Oh Goody, a blog troll!

This is too good not to blog about. I recently had a visitor to my blog who posted a comment in my "Signing For Something" post. Now, I've had people leave me snide remarks from time to time, but this guy actually wrote an entire thesis statement that is too good to be left in the comments.

I give the guy props, he seems to post using his real name. Without further ado:
(My responses to Jeff are in blue)

Jeff said...
I think that you are all being pretty nieve about this whole issue. No naivete here. We've all challenged the way that we were raised and taught, and came to these conclusions on our own, after thorough thought and research. The law already has already defined marriage to include homosexual couples. We live in a common law system, which means that laws are created in 2 ways. 1) governing bodies enact laws and 2) courts define/refine the meaning of laws by their rulings. The California courts have already ruled that homosexual marraiges are legal (despite the previous law enacted). The law in California has been ammended to include homosexual unions as marriage, yes. However Proposition 8 wants to change that law, and I'm vehemently against Proposition 8. That's the point that I'm arguing here. So what are the implications you ask? Textbooks will include new definitions of the word family. Pictures of same gender families will become required, "Oh Noes!" Yeah, I have no problem with any of this otherwise the textbook publishers will be found to be discriminatory. Law suites will enforce this. State sponsored and required sex eduction classes will begin (in some states they already have) to teach that homosexuality is natural, and acceptable and that if you have feelings toward a same gender then it is natural and right to pursue those feelings, as natural and as right as any other form of sexuality. It's pointless to argue this with me and many others, because we believe that homosexuality IS natural. Let me ask you something, Jeff. When did you decide to be straight? When did you decide to like women? At any time in your life, did you think "I need a date to the prom. Do I ask a boy or do I ask a girl?" I'm willing to bet that this thought has NEVER entered your mind. Why? Because naturally, you are attracted to women. Sexual attraction is not a choice, Jeff. Counselors in schools and other state sponsored programs will likewise be required to treat homosexuality as normal and acceptable behaviour. Okay. Currently in some sex ed classes, dildo's are passed out to be handled so that students can get comfortable with them. These districts will also encourage that homosexual feelings be explored.These are not things that I want my children exposed to .. That's fine... but they will not have an opportunity to opt out. How do you know? This depends on where you live. In the state of Utah, parents have the choice to opt their children out of sex ed. I think this is a travesty of immense proportions, but it's the current law. You're making assumptions, Jeff. This will be required and state mandated. Should the church care about such things? and are they wrong to appose them? I personally do not feel that way. The church has the right to care about anything it wants to. And, it can preach from the pulpit, anything it wants to. That's not the point. The thing that gets to me, is the church stating one week "We do not encourage our members how to vote, we ask that they pray over the issues and vote their conscious", and the next week (or same day, even?) Say "We encourage our members to donate their spare time and dollars towards fighting proposition 8." It's hipocracy that gets to me. It's the emotional blackmail that the church imposes on its members. Is it because I'm homophobic? perhaps. Admitting it is the first step to overcoming it. Good job, Jeff! Not in the sense that I fear it but I fear the consequences that it will bring. What consequences? How will your neighbors right to practice homosexuality the same way you practice heterosexuality, affect you? Will it make your spouse or children love you less? Will it make the price of gas go up? Will hurricanes wipe out New Orleans? What? Seriously, I want an answer to this. WHAT ARE THE DIRE CONSEQUENCES THAT WE SHOULD FEAR? The church has the right to encourage it's membership to participate in actions that fight this. Sure, but call it what it is. To say that the church should put their efforts into other acts of humanitarian service is a bit strange, just because there exists other opportunities for investment does not mean that I should put all of my resources to one specific task. Fair enough. Besides, as a member, I am reminded once a month to donate to the poor through fast offerings. Yeah, I remember donating to fast offerings until it hurt. My husband was the finance clerk for awhile, and was constantly being called to sign checks for various reasons for people in the neighborhood. I'm aware that the money donated goes directly to the ward boundaries, then the stake boundaries, until eventually the "extra" funds ended up at the church headquarters. I also remember the great Tsunami at the end of 2004, and we were all encouraged to generously donate to the cause. So, my husband and I wrote a giant check out to the Humanitarian Fund, happy to support those in extreme need. I was shocked and dismayed to find out later that they weren't taking money to support the Tsunami victims from the Humanitarian Fund, but from fast offerings instead. So all the "Extra" money that people donated to their fast offerings went first to those in our neighborhood who couldn't pay their gas or water bills, then to those in the stake who couldn't pay their gas or water bills (and in my ward and stake