The Debate Rages...

So some Mormon friends of mine started a Facebook event to rally support to vote against gay marriage (or for the ban), and they decided to do it the week I learned one of my long-time friends and coworkers is dying of cancer, so I've decided to take my anger out on one of them in a series of debates through facebook messaging.
I started when I RSVPd to the event and said :

I won't be attending, I'll either be going to the "Save the Whales - Shoot a Dolphin" or "Save the Earth - Blow up a Turtle" event that night.
Get it?
Because shooting a dolphin won't "save" whales, and I'm pretty sure blowing up a turtle won't "save" the Earth, just as discriminating against people who genuinely want to get married, and who have demonstrated long-term commitment and parenting skills in spite of continued discrimination won't "save" California marriages, because the only people threatening California marriages are people who have been able to get married for years - i.e. heterosexuals.

He took the comment down, so I wrote

Haha, remember when "traditional marriage" meant people of mixed races couldn't marry? Are you guys going to rally to bring that back next?

Then he emailed me.

If you don't agree with our stand on this issue, that is fine. However, you don't need to be deragatory towards us. Democracy simply states that we can have a voice. It does not state what kind of voice we need to have. I applaud your personal feelings towards this. However, I ask you go somewhere else to voice them. This group is to allow people who are voting a certain way find others doing the same. It is not for you to get on a soapbox and state whatever you want.

So I responded:

With all due respect, just because my friends are being bigots doesn't make bigotry ok. You're supporting an effort to eliminate the right that consenting adults, taxpayers, Americans, Christians, good people, have, to take part in an institution of of love, respect and community responsibility.
I've celebrated the weddings of a number of our mutual friends, and not celebrated because one happened to have a penis and one happened to have a vagina. I celebrated because they were in love, and now, people want to say that THEY can decide who gets married, that YOU can tell someone that their love isn't as valid as the love you can take part in.
You're right, democracy has a voice, but there were states in this country who wanted to outlaw blacks from marrying whites. In 1967 the courts had to step in and stop states from banning marriages between races, because it was a human rights violation, and that's what we're looking at again. Except, now, instead of "evil southerners" and "evil slaveowners" as the "bad guys" its people who I have sent wedding presents to, people that I've said "congratulations on your wedding," to.
If LDS is opposed to gay marriage, fine, don't let gay Mormons get married in your church. If it's against the book of Leviticus for gays to marry, fine, don't let them get married in churches, but, while you're at it, better start exiling menstruating women and, if you can, find me a rabbit who chews cud, because both of THOSE are also in that section of the Bible.
But since marriage - as soon as it started having tax impacts and legal ramifications - became a state institution, it should, and must, be kept separate from any church. And because of this, I'm going to exercise my voice in any way I see fit, because bad things happen when good people do and say nothing.
So no offense, but I believe in equality for all people, and you don't, and this country is supposed to be based on equality, liberty and justice for all.
As Burke said, and has been paraphrased and re-quoted time and again, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

So he responded, and then wrote back, my comments in blue.

1. Marriage has always had limits on it. It is not legal to marry your sibling, parent, or cousin. Nor is it legal to marry a child. I am sure there are some "consenting adults, taxpayers, Americans, Christians, good people" who would like to change these rules. However, society decides what is moral and what is not. I believe that California did that in March of 2000. 4,618,673 Californians said that gay marriage was not a moral aspect of marriage they wished to accept. I assume you feel each of them was a "bigot". The California decided to overturn the vote of the people. I feel this is a major reason to vote for Proposition 8 to show the courts they cannot override the voice of the people. I do not believe in legislating from the bench, and will be voting to show that.

The fact that you, and so many other people, still list loving a person who happens to have the same genitals as you as a deviance up there with incest and pedophilia, in 2008, is astounding, especially considering that in your book of Genesis, Lot, the very man who railed against the sexual deviance of Sodom, lays with his daughters to "preserve his seed" (Gen 19:early 30ish) . I do feel - in fact - that everyone who voted against it was a bigot. Because - as I said - there as a time when the will of the people wanted to ban interracial marriage, and, I'm hope you'd agree, that the will of the people was in fact wrong at that point. It was also once the belief of the majority that the world was flat, and that germs didn't exist, and both times, a vocal minority proved them wrong.

2. I am not in anyway saying their love is invalid, or they should not have equal breaks in taxes, inheritance, etc. I am simply saying they should not be given the privledge of marriage.

If it's a privilege, show me how you and I have earned that, other than the fact that - and it has to be put bluntly - that we prefer people without penises. It's not that marriage has to produce children, because then barren couples would not be allowed to marry. It can't be because children need a mother and a father to survive, because plenty of parents have died and their children have been fine.

