"Offensensitivity"

As always, Berkeley Breathed and "Bloom County" are sheer genius.

Sorry to break it to you - I hope that you're sitting down - but "life is offensive."

Some people wear the sentiment "I'm offended!" like it's a badge of honor. Even when it's phrased differently - "That sentiment is so hurtful!" - it comes down to being aghast that someone is different from you, and expecting them to change because of it.

"I don't expect them to change because they're different! I expect them to change because they're wrong!" I hear. Of course, they think that you're wrong - and round and round we go.

We're all so easily offended, aren't we? And we think that everything is about us, personally - or, that it should be.

I like to travel, and I've spent recent years working as a travel agent, so I read a lot of travel related stuff. In one list of things actually written in online reviews was this gem from a Caribbean resort: "There was a sign in the lobby that said, 'No hairdressers on property.' We are hairdressers, and we think that they knew, because we did not get attentive service."

The thing that amazes me most about this is the "we" - there was more than one of these people. Let's assume that there are two. Also, presumably, anyone old enough to have a profession that requires training or schooling is an adult. So, one of these otherwise functional adults expressed this sentiment - "They don't allow hairdressers to stay here! And I'll bet they've figured out that we're hairdressers, because they are not being attentive to us!"

Instead of saying, "Don't be a knucklehead. That sign means that the resort does not employ hairdressers; you cannot get your hair done on resort property," the other, otherwise functional, adult says, in effect, "I think you're right! Using no other information than our names and credit card info, they have figured out what we do for a living, told every employee at this resort, and now they are all making a concerted effort to give us less than their best service!" I mean, does that make any logical sense?

What are the odds that a property will decide to discriminate, and choose hairdressers as its target? Come on in, drug traffickers, strippers, phone sex operators, convicted felons - welcome! Stay out, you nasty hairstylists, we don't serve your kind! And we're going to do extensive background checks on anyone who stays here, so that if any hairdressers sneak in, we can give them bad service! That'll show them! Does that actually sounds plausible to you? And yet, at least two people agreed that, yes, that was exactly what was happening.

I saw a review for a doctor's office that complained, "He yanked up the back of my shirt with no warning, so that he could listen to my lungs." She went on to say that she'd never come back, because she feared that the doctor would be sexually inappropriate. She was obviously upset, truly upset, but I found myself thinking - he's a doctor. If your accountant yanked up your shirt, yeah, dump his services and file charges. But have you never been to a doctor before? He can't do an exam through your clothes. If you want him to warn you before he touches you or your clothes, tell him, explicitly. Otherwise, calm down. Every time a doctor has listened to my lungs, he or she has pulled up the back of my shirt, without warning. I have never felt mistreated because of it.

No wonder doctors, nurses, and anyone else who touches you is paranoid about lawsuits.

(I've had to warn my doctors - I will make faces. I will probably make noises (often with the faces). Do not touch my tummy without warning, or I'll yelp. I am not in pain, I am not afraid, you're doing fine - I just hate to be handled.)

Of course, it's usually most baffling when someone directs their outrage straight at me for things that are, honestly, just an ordinary part of life.

The first time someone informed me that I should not belong to my religion (or, presumably, many other religions) specifically because "when you think that other people are going to hell," it makes it impossible for other people to have a productive relationship with me, I was baffled.

Well, my first problem with that idea is the very flawed understanding of my religion's belief in the afterlife. We believe that everyone, and I mean everyone - Adolph Hilter, Ted Bundy - will go to heaven, where there will be no pain, death, hunger, illness, etc. It will be a beautiful, safe and peaceful place, where people will live with perfected bodies. It will not be possible for harm to come to anyone there.

That will be, however, the least desirable "level" of heaven - there are four more places that are even better. In the best of these "levels," people will be living in the presence of God.

Plus, we believe that if you messed up your life, or never heard about Christ, you'll get a chance to fix things in the next life; your fate isn't set at the moment of death. You can change and improve after death.

So, when you accuse me of thinking that people are "going to hell," you're not bothering to find out what I actually believe, or you're being deliberately inflammatory.

The first time that I told someone that my beliefs weren't what they thought they were, and they said, "Just because your church does it differently doesn't mean that religion in general doesn't shame people," I thought that they were just particularly stubborn and trying to save face. I've since had enough people say it to me that I have to concede that it's a pattern. The thing is, if you're going to judge me because of my religion, the conversation had darned well better be about my religion, not another religion or religions as a general concept.

"You just don't understand how painful it is to be told that you're going to hell," people (yes, plural) have told me - ignoring, I suppose, that under the belief system of most of the people on the planet, I personally am going to hell. Born again Christians, Muslims, Catholics, Seventh Day Adventists, Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, all believe that I, myself, will not be going to heaven. There's more religions that think so, I'm sure, but I'm not well enough versed in their teachings. (On more than one occasion, someone who's telling me how I "just don't understand" the pain of being condemned has also told me that I'm headed to hell; I suppose that I'm not supposed to notice the contradiction.) This means that I have family, friends, health care providers, casual acquaintences, people that I will hire and people that I will work for, who all think that I am going to hell. And, as the person who spends the most time in my life, and knows it the best, I can say with authority that it does not harm me. I can assure you that those of other religions do not make me feel condemned.

I once asked someone (accusing me of being a bad person, by virtue of my religion) if they knew of any instance in which I'd treated someone badly, based on my religious beliefs - smacked alcohol out of their hand while yelling, "SINNER!", said that I feared for the souls of their children, refused to spend time with them or told my children to avoid them, for instance. The answer: "No, the way you treat people is fine. You just think that they're inferior."

