, support from the community: such as social pressures and expectation to marry a member of the opposite sex and raise children, ect.) Now yes I will go a step beyond and say that I also believe that religious marriage is a privilege…but let’s leave that out for this discussion.  Now where in wanting special privileges for the institution that is the basic unit where children can be made and raised extend to hate…we don’t accuse schools of hatred for wanting tax benefits or for lobbying to protect their status as institutions of learning by laws requiring all children to attend…and don’t start taking the metaphor too far, I’m sure , you can get the point of what I’m saying.  It is not hateful for me to ask for special privileges and rights when I in good conscious marry a man (because I am a woman) with the expectation to set up a household in which to biologically create children (which requires me to sacrifice my body, money for medical bills, my time that could go towards a job, emotional energy, ect)(additionally, it requires my husband to emotionally have to support me more, to earn more money due to the loss of my wages; Or in a scenario where I work , or in a scenario where we both work child care, will result in loss of his or my wages, it requires time off for our children’s activities, sick days for kids, more gas, more groceries…I think you should be getting the picture).  I’m not really seeing how asking that society cut us some slack is hateful here.  You could argue that there are those who marry who do not or cannot have children…maybe we should accuse women and men who are infertile of hatred and bigamy because they entered a marriage under false pretense, I don’t think so.  Those who marry without respecting the civil, sociological, anthropological, and religious traditions of the institution of marriage could be termed irresponsible, ignorant, callous, or as I think of them, morons…but perhaps this is evidence that marriage should be an institution more difficult to enter and exit…not one that allows more people to participate.  And finally, there are people who take advantage of the privileges of marriage abusing the dependants that marriage and family should protect and misusing the benefits…why don’t we pass a law that would punish these people…can you possibly see where I’m coming from yet? So far I have yet to see how wanting special privileges because I have entered into such an institution is persecuting gays in a way Jesus would disapprove of.

2)   

 2) 2) You seem to have a very callous opinion of civil marriage in this country.  Maybe it would interest you to know that the first community of white people in America, the pilgrims in Plymoth Colony considered marriage to be a civil institution, rather than a religious one. Marriage traditions were carried over from the Netherlands where marriage was once again a civil institution.  The first couple to be married in the colony was Edward Winslow and Susanna White who were presided over by Governor Bradford.  It was not necessary for a minister to perform the ceremony because once again marriage was considered a civil institution.  Civil marriage was considered normal and most people who lost their spouses to death married again within six months to a year and this was a community who considered women and men equal before God.  That is a nice theory that civil marriage was created “for the express purpose of persecuting Native Americans, black people, and Hispanics”  However, a little short-sighted considering we know civil marriage existed in America beginning with the first white colony.   In most societies throughout the world across generations of time have adhered to civil marriage between a man and woman.   In the case of many societies and civilizations it was to ensure survival. Furthermore, if you belive that US legal marriage was given birth by bigotry and hatred, then why would you want to enter into such an institution?

3)   3)  I am going out on a limb here and will attempt to suppose what your argument can possible be saying.  I am going to theorize that you believe that gays deserve civil marriages because heterosexuals are able to enter into civil marriages.  Is that your point?  I believe that if you will once again read my original post you will see that I don’t believe civil (or religious) marriage is a civil right.  I believe it is a protected and privileged institution, and if it weren’t why would members of the LGBT community be interested in participating in such institution?  Would it be because they want those in such an institution to be persecuted and left defenseless when participating in the process of procreation?  Would it be because they demean the actual sociological, physiological, economic, and physical considerations a man and woman make when bringing a child into a family under the protection of a civil marriage institution?  Or are they behaving selfishly because they feel hurt that they are not given privileges in an institution that they have chosen (or been born such that) they cannot enter into?  Doing away with marriage the way it stands would not free gays from persecution by those who believe that it’s wrong…it would take away an institution that stands to protect the biological family.

4)    4) I am going to chose to believe that the LGBT community does not mean any of those things in their zeal to promote same-sex marriage.  I am going to believe that they are considering that the biological family deserves some consideration and protection.  Civily-speaking I am asking that if they truly believe that removing the protection of the biological connection between man, woman, and child is socially responsible?  There may be leeches in the institution but how do you propose to protect the dependents who benefit from the institution of marriage?  Tell me your proposal to provide for the needs of a nuclear, biological family?  If you take away the distinction in this country how will my children and grandchildren be protected when they are vulnerable, when they are young, pregnant, breast-feeding, elderly, disabled? So far I do not see a religious, social, or civil group capable of providing for the needs of such outside a biological family.  Because contractual arrangements between consenting individuals are entered and exited everyday, that is not marriage the civil institution is set up to protect and give priviledges to anymore than the religious one.

5)   5)  And Ultimately, if I might be so bold, if the “embarrassing hatred” you are referring to is my hatred of immorality, of anything that violates the eternal law of Chastity, of sin.  I will not and cannot end my hatred.  If you know me, you will know that I am a person, who like most people, tries my best to act with Love and consideration to the feelings and circumstances of all people.  I am confident in members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that they are people who love our Heavenly Father and his children to the best of their ability.  There is no room in this country or any country for allowing the prevalent spread of immorality, of sexual sin.  You missed the point of my entire post if you want me to soften my hate of this sin. Asking me to put aside my feelings on that is just as unfair as asking a homosexual person to change their orientation, if not more so.  For not only are you asking me to sacrifice myself, you are asking me to sacrifice my family, my children, and ultimately each person.  History has repeatedly shown us that immoral civilizations fail. I can never in good conscious allow immorality not only because I care for myself, but because I care for the person who commits the sin.  And homosexuality is a sin. If I didn’t love my homosexual brothers and sisters than you would never hear me talk with an ounce of passion about this subject. I love them and ache for their pain, that is the religion in me. If you are asking me how we can alleviate that pain than my sad answer is that only they can do that. Religiously I believe the atonement can and will heal them.  Civilly, I believe that the best way to prevent crimes of hate is to continue to protect the institution that protects families: marriage.  Making marriage a more exclusive institution rather than a more inclusive one is the only way to try to fight against hatred.  Mothers teaching their children to love, fathers protecting, presiding, and providing for the mother and children’s needs holds the greatest power for change we as a civilization have ever discovered.  Wars will not bring peace, families will bring peace

6)   6) So can we grant civil marriage as a right?  Never, if we are to protect what civil marriage is set up to protect.  I repeat: Marriage is not a right.  Marriage is a privilege, a protection, and a responsibility.

That’s what I think. 

Anyone who made it through that post is probably truly my friend and thanks for caring what I think.