Majority Rules

I posted this on my Facebook page about a year ago. I was annoyed, and I not only quite often communicate better in writing, I can't stand having the same conversations over and over. "Maybe," I think, "if I say this in a public forum, I won't have to engage in repetitious conversations." Yeah, it's never worked that way, but I feel better after I write something. It's like thoughts just need me to give birth to them and set them free.

And some things shouldn't surprise me, but they do - I'm surprised every time someone says, "You know that most people disagree with you, right?" Sometimes they're very gentle and concerned, patting my hand. Sometimes, they're angry, and insisting that I have no right to speak an unpopular opinion aloud.

Here's why the query surprises me - I'm a Mormon. I homeschool my kids. I classify myself as a housewife. I mean, what about my life says, "popular choices"? How does anyone suppose that it's escaped my attention that I'm a minority, in multiple, fundamental ways? I cannot imagine how deluded someone would have to be to, say, belong to an unpopular religion, but still think that most people think and act like they do.

So, I find myself making pronouncements on social media.

Consider with me, People of Facebook -

Photos like the one of the man standing in the middle of a crowd in Nazi Germany, folding his arms while everyone else gives the Nazi salute, go viral. We share them all over our social media, saying, "Be this guy!" We like to pride ourselves on being individualists, on standing out; especially Americans, who coin terms like "sheeple" to deride those who conform. We like to think that we're all about being our own person.

Yet, one of the first things that anybody says when they're trying to sway my opinion, or to explain their own, is how many people agree with them. If I had even a penny for every time I heard the phrase "most people," I'd be wealthy.

The truth is, that guy with folded arms probably faced outrage and indignation from his loved ones. "What are you thinking? How could you be so disrespectful? The man is the leader of our nation! The Fuhrer lifted us out of poverty and chaos and restored us to our rightful place as a great nation! How is it that you can't even lift your arm to show your respect?" Even if they disliked Hitler and his policies, the guy would catch flak. "You're drawing attention to yourself! How can you put yourself in danger like that? What you say or do in the privacy of your own home is one thing, but you're drawing targets on all of us, on everyone you know, on your family, everyone you work with! Think of us! Think of (list of his loved ones and co-workers)."

And that's the people who LIKE him; what about the general public? The truth is, that guy may not have lived to the end of that day. Any number of people would have been happy to point him out to the authorities, in order to curry favor for themselves, because they thought he was dangerous, or both.

It's not just the big stuff, either, but all the small stuff. We're critical of the way people dress, the way they wear their hair, the cars they drive, the entertainment they watch. We decide what restaurants to eat at by checking Yelp reviews. We decide what movies to see by checking Rotten Tomatoes. I cannot tell you how many times I've bought a book or a movie ticket and had people say, "Why would you do that? It had terrible reviews." The idea that I want to decide for myself is often roundly criticized. I've actually been asked, "What makes you think that you know better than everyone else?" That's the wrong question. The more relevant one is, what makes everyone else think that they can, or should, override my own decision making process for my own life? I don't make choices for you; you don't get to make mine for me. Things become both absurd and dangerous if we all decide that we agree with the majority just because they are a majority, or that we need to let others decide for us because they are more qualified than we are.

Being contrary just because we think that it makes us superior or more intelligent is just as ludicrous and dangerous. It should not matter what others think, or whether it's a majority opinion or a minority one, when we're forming opinions. We should take in information and decide on our own, regardless.

Please know that if you say to me, "But most people think/do this," all I hear is a statement like, "This shirt is blue." It may be true, but I can't imagine why it would be relevant.

We pay a great deal of lip service to admiring people who stand alone, but in practice, we think they're odd, and view them with suspicion or discomfort.

So, People of Facebook, cut the oddballs some slack. They may be onto something. And even if they're not, at least they're thinking independently.

And people still say weird stuff to me.

Two of my (four) children have left the religion in which we raised them. We treat them exactly the same way we always have, but I was informed that, "Your child will never be able to be happy if you think that they're doing things wrong." What? What parent thinks that their child has never, ever done, said, or thought anything wrong? That's just silly. I was thus informed that if I think my kid (or, presumably, anyone else) is doing or thinking anything wrong, that I don't "truly accept them for who they are."

I'm sorry, but that's just poppycock.

Still, I'm willing to accede to that world view and say, those people are 100% right. My poor children - they will never be happy, and I don't truly accept them. BUT HERE'S THE THING: If that is true, it means that I can never be happy, because my children think that I am wrong. And those children do not truly accept me for who I am. I mean, after all, if it applies one way, it applies the other.

Plus, my religion is not something like my nationality or hair color, something I was born with, or had handed down to me by my parents - I chose it, on my own. In fact, that's one of the reasons I find this thinking to be so ridiculous; I joined my church, alone, when I was 12. My parents were never members. Yet I did not feel unloved, and they were not unhappy because of me.