3. I do not feel that groups wanting to change the insitute of marriage will stop at this. They will want to fight against institutes such as churches who refuse to perform same-sex marriages. They will cry out injustice, and who knows what courts will do. They ignored the voice of the people. I want to protect against courts having any right to infringe of the rights of churches and the seperation of churches and state. If you feel this is not going to happen, read about what the U.S. Congress and Supreme Court did to my church in regards to plural marriage.

The courts aren't infringing on church rights, because one doesnt need a church to marry. Holy Matrimony and marriage are not the same thing. One is granted by a church, one by a state. Marriage is a state institution, holy matrimony a church institution. Again, if LDS has a problem with it, fine, dont perform them, and if you guys want to fight against the courts, I'll stand with you, because you're right, if a church doesnt want to, they dont have to. BUT, marriage is not the sole property of the church, and therefore, what you may hold true in your church can not be forced on the rest of the population who does not see it your way, especially because - again - your church and many others are simply violating human rights.

4. Most members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a different opinion on marriage than most other Christians. We believe that marriage has been, is, and forever will be an institute created by God. You believe that marriage is part of the state. I do not. I believe the state came in and started legislating marriage. However, religion never gave up their original claim to marriage.

Interestingly enough, the institution of marriage has been regulated (by civic law incidentally) for over 5,000 years, with laws from ancient Sumeria related to it. Last time I checked, your church is - from what I know - 178 years old, Christianity about 2,000 years, Judaism maybe what, 3-4,000 years old? So show me where you guys invented it?
I've respected Mormons for much of my life. I've defended you against Christians who claim that you guys aren't followers of Christ, I've proudly said how many of my friends are members of LDS. But I'm sorry, I cannot abide by human rights violations, because we don't live in a single-religion or lifestyle world. What goes for your church doesnt go for anothers, what goes for any church doesnt go for me, and as such, we cannot create an institution that outlaws something simply on the basis of people misreading a 2000+ year old collection of myths that has been re-edited and re-written over the ages to fit the needs of the powerful. If the state recognized it, the people who want a marriage outside a church can have one, and if churches want to still deny the right to marry in their church, fine, I'm ok with that, because it's your church, its your mythology, its your belief system. But for the people out there who don't believe as you do, and don't see the world as you do, and aren't doing something to hurt one another, or the world as a whole (come on, they want to get married, to love each other, to be recognized for that love, to have something their parents had, and their grandparents had, and their friends have)

5. You cannot make a judgement in regards to my personal beliefs in regards to my patrotism. That is not your position or right to make any judgement in that regard.

Believing in equality isn't patriotism, its right, its fair, and it benefits our entire world. Frankly, patriotism is as valuable to me as religion.

5. I believe I am doing what Burke stated. I believe I am standing up for an instution that God created and has been changed over the years into something that is a right. I believe entering a covenant of marriage is a privledge that God has given us. So, I am standing up in contradiction to what I see as an evil. You disagree, and I respect that.

Again, you guys didnt invent it, so you can no more claim control over it than I can claim control over the Lego empire, although we'd both like to.
I believe we live in a world of countless religions and beliefs, and our country specifically is supposed to be one of freedom of belief. So I propose the state - a non religious entity - allow it, because people like me, and my cousin and her wife, don't need a church to get married, nor do we want one. And we'll let the churches do what they want with the rest. If you guys dont want to grant marriages to gays, go for it. You'll still be bigots, but at least you're just bigots in your own temples. If the jews down the street don't want it, fine, just as long as they do it on their own. If the Muslims want to do it, great, have fun. But because we live in a world of varied beliefs, our state must see to it that the diverse opinions are regulated and allowed so as not to deny the rights of fair, tax-paying, consenting citizens, and this effort to protect "traditional marriages" will do just that, remove rights.
I dont want gays to be able to have mormon weddings, I dont want them to be able to have Catholic ceremonies, I want my cousin and her wife to be able to say "we're married" and have no one deny it.

So he wrote:

Jason,

I respect your opinions. I am sorry you do not respect mine. If you makes you feel better, I will be accept your opinion of me that I, along with millions of others are bigots. But just know what just because some believes different from you makes them wrong.

Chakaar (name changed to protect the guilty)

so I wrote:

Chakaar,

Believing differently is not wrong, denying human rights is. It's a simple issue. These are not pedophiles, these are not incestuous criminals, these are not sexual deviants, these are men and women who pay their taxes, take part in their communities, go to their churches, go to their schools, love their parents, their children and their friends, and want to be allowed to love as fully as you and I can.

Jason