MySpace
myspace music my music  featured playlists  top artists  music videos  karaoke  shows  forums 


blogs.myspace.com/librarylily
MySpace.com | rss | sign in
Library Lily and the Tales of the Bard



Last Updated: 11/23/2009

Send Message
Instant Message
Email to a Friend
Subscribe

Status: Single
City: BELLINGHAM
State: Washington
Country: US
Signup Date: 5/14/2008
Monday, November 03, 2008 

As a Harry Potter fan and a member of the wrock community, I believe that prejudice is deeply wrong, that unity is important and that love is our greatest (and often our only) weapon. In battling prejudice and other forms of injustice, we fight a common evil. But those who fight side by side on some fronts may have different opinions now and again, and we all need to be able to see past the seemingly impenetrable logic of our own arguments and understand where another person may be coming from.

Our culture has made great and very important steps forward in accepting interracial marriage (although we are not the first culture to do so) and in recognizing the value of women as individuals and members of society. We have also taken some very decided steps backward, and it is important that we not forget that. Marriage, as it currently stands, has so little value that it is far too easy to contract (for heterosexuals, at least! I hate to be another voice accusing Britney Spears, but she's a good example of this) and far too easy to get out of. It is valued only for a very few things, such as:

--a certain set of civil benefits, most—if not all—of which, gays and lesbians already have in the state of California;
--'monogamy', although monogamy in marriage is really practiced only in certain societies, usually Christian ones;
--the big celebration replete with family, friends, glamour photos and presents that generally kicks it off.

If that sort of thing is all that marriage is, then by all means—why wouldn't we give that to homosexual couples? I should mention here that I have relatives and friends, all of whom I love very much, who very much want their sexual preference ratified by the granting of marriage licenses.

But there is another side to this issue, and it requires walking backward through many open gates to understand. Why, why on earth, would someone like me—someone who knows and loves gays and lesbians and wants them to be happy—stand in favor of Proposition 8?

"Your religion". I can hear the words out of a thousand mouths. I am a Catholic Christian; that is no secret. It is crucial that you all understand this: If it were merely a religious objection, I would shut my mouth about it right now. I don't campaign in the streets to ask for legislation calling Protestants to listen to the pope or atheists to admit the existence of God. My religious concerns are my own affair, and it would go against my conscience to order the non-religious to live by them.

From my point of view, before I can allow for homosexual marriage, I have to agree with a lot of other things which are allowed and encouraged by the United States, all of which are against my reason, my conscience and my understanding of love. For instance:

--the idea that pornography is a right under freedom of speech laws.
--the idea that a woman's right to pursue happiness grants her the right to give over responsibility for the human being in her womb.
--the idea that sex before marriage is normal and natural and doesn't—or shouldn't—have serious consequences to hearts and bodies and lives
--the idea that marriage is something you do on a weekend in Vegas and divorce is something you do when you discover that you don't have all the same feelings anymore.
--the idea that sexual freedom is a higher right than freedom of conscience, which generally gets taken away from individuals and organizations when sexual license is on the line.
--the idea that a union not capable of consummation in the most basic sense can be defined as a marriage.

Ultimately, I think that what is traditionally called 'morality' is not simply an issue of personal freedom that affects no one but the individual(s) involved. Morality is an outgrowth of committed, self-sacrificial love and it defends traditional families, which are the building blocks of society. I have watched this all my life from my family and can tell you that it works, and that generally the happiest people I know are those who practice it. I'm not suggesting that it be legislated; I'm suggesting that our society encourage it, rather than discouraging and penalizing it as our society has shown itself more and more inclined to do.

As to the word 'hate', which is often carelessly applied to anyone who says no to gay and lesbian marriage, my conscience is clear. I have nothing but love and concern and a desire for happiness in my heart toward any gay or lesbian—for my family member and for her 'California spouse', for the men behaving obscenely in the gay pride parades, for the pair of boys that walks, hand in hand, past my office window now and again. I want nothing but the best for them, and to my best ability I try to work that out in my words and actions.

I'm not expecting to convince everyone who may read this. What I'm attempting to provide here, for anyone who may struggle with these issues as I do, is permission to dissent.

UPDATE (taken directly from my last comment): I will leave comments enabled for discussion and dissent as long as those comments remain good-natured and clean, as they have been so far. I may or may not respond, though, as lack of time and energy prevent my getting too involved in a comment-exchange. Thanks to all of you for your participation, and love to you all.

7:08 AM
 
Print
Previous Post: Stronger than Magic: Lyrics and Notes | Back to Blog List | Next Post: Thanks to WWU Harry Potter Club
Library Lily and the Tales of the Bard

 
Hi, Captain Krystal! Sorry that was confusing.

It’s a question of definition—sounds trivial, maybe, but it’s a big difference between the arguments. If the only definition of marriage is a state-recognized romantic union between two individuals, then homosexual marriage is maybe not such a big deal.

