Avoiding contention.

Jes, I would like to publicly & very sincerely salute you for carefully and honestly defending yourself here.  You are brave to enter a domain obviously set in promoting Prop8, which you are so actively working against…  It was gracious of you to accept my husband’s rather clumsy apology.  He has a knack for offending people completely unintentionally, especially via written word.  We all know this is anything but the end of the same-sex vs. traditional marriage debate, regardless of which way votes land. 

And speaking of debate…

In a debate between two parties where each side is completely set on not changing its mind, there comes a point where it might be best to amicably agree to disagree, before it gets too heated to say anything amicably, or before people start jumping to untrue conclusions (like Christians hate gays, or gays can’t be virtuous).  (It happened in my family (and John’s, too) when some of them left our church.) 

I hope we haven’t past that point yet, though it seems we’ve come close.  Ultimately, we have to leave it to the majority to decide which way this issue lands, and ultimately, my husband and I can’t vote on this one anyway!  🙂  Intelligent debate can do a lot for both parties in strengthening their own opinions.  Maybe I’m misreading things, but I see people getting offended and defensive.  That’s where we may swiftly approach the agree-to-leave-it-alone point if we aren’t careful.

We believe homosexual behaviors are wrong; others don’t.  I believe it would be totally immoral for the government to step in and try to force me to accept homosexual relations as right and proper, which *will* happen if judicial review is allowed to overturn prior attempts to define marriage as between a man and woman.  It gets interesting, indeed, when the role of government interferes with the freedom to practice and teach that belief.  Understandably, lifestyles feel threatened & persecuted, even when given full legal equality in everything but name.  This isn’t about hating people or their families.  It’s about *needing* the definition to remain in tact so we have some legal standing for continuing to teach and practice this belief.

Again, I salute those able to argue their positions without being contentious.  Good luck to us all!

PS: Jes, when the vote is in, I really hope we can lay this particular issue to rest between us and be friends.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: