Monday, August 18, 2008

Aren't they good breeding material?



That is not my observation; I have to give credit to Ashley Spencer for that. That was her very first remark on seeing the engagement picture and invitation for this upcoming marriage, "Ooh, good breeding material." But want to know who are NOT good breeding material? Homosexuals...more in a minute. My little sister and this darling boy will tie the knot on Thursday. I am so very happy for them, not just because this is a happy time, but because of they way they plan to begin and continue what they have already done in life, rather than end it. I have been so puzzled by the attitudes that have pervaded our society, that life is over once you get married...Marriage is all screwed up, from nearly every angle, these days. Prevailing sentiments encourage to either not get married until you have done absolutely everything you wanted to do in life, and then get divorced because you have become too selfish to enjoy sharing any of it, or marry someone who fundamentally is undestined to be your partner...and I don't even believe in destiny. These two beautiful people are doing it the right way.

To begin with, they are each marrying someone of the opposite sex, a noble and worthy endeavor, wouldn't you agree? Unfortunately, in light of the gay marriage issue my state is currently examining, I have to give them credit for that most basic of marriage choices. But since we have to go back to marriage fundamentals here, this is the way it is supposed to be done: man and woman. And while it may sound base, the reason is very simple: man and woman= ability to reproduce. man and man=...well, I won't tell you what it equals, but it does not equal the ability to reproduce. And if nature refuses to condone something that for very uncompromising anatomical reasons, cannot propagate itself, then, I very politely ask, why the hell should we?

I have, until recently, been categorized into the group of people who thought that allowing homosexuals to marry wouldn't really affect me all that much. Sure, it's a small group of people with very loud obnoxious voices arguing over very small technicalities, but gosh, why not just shut them up and give them that very disgusting and unnatural thing that they claim to deserve? I think a lot of people in California feel this way and may either not vote for the upcoming Constitutional amendment that would define marriage as only between a man and woman, or worse, vote against it under the guise of being "non-discriminatory." Unfortunately, there are many pseudo parallelisms to civil rights that the gay rights community (see, even the name of the movement (gay rights) makes you feel as if you are a bad, narrow minded person if you don't jump on board) has fraudulently adopted. But being a non-white minority is not the same as being homosexual, even if for the sake of argument, we assume that being so is always biologically determined. The rights that the minority group of homosexuals are demanding have the potential to negatively impact the rights of far many more people; not so with the far more appropriate civil rights demands made by black people and other minorities.

I am secure enough in my marriage that I am not afraid of gay people devaluing my union by erroneously adopting the same-that is not my contention. My freedom to have a sacred marriage is not literally affected by homosexual marriage, however gross it is to me. But that is only because I am already married. What I am concerned about is my right, freedom and ability to teach my children right from wrong, and the ability of churches all over the country of every type to be able to maintain their own strict sense of morality by condoning ONLY heterosexual unions. That sounds really broad and sweeping and paranoid. It's not. Want to know why? Money. It always comes back to freaking money, doesn't it? All church organizations enjoy some tax breaks and incentives for being church organizations and the good that they do. My church recently came out with a statement that forced me to realize how seriously an allowance of homosexual marriage would affect me, my ability to teach my children, and future children's opportunities of marrying- even in private institutions:

"Legalizing same-sex marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities and policies. Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place “church and state on a collision course..."

and here is the part that really spoke to me from this statement:

"Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions.[17] Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public. Accrediting organizations in some instances are asserting pressure on religious schools and universities to provide married housing for same-sex couples. Student religious organizations are being told by some universities that they may lose their campus recognition and benefits if they exclude same-sex couples from club membership."

These are very real ways that endorsements of homosexual marriage, on a governmental level, have the potential to affect ordinary people. The constitutional directive for church and state to remain separate is a very inspired piece of our government. It works best when church and state run parallel, when they mostly agree but just keep out of each other's domain. It becomes really, really difficult to maintain that critical separation when church and state are in such tense odds with one another. Once government declares that homosexuals deserve to have recognized marriages, that opens the flood gates for all kinds of lawsuits against organizations-including church organizations who receive tax breaks for being so- who still want to maintain their policies against homosexuality. It is entirely possible that the government could threaten many churches' ability to function, by removing their tax incentives, if they refuse to recognize and/or perform homosexual unions. What happens when public schools are required to teach that lesbian and gay marriages are exactly the same as heterosexual marriages? It has already happened in Massachusettes: Watch this. What happens to sex education if our schools now assume that kids need to learn about ALL types of sex? Well, I know that in my house, my husband may have just won the private vs. public school argument if this amendment does not pass.