What I’m saying is that California (and other states) are trying to rewrite a definition of marriage that is much older and bigger than our society, that goes back beyond written record. Not that homosexuality hasn’t also been around—it has, or it wouldn’t have been written about in ancient codes of law. But the form of marriage itself, while it has varied from society to society somewhat (monogamy vs. polygamy, domestic laws, etc.), it has always been inherently heterosexual and ordered toward having children (even though it doesn’t achieve this purpose in every case).
 
Posted by Library Lily and the Tales of the Bard on Wednesday, November 05, 2008 - 2:23 AM
[Reply to this] 
Peg

 
I must admit, I am having a great deal of difficulty making out your reasoning from what you have written here.

"From my point of view, before I can allow for homosexual marriage, I have to agree with a lot of other things which are allowed and encouraged by the United States, all of which are against my reason, my conscience and my understanding of love."

Um, no. Homosexual marriage really doesn't have to do with any of the items you list here. (???) I don't understand why on earth you are linking homosexual marriage with, for example, the battle over abortion.

If I understand you correctly (? and I'm not sure that I do?) your argument against gay marriage seems to boil down to "morality."

Are you aware that "morality" was also the principle reason against interracial marriage? "God doesn't want us to do that! It's against the natural order!" By which I think many people secretly meant "Ew, the very idea squicks me, so I'm absolutely sure God must be against it, too."

Are you sure that's not what's going on here when you look at homosexual couples?

You state that traditional families are the building blocks of society. Um, why does encouraging traditional families preclude encouraging non-traditional families? I don't understand how (or why) they should be mutually exclusive.

You state that you want "nothing but the best" for non-traditional families. How is not being allowed to visit a partner in the hospital, or denying a child the right to live with one parent if the other parent dies, or disallowing inheritance rights or denying health care benefits "nothing but the best" for those familes???

"Morality is an outgrowth of committed, self-sacrificial love and it defends traditional families, which are the building blocks of society."

I have read this sentence again and again, and what I think you are saying is that non-traditional families are immoral. By definition, because they are non-traditional.

All I can conclude (and I hope that I have stated it politely enough) that I really fail to see your reasoning.
 
Posted by Peg on Sunday, November 09, 2008 - 12:21 AM
[Reply to this] 
Peg

 
I should add, by the way, that I'm speaking personally as someone whose thinking has evolved a great deal on this topic. I can be sympathetic because I used to think EXACTLY as you did (and, I'll add, also partly because of religious principles): "No, no! I don't wish anybody any harm, but this is just wrong, wrong, wrong."

What happened? Why did my opinions change so much, that I went from thinking that gays should have no legal rights whatsoever (they shouldn't be hired, landlords should be able to evict them, etc.) to believing that there is nothing whatsoever immoral about homosexuality, and gays should be able to work without discrimination (including serving as members of the clergy) marry and adopt?

Well, I started meeting gay people, just as I went about my life. I talked to them. I discovered that they were not very different from me. And I did TONS of research when I wrote my second novel, The Wild Swans, which had a gay protagonist. So I look back now at my younger (and I'm afraid, desperately smug) self and say, "Boy, I was utterly wrong there when I thought that. Absolutely dead wrong." I still have strong religious principles, I'll add; that hasn't changed. But I now understand that God can make His children, in His own image, as homosexual as well as heterosexual.

I think that what happened to me will happen to a lot of people over the next couple of decades.
 
Posted by Peg on Sunday, November 09, 2008 - 12:38 AM
[Reply to this] 
Library Lily and the Tales of the Bard

 
Hi, Peg,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. This is generally such an emotional issue from both directions that having meaningful debate can be a challenge.

I would like to point out, first and emphatically, that I do not think homosexual people are ANY different from me. They are not worth one whit less as individuals or members of communities. It is very important that this be understood, because otherwise the argument instantly becomes ad hominem. And for whatever it's worth, homosexuality itself doesn't really 'squick' me (although as a writer I must say that 'squick' is a fantastic word, and I'm very much looking forward to a situation in which I CAN use it. :) ) As I say, I know homosexuals. I'm related to some of them. I care about them. I love them.

In explaining my list of things I have to accept to get to 'gay marriage', I'm working against a sort of societal concept of 'progress'. The idea you, for instance, seem to be working from is that we've knocked down racial boundaries--that was progress--allowing homosexual couples to marry is the next big step. What I'm saying is that, with the exception of interracial marriage and allowing a little more freedom for women, almost all of our society's direction in the area of sexual relationships has been regress. Open (and expected) premarital sex, especially among teenagers. Abortion. Pornography treated as an okay thing. Getting married without meaning it. No-fault divorce. Anything and everything but self-control.

In our culture, concepts like 'sex' and 'marriage' have lost almost the entirety of their meaning due to the dangerously lackadaisical manner in which both are treated. I think that human hearts are paying the price for this--a price much too high, especially for the hearts of children.

If one partner isn't allowed to see another in the hospital, let's fix that. Etc. But marriage is a much bigger concept than our society has managed to grasp. A close look at the traditional concept of marriage itself, what it means, what it's used for, what it's meant to authorize, shows that homosexuality has nothing whatever to do with it. Tax benefits and visitation rights are a societal construct only loosely and arbitrarily tied to marriage. Civilly or religiously, marriage is meant to authorize (not enforce, but allow) the sexual relationship and the bearing of children.

One more thing--and I say this because too many people believe the caricature of Christians as ignorant, theocracy-advocating moral hypocrites--You point out that some people used religion as an excuse to justify their racist attitudes. Some people did, yes. But Christian men and women drove/helped to drive both the abolition of slavery and the end of segregation. They did so directly from Christian moral convictions.

Your same thought process has happened to a lot of people already, owing largely to a strong campaign through the media, the entertainment systems, and education, all of which are very much dominated by one side of the story. My goal here, though I'm absolutely small-potatoes, is to remind people that there is another side worth considering.

I hope I don't sound smug to you. Any adult human with solid introspective qualities knows what it's like to look back at a time when we feel we were smug about certain beliefs. I personally feel anything but smug right now. I would far rather not be having this conversation, but it isn't about me. There is just too much at stake.
 
Posted by Library Lily and the Tales of the Bard on Tuesday, November 11, 2008 - 3:10 AM
[Reply to this] 
Library Lily and the Tales of the Bard

 
Hi, Lizz,

Here are a few responses to your thoughts:

"There is supposed to be a separation of church and state and allowing the constitution to be altered in favor of one religion is unconstitutional ..."

There is a separation of church and state. The churches don't run the state, and frankly, part of my personal support for Proposition 8 is that the undercurrent against it gives the state more power over the churches than it ought. The Catholic church, for instance, runs a lot of charitable institutions. Their adoption agencies suddenly become required to adopt children out to homosexual couples, just as their hospitals get forced by other laws to hand out contraceptives or even provide abortions. This is not providing equality for gays, it's trouncing on freedom of conscience.

"You are, however, taking credit for the idea of marriage on behalf of Christians ..."

Actually, no ... I'm taking the concept of marriage outside of our society. We didn't define it, and I don't think we get to redefine it.

Marriage predates Christ, Moses, even Abraham. I'm not claiming the institution for the Judeo-Christian faith or any faith. One of the unfortunate struggles that Christians run into in debating these issues is the automatic assumption that whatever they think is drawn entirely from their faith and thenceforth used to submit others to their desire for power. It's important that people be careful of making this assumption, because it's often wildly false.

"The Romans (who are likely to have created the establishment) typically used marriage as you described it ..."

I'm not sure if you meant the Romans are likely to have created the marriage establishment or the Christian establishment, but they did neither. We have records of marriage that predate Rome by hundreds of years. Marriage may be one of, if not the very first, of institutions to be recorded. It certainly predates all societies present today. And the records of the founding of Christianity are pretty strong, as are the records of how hard ancient Rome tried to stamp it out.

As to whether ancient Rome allowed same-sex marriage, I hadn't heard that but it's hard to be surprised. The old Rome's ideas on heterosexual sex and marriage were at least as unreasonable as ours.

It is interesting to note that monogamy, perhaps more than any other marriage law in our country, is derived from religious values. The "right" to marry more than once seems like it should have at least as strong an argument as does a right to marry a person of the same sex. Why do we not argue for that? Ours is not the first society to get a bit weak on the definitions and purposes of marriage and sex. Where, then, do we go for a reality check on what laws work best for society?

"You are essentially punishing homosexuals for the rest of society's problems (the premarital sex, abortions, and reckless marrying practices you mentioned) ..."

Again, you've misread my words. I'm not blaming homosexuality for any of the above. I'm saying that the very idea that gay marriage is possible is an outgrowth of our allowing and even approving those other problems. I'm not accusing any gay person of any of those things; I'm accusing our society of losing its grasp on the deeper realities of sex and marriage. I'm not saying gays shouldn't get married, I'm suggesting that technically they can't. Wedding ceremony plus state-issued paper is not necessarily equal to marriage.

More importantly, I'm not at all out to spite gays here. I'm asking for a return to a stable morality, the sort of thing a society can rest upon; and while I wouldn't go so far as to say homosexuality is completely irrelevant to my case, it's not the main point.

"As someone who is not Christian, I understand that my people are a minority in this country, but I do not feel like its appropriate to inflict the majority's religious beliefs upon my relationship."

Non-Christians are only a minority on a survey form. The majority of people who check "Christian" in a box on an information sheet neither attend church nor vote as social conservatives. Prop 8 was put through in large part by ethnic minority groups. Again I say, this is not a religious issue. This is part of a deeper question of health for our society. And it's really only one small step on a very long path, much of which we've already traversed.

Finally, peace to you and to everyone who reads this. To everyone: I will leave comments enabled for discussion and dissent as long as those comments remain good-natured and clean, as they have been so far. I may or may not respond, though, as lack of time and energy prevent my getting too involved in a comment-exchange. Thanks to all of you for your participation, and love to you all.
 
Posted by Library Lily and the Tales of the Bard on Tuesday, November 18, 2008 - 3:58 AM
[Reply to this]