Sometimes, too, people will feel judged by the simple fact that I homeschool. We'll be having an ordinary conversation, and then they'll find out, or be reminded, that my kids do not attend school. Suddenly, someone will get defensive, insist that I think they're a bad, unloving, selfish parent who's ruining their child's life by sending them to public school. No, I will say, I think no such thing. I'm in favor of many choices, and I made the choice that works best for my family. And often, I will still be treated to an extensive recital of why they chose public school, as if they need to convince me, or need my approval.

Or, they'll tell me why they don't agree with homeschooling, but will qualify it with, "I'm not talking about you and your family," as though I am somehow an exception to every rule.

And just when I've pretty much forgotten that Mommy Wars exist, someone will tell me that my choice to be home full time has ruined my children's lives, and mine as well. Or, they'll be sure that I'm condemning them for wanting and enjoying a career.

Folks, I am NOT judging you and thinking that you're a bad person if you do things I do not do. I have no illusions that people always will, or should, agree. Sometimes we will be wrong, but that does not nullify our right to occupy space on the planet, our right to live as we choose, our right to express ourselves, or our right to be treated with civility. It does not mean that we do not love others who are different. And if you keep insisting that the simple fact that I do things differently than you do, or think that you're wrong in any way, means that I'm judging you, disliking or distrusting you, or thinking you are a lesser person than I am, I will be forced to conclude that YOU feel this way about ME. Because, I GUARANTEE, even if you're a member of my family, a member of my church, a member of my political party, occupation, or any other classification, there is something I do that you think is WRONG.

You're, of course, free to think that I'm six kinds of dreadful, but realize that fact alone doesn't mean that I think that about you.

Yes, I am thinking of all the election year rhetoric. You are not a terrible person if you vote for a candidate that I can't stand. I am not a bad person if I vote a way that you find to be wrong.

Legal Definitions

This is another sample column I wrote while applying for a newspaper job. I've expanded upon it because 600 words weren't enough to avoid confusion.

For the record, because people frequently ask me, yes, I am aware that most people, including most of my friends and relatives, do not agree with me. I don't understand why that matters so much to some people. I want to ask them if they only accept people who agree with them completely into their lives. I always thought that the point of communication was to understand each other, not to assure that everyone agrees. I don't attempt to be contrary for its own sake, but I'm not affronted if differing opinions exist among my loved ones - because, let's face it, there will be dissent.

************************************************
On several occasions, I've read eloquently written opinions that lay out supposed persecution based on sexual preference. They quote instances in the Bible, and lifestyles throughout history, to show that their lifestyle has "always" existed, and was often accepted or even encouraged. People insist that it is ignorance, prejudice or squeamishness that causes others to avoid embracing this lifestyle as acceptable.

They tell heartfelt and tearful stories of the stress of "hiding our love" from others. "How can loving someone be wrong?" they ask. They are sure that the stress and shame they cope with are the result of not being accepted by their friends, family or peers. They speak longingly of the day when they can "celebrate" their relationships openly.

These opinions have not been written by homosexuals. They have been written by pedophiles. One recent advocate (who literally wrote a book on the subject) complained that the word "pedophile" should not be viewed in a negative light, "because it literally means 'child lover.' " A few of these opinions have been written by proponents of incest. Mackenzie Phillips described their mindset well: "My father had a lot of love and no boundaries."

Because I've had people ask me how homosexuality and pedophilia are related, here's the best way I can describe why I'm comparing them at all. Both are lifestyles that include sexual behavior that others find off-putting, but the practitioners wish was accepted by everyone.

I'm not talking about predatory behavior. I'm talking about the Jerry Lee Lewises and the Mary Kay Letorneaus, monogamous, heterosexual people whose partner was underage. Predators are a different category altogether, and are unfortunately very equal opportunity. They don't enter into my discussion here.

With both fictional and real life polygamists on TV, there have been rumblings that any consensual sexual behavior should not be illegal. "It doesn't hurt anyone. Just let them be."

There are those who feel that putting any limits on any sexual behavior is wrong and repressive.

This is why I oppose changing marriage laws to accommodate homosexual marriage. I am squarely in favor of some kind of domestic partnership law that provides insurance, inheritance, parenting, community property and other rights to those who wish to have those legal provisions. I think it should provide identical benefits to marriage. I think it should be available to anyone in a romantic or a non-romantic relationship, widowed siblings sharing a home, or anyone else who wants it. To me, this is not about who you're sleeping with, or why.

When I was growing up, gay activists said, "We just want the benefits everyone else gets." Now, when someone says, "OK, here's the benefits," they're told, "It's not enough. It has to be called a marriage, or it's discriminatory."

I'm unclear as to how, exactly, marriage laws are considered discriminatory when they apply to heterosexuals as well. Heterosexuals can live together, have children together, buy property together, but if they haven't fulfilled the legal requirements of a marriage, they don't get the legal benefits.