there were A LOT!!), and THEN whatever money was left, was sent to church headquarters where it was then distributed to the Tsunami victims. I find this practice to be devious and unfair. It manipulated the members to donate, thinking they were helping a global tragedy, when in reality they were just paying for more gas and water bills in the neighborhood. This was a giant "WHAT THE FUCK" moment for me. whenI am also reminded to support the humanitarian aid fund as well as the perpetual eduction fund regularly. Let's not discuss the perpetual education fund. I think it's a sham and it's another topic for another day. I am asked to donate my time to service projects regularly. In our ward, we have make quilts for babies in needs, collect items for humanitarian kits, and server regularly at a local service kitchen that feeds the poor. That does not include all of the service hours by the youth for scouting and young women projects. I never said that the church doesn't have a humanitarian bone, they absolutely do. So do the catholics, the jews, the atheists, and *shock shock horror* THE GAYS! Furthermore, the church has one of the largest welfare programs of any NON governmental organization in the world. Could they do more..sure. But that does not preclude them from spending time and effort in fighting for something that they believe is wrong. They have the right to. They have not asked you to agree with it, Um yes, they ask their members to agree with it they have not made it mandatory, Only in the sense of emotional blackmail, as previously stated. I remember ammendment 3 that was passed in Utah in 2004, legally defining marriage as between one woman and one man, when the church made similar pleas. They also said "Any member in good standing will vote to pass ammendment 3." Shit, I was a member in good standing, but I DID NOT AGREE with this law! I was emotionally blackmailed to vote AGAINST my conscious, because I had to be right in the eyes of the lord. rather they have asked you to prayerfully consider it. Is there something implicit in the recommendation? certainly. Bullying? no Yup. Wrong? and Yup. I cannot fathom a definition of wrong that would say that the church does not have the right to support legislation that it believes is beneficial. The church's position on political neutrality has long included a statement that exempts it on measures that it believe's it has a moral obligation to support. It is wrong to say that they CANNOT exercise their rights just because you personally disagree with their position. You can and should argue that you disagree with the position and you can say that their position is wrong because of x, y or z. But they are not wrong state and encourage support for their position. This point has already been argued above, I won't beat a dead horse here. I have always been amazed at the boldness of the homosexual in their plea for acceptance, and the fact that their behavior is not 'tolerated'. Following that line of thinking, then the church should willing ignore all sin. Sexual relations before marriage should be permissible and the church should stop telling people to refrain from it. Cheating during marriage should likewise be ignored, as should pornography. Oh dude, you did not go there, did you? Oh no you di'ent! Oh yes you did. *sigh* #1, in order to make homosexuality not sinful, then ALLOW THEM TO MARRY so that they CAN have sex in the confines of legal marriage. #2 where do you get off comparing sexuality to cheating on spouses and looking at porn? This all happens in STRAIGHT marriages! This is not a homosexual concept! This happens worldwide, and is not discriminatory. Come up with a better argument! In fact they should stop teaching the law of chastity in general and become accepting of all regardless. But such a position is ludicrous. Homosexuals say they are excluded which is true, but so are adulterers and fornicators.To which is commonly argued that they are therefore being asked to be denied the opportunity to express themselves sexually. To which every non-married member of the church can say...yes and your point is?Yet that is not what the Saviour teaches. I thought the Savior teaches love and accepetance for all, regardless. If the so called "Jesus Christ" were alive today, I would bet my life that he would support homosexual marriage. Christ loved everyone, and would not exclude a certain group because the majority found them to be "unnatural" Lastly a quick comment on the "God made me this way and hence will condone my actions because that is the way that I am made" I can find no such scriptural connotation. The invitation is to come follow Him regardless. To the alcoholic (genetic or otherwise) he says give it up. not the same thing To the rich man (earned or by birth) He asks to give all that thou hast. Indeed, the command (Abraham 3:25) "and we will prove them herewith to see if they will do ALL things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them." is to see what you are willing to give the Lord. Christ showed the example, he lived a perfect life in which he never had to taste the pains of guilt or remorse. Then He was asked to feel all of our pains and guilt and suffer in both body and spirit. Was it required FOR Him? no. but it became required OF Him and so He partook. Is it fair that Christ should have had to suffer for us? no it is not. But I'm certainly glad He did. Now He asks us to come follow Him. Regardless of our condition.

*sigh* I don't want to offend all of my readers regarding my take on chris and the atonement, so I'll let that lie. I responded to this in a moment of insomnia. It's 4 in the morning and my brain isn't exactly full functioning.

Anyone else care to banter on the subject?