I am not a gay hater. I have several lovely lesbo friends at my local dog park. My mom, much to my father's intolerant chagrin, has a gorgeous gay hairdresser (really, it is a shame for many a potential woman that this man is not straight.) We, as a church, as a society, as individuals, are not trying to persecute homosexuals. But the Constitution is very clear about the rights of society when they come into conflict with the rights of individuals: the rights of an individual end where the rights of the majority become jeopardized by the asserted rights of the individual. I have recently realized how very real my rights as a parent, the rights of churches everywhere, and more importantly, the rights of my children could be negatively affected if this amendment to California's constitution does not pass. So please vote for Prop 8. Please encourage people you know to vote. And go Britt and Chels-way to be heterosexual and put one up for the straight-thinking team. I can't wait to participate in this blessed, and very natural, I might add, event.

So, my conservative friends and family, have I exonerated myself yet?

20 comments:

Chandler in Las Vegas said...

Well, darlin, aren't you precious. How do you feel about Hindu weddings? Weddings that are absolutely devoid of the grace of the Holy Spirit? Does the sacred bond between man and woman extend beyond our simple Judeo-christian ethic. Do you consider them sacred? Well, as I see it, Civil Marriage should be extended to that lovely hairdresser of your mama's. He probably deserves to settle down with a nice man and stop his filthy promiscuity. Let us pray he has the option.

Ashley said...

Thanks Chandler. Apparently, you are quite "precious" yourself because you missed the entire point of my post. I said nothing about the sacredness, or Holy Spirit or Judeo-Christian values. I was talking about tension between church and state and how hard it is for them to remain separate when government steps in and makes a law that directly opposes nearly every major church organization in America. PS Remember how our government is based on the will of the people? Well, 44 out of the 50 states in the Union have decided that they think marriage should be defined as only between man and woman. So thanks for your irrelevant perspective on Hindu weddings-but for the record, yes. I do believe a bond between man and woman is sacred because such a bond has the power to create life. And no one said that gay people can't settle down and swear off promiscuity. But thanks.

Anonymous said...

Oh, I just feel sorry for you! The narrow-mind you have. How are you so certain that you know, without a doubt, what is right and wrong? You are making these statements based on what certain members of society and your religion have told you, but the truth is, no one knows. Yes, it is just that simple. NO ONE knows. You have a faith in something, and you've had leaders tell you you're right, but you don't know. You live your life how you feel is best, and you would be outraged if our government or society told you otherwise. For whatever reason, homosexuals live thier lives the way they feel best, and all they are asking for is to be treated a little more fairly. And to be honest, there is so much hate and anger in this ugly world, I embrace ANYONE that can find a loving meaningful relationship.

As for how you raise your children, it sounds like you are so scared that your child might end up...gasp...GAY, that you are already jumping at the chance to blame someone if he does. Maybe it's already in his blood and there is nothing you can do about it. Only you, not society or government, can decide how to raise your children and what to tell them is right and wrong. Even then, when he or she grows up, they might not agree with you! It's called being your own person, and it's what makes our world a great and interesting place. Society has bigger problems than homosexuality, are you going to blame them for every bad trait your child might develope that you don't agree with?

My words won't change your mind, in fact they probably will just make you more angry, but maybe take a step back and realize that there are much bigger problems in this world than two people that love each other and want to be bound together forever. You want so badly for people to listen and see your point of view, but I'm betting you are not so willing to hear other opinions. Good luck with your children, I hope for their sake they don't turn out gay.
Hopefully they will just do drugs or murder someone. That would be more tolerable for you right?

Lisa said...

Chandler your first post was so witty I was ready to have a Civil Union with you, but then it all took and ugly, scary turn.

Can I ask why your sister already has wedding photos if she is not married yet?

Cambrie said...

Wow Ashley you've created a stir, but I'm glad you did because obviously people are reading it. I read it too and I must say I agree.
I know without any doubt that being gay is wrong. Thanks for pointing out how it will affect our society if the government accepts it as normal.

Ashley said...

Lisa-He came to her bridal pictures...I'm sure you think that is weird. It might be.

And, excuse me anonymous/Chandler, but how am I any more narrow minded than you are? How are you so positive that I am wrong and you are right?...and once again, this was not a religious post. Man, you and Chandler. You proved my point precisely by saying "Only you, not society or government, can decide how to raise your children and what to tell them is right and wrong." If government says it's right and I say it is wrong, then who is helping to raise my child?

And I am with you all the way on embracing any person who finds solace in a loving, stable, committed relationship-gay or straight. I just don't want government acknowledging a gay union legally for the reasons I mentioned...maybe you should reread what I wrote rather than projecting opinions onto me that I did not voice. Gay couples in California have every single right that a married couple does if they form a civil union-and I am all for that. This has become an argument over semantics and technicalities. And a very expensive one.

