Unfair and Wrong

All the No on 8 ads are getting to me...not swaying my vote, of course, but kinda pissing me off.

Here's the thing about "fair": Life isn't fair. It will never BE fair. It isn't fair to bad people, it isn't fair to good people, it isn't fair to religious people or atheists or blacks or whites or the poor or the wealthy...it just isn't fair. It's nice to strive for fairness, but there are ALWAYS extenuating circumstances, so what is "fair" to one person certainly isn't to another. Was it "fair" for 4 judges to overturn the will of the people? Was it "right" when the majority had stated their desires for their state?

And the very word "unfair" sounds to me like a the word used by a tantruming 5 year-old. "That's not fair, Mommy!" Shut up, kid, and deal with it like we all do.

So it's "not fair" that I don't want to use the word marriage - a definition I believe to be "God-sanctioned union" - to describe a bastardization of that union? Then I'm being unfair, and I'm totally okay with that. I'm entitled to my view, and whether or not Prop 8 passes, (pardon me for sounding like San Francisco's mayor!) I'm never going to think of homosexuals as "married" to one another, "like it or not."So that makes me a bigot, right? The idea that I'm refusing to recognize the "holy" matrimony of two people based on their sexual preference? Because argue it as you like, but I sincerely believe that that is what homosexuality is: a preference. But we'll get to that. You see, I don't care about the color of a person's skin. But I do think that just because someone wants something doesn't always mean - particularly for the sake of the rest of society - that they should get it. Gays want me to call them "married." That's what they WANT. It's not like their civil rights are threatened here...life and opportunity are there!...and I'm not trying to remove either based on the color of their skin or their sex. I'm not even removing opportunity based on their sexually-driven desire to unite with another person...again, civil union!

And I know a number of gays, bisexuals...no trans-gendered individuals, but I'm sure someday I'll know a few of those, too. They're great people, and I love them, and I accept their companions as their chosen companions...But I can HATE THE SIN and LOVE THE SINNER. Hating a sin is not bigoted. Which brings me to "wrong." All the no ads claim it's wrong to "do this" to gays. No, people, what is WRONG is the SIN of homosexuality. I know no one wants to throw this out there because it's too much of a far-right idea, but according to scripture, according to the church (and many many other churches, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and so on!) and according to Jesus Christ, homosexuality is SIN. It is a sin against nature and a sin against God.We are all tempted by different things. My grandfather was tempted by alcohol...to ruination. Some are nymphomanics. Some are tempted by homosexuality. It is when we allow ourselves to indulge in those things by which we are tempted that we commit sin and perpetuate addiction to that sin. Don't drink. But I'm tempted. So I drink. And I like it, so I drink some more. And I am an alcoholic living under the influence of alcohol, and I SIN.

At some point every homosexual on the earth decided to give it a try. To kiss their first same-sex person. To form an emotional AND sexual attachment to someone of their own gender. It is not experiencing the temptation to commit homosexuality to is sinful, and those kinds of preferences and desires do not make them bad people, just as those who crave booze or drugs or porn or any number of sinful items make those people bad. It is giving in that is the sin.

And sinners are not, by definition, bad people. Those who struggle with homosexuality are not bad people. Instead, they are tempted by something that doesn't tempt me. But rather than fight it, they yield, "come out," and suddenly define themselves by who they want to sleep with.I am a religious individual. I view homosexuality as wrong - as sinful - and I have heard a considerable amount of talk lately stating that those who REALLY "love Jesus" and "believe on His name" wouldn't vote away a gay's "right" to marry. If a Christian is really a Christian, they would "love their neighbor." Christ defended an adulterous from death by stoning. He loved her, but he did not excuse her behavior. In fact, rather than vote to make adultery legal to prevent her from the possibility of being stoned in the future (or to prevent other individuals so-tempted and who gave in to that temptation from being stoned), he told her to go and to sin no more. His admonition was one of love, faith, and hope that she would make a better choice.

If Christ were here, would he vote yes or no on prop 8? You, of course, may argue it as you like, and he is NOT here with us (again...as yet...) to vote in this election...but I believe his servants on the earth - President Monson and the 12 - have told us how he would vote. They have admonished us to fight and, Lord willing, prevail in this cause.And even if the church had nothing to say about this MORAL issue, I believe it is safe to say that the Savior of the world would have fought tooth and nail to prevent something that is a sin before God and nature from becoming even more tolerated...or being embraced, as is the case here. He would have embraced those individuals living lives that indulged in homosexuality, but not have embraced their sins. Quite the opposite. While loving the sinner, he'd have spoken out boldly against the sin, overturned the money-changers' tables, as it were.

And I, as one of his (horribly inadequate but very determined) disciples, can do no less.