1/20/10

Converstations on Culture and Morality

It was just a month after our move to California that our bishop invited us to participate in the calling sessions to get people aware of Proposition 8. It was a simple grass roots effort where we met at a member's house and called people in our district (the West Los Angeles / Venice areas) to let them know about the Proposition and to vote for it.

I hadn't previously heard anything about it, but sensing the importance I willingly participated 2 or 3 times. I got sworn at, hung up on, talked to dozens of people who didn't speak English, and also had some stimulating conversations that I've thought about several times since then.

One was a man who proceeded posing a series of questions to me after my introduction. He asked, "Now am I supposed to vote for it or against it?" Then he asked, "Are you going Obama or McCain?" He also asked, "How do they feel about this marriage thing?" I didn't know then, but I later learned that both of them were once for traditional marriage.

Since then, I need not say how much muck and publicity this topic has gotten. However, it's still not dead. The topic is still very fresh on people's minds and people are very passionate one way or the other. This is the reason for this post today.

Today at lunch I had a conversation with some co-workers that turned to that homosexuality topic... again. It started out by talking about different cultures and nationalities marrying.

Apparently there are still cultures, religions and people who disown (and even murder) their children if they marry outside of their community, their religion, or their parental approval. Examples of Irish Catholic families, Muslim families and Italians were given. This isn't surprising, right?

But the tone of the conversation is one that I wanted to note. Everyone was talking about this were aghast. "Can you believe that there are some people who are so behind the times?" and "You know, people who are so stuck in whatever's said in the book (referring to the Qur'an) that the progression of society has completely passed them by..."

I'd like to note that I do not necessarily agree with parents disowning their children because they choose a different path. I know of people who have left their long family line of steeped religion to pursue the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and whose parents disowned them. I've also known the reverse! So I'm not giving a blanket statement here pro or con with that.

What I would like to mention is the judgement from this group of people that those people's actions of "disowning" and "not keeping up with the times." Because in the very next breath it turned to the homosexuality issue.

One woman said, and many others agreed, how stupid it was that a friend pulled her children out of the Torrance public school system because homosexual marriage and homosexuality is openly taught as normal and acceptable. "My friend and her Church teaches her kids that homosexuals are evil people and that it's a choice to live that way," she said with disdain. "It doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that homosexuals are evil people and it's a choice! I have gay friends and there's no way a person would choose a lifestyle to be ridiculed and excluded from normal society."

I wanted to scream, but calmly said, "Can't there be some people who don't agree with the act and lifestyle of homosexuality but still love the person?" She responded, "Sure, but that's not what they teach."

What I realized today is: our culture says that it's not okay for anyone to say something is "immoral." It's somehow wrong to say that something is wrong. From this conversation, which is, I'm sure, one of many similar conversations across the westernized world, it's okay to judge people who judge the way they don't want to them to judge. Or in other words, judging is okay, but only if I do it and only if it agrees with the way I do it.

Yes, there are passages in the Bible that talk about "unnatural affections" and immorality being the cause of the downfall of many societies. I believe the prophets of the ages and today who say that immorality will be the cause of the downfall of our society. I support the role of a husband and wife, a man and a woman, as parents rearing their children the best way they know how.

People who believe this way aren't "behind the times." In fact, many of us have read and studied the times and cycles of humanity from many parts of this world from many generations. That doesn't mean I love people any less who choose immoral behavior, whether it be infidelity, fornication, smoking, drinking, etc. etc. etc.

The truth is, some behavior is immoral. Regardless of how we sugarcoat it, twist it, judge it, or otherwise accept it, some behavior is not right -- whether it's 2,000 years ago, 200 years ago, today or 2,000 years from now. And you know, this whole call to stand up for our beliefs in our government wasn't new when we were asked to make calls about Proposition 8 in 2008? You know it was given with Captain Moroni? And even more recently -- 15 years ago?
"We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity...will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.
"We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."
This proclamation was read by President Gordon B. Hinckley as part of his message at the General Relief Society Meeting held September 23, 1995, in Salt Lake City, Utah.

7 comments:

Cameron and Nonie said...

Thank you. I think there are too many people who forget that. "Love the sinner not the sin."

Jaime Lynne said...

I struggle to put my thoughts on this topic into words. Living in Las Vegas especially brings up questions of morality and culture. Thank you for sharing this post.

Chris said...

Thought provoking post Anna.

I don't think that our culture is saying we can't say something is immoral as much as it is saying you need solid evidence to back up any strong accusations of immorality.

Non-religious people are frustrated because religious people basically have faith that what their bible/religious leaders say about homosexuality is true. Opinions and beliefs are fine but when they affect the rights of other people they need to be justified. I don't want to be persecuted because of some obscure passage of scripture in someone else's holy book. I would hope my government would protect my rights in such a situation.

There is as much variety of personality and character amongst homosexuals as there are hetero. Some are very promiscuous and some are very committed. There are whorish heterosexuals but we don't say they can't enter into their own personal contract of commitment because of their unarguably immoral behavior.

Studies are not validating the suppositions that children of Homosexual parents are more likely to be gay or that Homosexuals want everyone else to be like them or even that they somehow weaken the fabric of society the way that many fear (this is second-hand from a sister/PHD family therapist).

The argument must be made that homosexuals have a negative impact on our families and society and it's a difficult argument to make when we are talking about facts and not beliefs. When it comes to influencing laws it should be about facts.

What really is the threat? how does the existence of a homosexual union in the world threaten your marriage specifically? How does it destroy your family?

We can hold dual opinions about loving someone and hating what they do but I'm sure many abusive husbands really feel like they love the wives that they beat the crap out of. That is something we tell ourselves to make us feel better but is not clearly communicated to those whose souls we love so dearly.

I would prefer the love, influence and positivity of one loving, committed homosexual couple on our society over 1000 trashy, selfish, dishonest Heteros.

I may disagree a little but I loved the post. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. You're a brilliant writer.

Anna Crowe said...

Thank you for your comments all!

Chris: Thank you for your compliment! It tickled me! Interesting thoughts you've added...

Mind if I expand, addressing a few of your questions?

Evidence: When it comes to prophets warning us of imminent danger, there is no evidence except in past patterns or until the foretold destruction has come to pass. You are right in that it's difficult, or pretty much impossible to convince a non-religious person of this "belief." Belief is a powerful thing, but it can't be forced, only shared.

Government protectionYou remember Captain Moroni in the Book of Mormon who erected the "Title of Liberty," and called upon all to defend their religion and their families? He was a member of their government leadership, and it is by this same principle that we stand and ask our government to protect those beliefs. It is our right to do just that.

You're also correct that heterosexual promiscuity is not moral. But that does not mean that the act and the lifestyle of a monogamous homosexual relationship is any less immoral.

Studies: Studies will never prove a prophecy until after the fact. Humankind is still learning. Just because we don't know about something, or don't believe it, doesn't mean it's not real.

What is the threat? The threat is exactly what President Hinckley said, and what is boldly stated in the "Proclamation on the Family." (See the end of the post.) It is important to note, however, that homosexuality is only a part of that "disintegration of the family" leading to the demise of our society and nation. All the immorality, infidelity, promiscuity, abuse, selfishness, apathy, divorce, etc. that destroy the divinely designed family unit, will bring the foretold calamities upon us.

Chris said...

In my opinion this topic is not as cut and dried as it would seem in our culture. LDS people can be justifiably divided along the lines of how they perceive the role of tolerance within a multi-cultural and multi-religious society should be carried out. Even if we were to feel in the depth of our bones that we are right about a particular belief when we recognize that it IS a faith-based belief we should be cautious of how that belief is forced on others (you mentioned that beliefs should not be forced).

It seems relevant to me that the Proclamation to The Family warns those who break "covenants of Chastity" (A willing promise/contract to live a religious law) as well as abusers etc. Most homosexuals have not made any such promises.

If someone came to you and said that they had a holy book that contains both prophesies about punishments for breaking a specific law AND the fulfillment of those prophesies in the same book without any overwhelming outside evidence we would be wise to be skeptical. People unfamiliar with the bible would be totally unaware that some cities named Sodom and Gomorrah ever existed let alone were destroyed according to prophesy.

Surprisingly most religions agree on a lot more than they disagree. The areas they agree on tend to be things that can be logically discussed and evaluated. There is little argument that Infidelity ,abuse, dishonesty and promiscuity have weakening effects on the family unit and can create problems within our society. Because these arguments can be made outside the realm of religion it makes more sense to base our state's laws upon them.

"You're also correct that heterosexual promiscuity is not moral. But that does not mean that the act and the lifestyle of a monogamous homosexual relationship is any less immoral."

If I understand this correctly you are saying that a promiscuous heterosexual who cheats on his wife and destroys his family is "no less immoral" than a committed caring homosexual, even if this person has abstained from sex until marriage, truly loves their partner and contributes to society? It seems like your vision must be obscured a little on this point.

I think there is a strong tendency to over-simplify all the people who fall under the category homosexual. I think we need to see what is really there. If there is a threat to our society it shouldn't be too much to ask for a solid justification; one that is not rooted in beliefs.

I agree that we should have the freedom to criticize immoral behavior. I couldn't agree more with you about Infidelity, promiscuity, abuse, selfishness, apathy, divorce etc.

It seems like you dodged the question though. What do you tell someone who doesn't share your beliefs to convince them that Homosexual unions degrade our society?

Anna Crowe said...

Cool. You're right, I didn't directly answer that question.

First I'm going to address one point you brought up in the paragraph beginning with "If I understand you correctly..." And here's a warning, I do get really "religious" here because this is the basis for my position.

The homosexual act is immoral. Heterosexual infidelity is immoral. Both types of persons with inclinations toward those equally immoral behaviors are not inherently sinful for having the temptation, or the "natural man" inclination. It is my understanding that it is following through with the act in both cases are immoral. Both negate the God-given intent for human sexuality.

I got this from a Catholic statement, and I agree with its principle: "[Homosexual] acts cannot be open to life. Nor do they reflect the complementarity of man and woman that is an integral part of God’s design for human sexuality. Consequently, homosexual acts 'are contrary to the natural law. . . Under no circumstances can they be approved." A cheating spouse also contradicts God's plan.

"Thus saith the Lord God--Cursed shall be the land, yea, this land, unto every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, unto destruction, which do wickedly, when they are fully ripe; and as I have said so shall it be; for this is the cursing and the blessing of God upon the land, for the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance." Alma 45:16

Now, addressing how does enabling a loving, caring, monogamous homosexual relationship to become a legal union destroying a society...

First of all, we're talking about the acceptance of homosexuality as a standard moral for our society. I personally cannot take on the campaign of homosexual marriage as a whole, so I talk about what I believe one on one.

What do I say to someone who doesn't share my beliefs to convince them that homosexual unions degrade our society? For people who really know me, they know I am a deeply religious person. If I were on a one-on-one conversation, and the person were in an argumentative mode, I would not talk about it at all. I would change the subject or leave. I choose not to argue.

Continued...

Anna Crowe said...

...Continued from above...

If there were a personal idea exchange like you (Chris) have engaged here, and for a person who truly desires to know why I want to support the divinely ordained union of a man and a woman, I would refer to these statements I've made here.

Because, how can a person convince anyone of something spiritual who denies the legitimacy and sincerity of the intent? I imagine Jonah going to Ninevah, or Jeremiah and Lehi to Jerusalem, or Samuel the Lamanite, or Moroni standing on a rock platform or wall shouting, "You can't live like this! God told me if you continue in your ways, this all of you will be destroyed!" Of course there are going to be people who get angry, offended, or at minimum annoyed. After all, this is "just some old dude who's out of touch..." They haven't seen the destruction in their day and time. Many have said, "Prove it to me and then I'll believe." This convincing of something spiritual has never worked and never will.

For me, it can be put as simply as this: a prophet said that condoning homosexuality legally will lead to the degradation of our society. And I choose to follow the prophets. I am not blindly following as some negate, because I have studied their words and learned for myself that their words are true. I would invite anyone who truly wants to know to search out the records and read what these words actually say, and then ponder their intent themselves.

Honestly, if someone came to me saying, "This ancient book of religion prophesies of many things--some of which have actually happened. It also warns of some great catastrophes that haven't happened yet, and some things we can do to prevent them," I would say, "Show me this book. Let me read it. Let me study it and learn for myself."

P.S. On a secular note, there have been archeological findings that are very likely five destroyed cities in what the Bible describes the Five Cities of the Plains, which include Sodom and Gomorrah. It's an individual's choice if he or she wants to look it up, learn for him/herself and believe it or not. :D

Chris, thank you for your sincerity in your questions and responses. I hope you feel the sincerity in my words as well. <3