Assuming that I am naive and blindly following the directives of my church was a mistake on your part. I understand your point and I agree with you to some degree. I just don't agree with the method of accomplishing that goal.

Chelsea said...

Ash. You rock- for lot's of reasons but mostly because you post really cute, sentimentalities, & OPEN MINDED/UNBIASED OPINIONS...yeah way to stick to your guns and congratulations on practicing your right to free speech. Love You!

Chino Blanco said...

LDS 'Yes on 8' Game Plan

I've posted a letter sent from Boyd K. Packer on July 28th to the California LDS stake presidents:

BKP July 28

Apparently, there is a plan in place to put up one million 'Yes on 8' yard signs at 7:00 am on September 22nd.

Anonymous said...

So, Anonymous #1 would embrace "ANYONE" with a loving, meaningful relationship, but not you--even though you have one of those relationships--because you don't agree with homosexuality. Does that make him/her a liar?

Christy said...

Thanks for your post! I think it is important for people to understand that prop 8 is not about giving rights to same gender couples, it is about taking rights away from the rest of us. This country was founded by individuals escaping religious intolerance and now we are doing the same thing, by letting the government determine what religions can teach.

Michelle Tolboe said...

I'm calling out the Anonymous writer(s)!! Identify yourself instead of hiding behind your fake name!

And I also think it's a little strange that Chandler in LV is blog stalking you.

Congrats, Ash, on stirring up the pot. Things were getting a little too boring.

Benji said...

Anonymous said "the truth is, no one knows. Yes, it is just that simple. NO ONE knows."

Oh really? Somehow you KNOW that no one knows. Explain that one to me. Which of these situations is more likely:
1) somebody knows the truth because, say for example, God spoke to them.
2) an "anonymous" internet poster has been given the gift to look into the hearts and minds of the entire world population and has learned that anyone who claims to know the truth is either a liar or a lunatic.

I would vote #1. Anyone who votes #2 is a liar or a lunatic (just my opinion).

Prop. 8 is not at all about a lifestyle that is right or wrong, and it's not about being a bigot or being mean-spirited. It boils down to the rights of churches to refuse their services (marriages, student housing, adoptions, etc.) to people who go directly against their teachings, without having to face "discrimination" lawsuits. You wouldn't expect a vegetarian or a Hindu to be forced to slaughter a cow because you want a roast beef sandwich, but that's what it boils down to.

lauren said...

welcome back, my dear spitfire of a friend. and what i love most of the most is how you replied to chandler and the anonymous people. it's the ash i know and love. for sure.

KB said...

I do not agree with you, but I actually do respect you for standing up for what you believe. There is just one point you made that I don't exactly understand, however. When you talk about the point of marriage being for reproduction, are you implying that people who cannot reproduce should not be allowed to marry? Many straight couples are infertile, or simply choose never to have children. Should they be denied marriage? I guess I feel that the ability to reproduce should not be criteria one must meet to be united in marriage.

Ashley said...

Not at all, KB. And I never said that homosexuals should not enter into a civil union and claim all of the practical rights guaranteed to a married couple. My only contention is that I do not wish to have my government decide, through mandates in churches and schools, that what I (and the majority of Americans) decide is immoral is not only right, but exactly the same as a heterosexual marriage; Many churches, and frankly most of America, and I want the right to maintain a moral stance against the practice of homosexuality. That is literally an impossible right to grant if the government refuses to acknowledge that there is a fundamental difference between a homosexual and heterosexual union. You are right-many straight couples choose to not, or cannot, have children. But the ability to reproduce IS the fundamental difference-that is a fact. Nature said so. Government should not try to make the two the same.

Anonymous said...

pathetic. live and let live kiddo.

Alex said...

why do annoying people who have no idea what they are talking about get on your blog...? BETWEEN you and i I'd like to punch anonymous man/woman right in the face...just kidding. FREEDOM OF SPEECH right?! rock on ash. I don't feel sorry for you...AND you are DEFINITELY not pathetic. so chin up little soldier. i think your winning...-Alex

Luana said...

Hi Ashley,
Thought I would brighten things up with a positive comment....Chelsea looks beautiful and I am so happy for her and your entire family. Especially your mom and dad. Nothing beats seeing your children happy in life.

Ashley said...

Don't get on my blog and call me kiddo, anonymous. I am happy to live and let people live. Live gay if you want, I don't care. I'll say this one more time so everyone gets it: I don't want the government telling me (and my kids) that homosexual marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage. So be gay, form a partnership, civil union, join the circus, I don't care. Just don't take rights away from me in order to further your agenda.

CHUNTZ said...

Wow, cant believe she is really hitched. Ps ran into your uncle the other day, he is just like your dad. I asked him if he went to get Einsteins everyday with you dad...his reply..." He comes with me" ha ha ha! Gotta love those Allreds!