It is a bad idea to say that, from a legal standpoint, any sexual relationship is as legitimate as any other. It opens up the proverbial can of worms, and takes us down roads we really should not travel. Once we have decided that any relationship between consenting adults is legitimate, it's a small step to deciding that forbidding such relationships on the basis of age or genetics is discriminatory. Once that happens, someone will argue that if one person consents, that's enough. It works for recording conversations, right?

Someone suggested to me that we should do away with all civil marriage laws, and make everyone, heterosexual or homosexual, apply for the same civil license and be granted the same civil legal union. Leave all matters of "marriage" to churches, and come up with something else for everyone not wishing to have a religious union. I could probably get behind that idea. That way, in theory, no one could feel discriminated against.

It's not a good idea, in my opinion, to change legal definitions, especially ones that have stood for centuries, because we think we've come up with a better idea, and for centuries, the one constant in marriage laws and practices has been that it is a male/female relationship, available to those who meet certain criteria.

Think about it deciding that the current system of legal definitions doesn't work. What about legal definitions of, say, ownership? It could be convincingly argued that it is impossible to truly own anything, that everything belongs to God or to the Earth, and we can, at best, borrow it. It can be argued that money is a flawed way to determine ownership, since it discriminates against those with less lucrative jobs and therefore, less money. It could even be argued that resources should be distributed by merit. Now think about turning such decisions over to the government, or even to a citizen community. Who decides the "merit?" Who distributes said resources? Doesn't that scare the bejeezus out of you? It should. It's hard to get even half a dozen reasonable people to agree on lunch, much less anything of sweeping importance. Add in influence, power, money and human nature, and I've gotta tell you, I don't want anyone deciding, for instance, that they "need" my house more than I do, because I have empty bedrooms, and then creating a legal way to take it from me.

At the risk of creating a firestorm of words, I think I need to address the fact that yes, my religion enters into this equation. I know, I know, many people will now dismiss what I have to say out of hand. The only time that irks me is if they expect me to listen to them, but feel no need to listen to me. Call it karma, call it The Golden Rule, call it whatever you want - if you expect civility and respect, GIVE civility and respect.

I do not believe that anyone is supposed to live a gay life. I also don't think anyone should smoke, drink, cheat on their taxes, be promiscuous, be dishonest in business - a host of different behaviors that are acceptable to larger or smaller segments of society. People often find that anywhere from eccentric to ignorant, but they don't get as up in arms as they do when sexual matters are involved.

I didn't quite understand why, a couple of decades ago, people found brain chemistry studies to prove that some people were just going to be gay, because of the chemical compounds in their brains. When someone is found to be schizophrenic, bi-polar, ADD, ADHD, diabetic or anything else involved with brain or body function, we don't say, "Well, since they're born that way, it's obviously a viable way to live their lives. We should allow them to embrace it. It's arrogance and ignorance to try to change it." We say, "This will keep you from reaching your full potential. Medication and counseling can help." But I'm supposed to accept that, because there are identifiable differences in the brains of gay people, it's something that should be embraced and encouraged.

My religion tells me that, in order to reach our full potential, everyone needs to be in a male/female partnership. If you discard religion, let me put it this way - there is no evolutionary purpose to same sex couples. It does not promote the survival of the species.

My religion teaches that having homosexual feelings is not wrong, but encouraging or acting on them is. It teaches the same thing about any number of other impulses - the urge to steal, to kill, to hurt others, to cheat, to be selfish. Having these thoughts is not wrong. It's part of being human.

Encouraging or acting on them is what makes them wrong. No one would say, "I am a murderer" because they wished the death of another person (who hasn't?), or, "I am a thief" because they thought about how simple or pleasurable it would be to steal something. It doesn't make sense to me to say, "I am gay" because you were attracted to someone of your own gender.

And the sexual behavior is the ONLY thing in a homosexual life not compatible with a heterosexual life. You always felt different? So did everyone else. You liked trucks but hated baby dolls? I spent my childhood climbing trees and fishing; I would rather have unanesthetized dental work than a mani-pedi. You always felt drawn to fashion? Good for you! Make beautiful clothes! You love someone deeply and want to share your life? Marvelous. I could take an hour and name all the people I love deeply and truly, people I want to be around every day through my whole life, people I miss when they are gone, people who are in my head when we're apart, people I adore, starting with my family. I am only having sex with one of them. That's as it should be.

So, if I believed that all relationships were the same, I would fiercely fight to see them treated that way; but I don't, so - I don't. If you took religion out of the equation, I might feel differently. I'll never know, because I can't in good conscience remove it.

I know how and why people disagree with me. I have even occasionally found someone who said, "I just can't be friends with someone whose ideas I find offensive and immoral." I wonder if they stop to think that I have been their friend, and was willing to remain so, even though I found their ideas to be offensive and immoral?

On that note, a huge and hearfelt THANKS to everyone who loves me, and I them, despite disagreeing; those wonderful people in my life who can and do share their opinions and hear mine. That's the best of human nature.