Whoa, there, Thought Police. Aside from the fact that you are not a mind reader, and therefore can't accurately speak to what anyone else is thinking, even if you could, are people's thoughts a big issue for you? Every day, people wish they could push past everyone else in line and be served first, they want to slap rude clerks, waiters or customers, they lust after strangers (or those who aren't strangers), they think about how easily they could shoplift that item they want, but they don't do any of those things. At least the hairdressers and the patient were complaining about something that someone actually DID. I cannot get behind the idea that you are a bad person, and I should censure or shun you, based on what you might be thinking. (Because, of course, no one knows exactly what you're thinking unless you tell them.)

Treat me politely, even if you don't like me, and we'll be fine. No one is required to enjoy someone's company. But, every human owes other humans civility.

Pressed for an example of how I thought that other people were "inferior," the answer was that I think that ordinances performed in my church are "better" than those performed elsewhere.

Oh, for crying out loud. Every religion recognizes its own ordinances, but not necessarily those of other religions. If you want to join a religion, you may need re-baptized, remarried, re-ordained. Churches generally do not mirror civil authority; a justice of the peace, for instance, can perform civil marriages, but not religious ones. At my church, I am a teacher (Sunday classes for adults), but I hold no civil teaching credentials, and I would not be asked to teach religious classes at any other church.

If people do not agree with religion in general - say, they're atheist - I can understand them thinking that the entire concept of religious authority is silly. But if you're a religious person, and you get angry at another religion for having its own criteria, procedures, etc., I just can't get behind your outrage. You're entitled to have it, and express it, but not to expect me to change because of it.

Don't be the Thought Police. Don't suffer from offensensitivity. Live and let live!

Thank You For Your Support

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya

OK, part of it is the problem of the English language itself, with its ridiculous rules and exceptions to rules. I'll grant you that.

Still. Let's talk about support. The actual word - "support."

We so often use it to mean "agree with." People will insist that "the way to support" someone is to tell them that you think that they're correct, or that they should be doing whatever they're doing. They will tell you that to "support" your family or friends, you need, in essence, to say to them, "You are right. You are absolutely right."

It makes me crazy.

Most of the times that I felt most supported by my parents were the times when we disagreed.

Look on dictionary.com. They supply 19 definitions for "support," and not one contains the words "agree" or "agreement." Number 3, though, says, "to undergo or endure, especially with patience or submission; tolerate." My parents did a lot of that.

I've shared before the fact that I started attending a church at age seven. I went with the neighbors. My parents did not belong to any religion. Both of them, especially my dad, distrusted organized religions as a whole. Plus, this was one outside the mainstream, deemed kind of loopy. Still, when I announced at age eight that I intended to attend every week, that I wanted to be baptized a member, my parents eventually gave permission.

Were they thrilled? No. Not even close. Did they try to talk me out of it? Sure. I rarely share those details, since I consider them irrelevant to the outcome, but it wasn't all sunshine and roses. My family had reservations. My mom worried that being religious would equate to being judgmental. My dad said things like, "They talk about the importance of the family, but I think that this could tear the family apart." When I wanted to attend Sunday services as well as weekday activities, they worried that two meetings a week was too much. My dad also stressed out because Sunday had traditionally been our "pack a picnic and head into the hills" days, and we'd frequently be gone all day long. He was unamused when I countered this worry by asking, "Couldn't we do that on Saturdays?" To me, his answer of, "But we've always done it on Sunday" sounded like a non sequitur. I got to hear everyone's stories about how they "knew this one Mormon man/woman" and how they did something wrong or hurtful or stupid. My dad's family had some long standing beef with the church that went back to his childhood.

How did they handle all this? They let me join, without undue complaining. I could attend meetings weekly, but I had to wait until I was 12 to be baptized; that was OK with me. By that time, they were pretty comfortable that things would go on as usual at home; nobody had grand worries any more. By the time I was a teen, and my mom had to drive me to and from meetings and activities, it was just a normal part of our lives. They attended activities with me when invited. When my teacher suggested a 40 day sugar fast so that we could better understand Jesus' 40 day fast, my mother obsessively read labels and bought special groceries. When I had early morning religion classes in high school, my mother got up with me to make sure I had breakfast. They didn't worry about sending me on youth group trips or sleepovers, even co-ed ones.

Did they still think that my church was odd, my choices were odd, and sometimes hope that I'd decide that I didn't want to attend any more? Sure. Did they say nasty, snarky, passive-aggressive things? Never. Did they gripe to everyone else, outside of my earshot? No. They told people how nice members of my congregation were.

On the other hand, did I secretly throw out their coffee and wine, sigh and look mournful when they drank those things, when they swore, when they stayed home while I went to church? Never. Did I, or anyone else, pressure them to join, remark on how sad it was that I attended alone, tell them that their salvation was at stake? Nope. Not even once. It's called "being mature."

That's certainly not the only time we seriously disagreed. My dad was deeply upset that I had no interest in being an athlete. They were both deeply disappointed when I decided not to go to college after high school. They didn't always like my friends, and were not happy when I chose one of those friends as my roommate when I moved out. (Truth be told, they weren't happy about me moving out, period, and they disliked the girl in question.) (Also, they turned out to be right that living with her was a bad idea.) When I started dating my husband, my mother told me that she never wanted to meet my new boyfriend, and my dad referred to him as "that wild. bearded thing." They were not happy when I got married at 20, when I had a baby that year and another at 21, when we moved hundreds of miles away, when we bought a home in our new town, when I chose to be a stay at home mom... I mean, there are literally dozens of instances in which they would have made very different choices for me if they could.

(Despite the fact that they thought that I was too young, and the fact that my mother hated playing hostess, we held our wedding in my parents' back yard. I felt very supported.)

It should be noted that my extended family and my friends were often equally horrified, or even more distressed than my parents, by any or all of these events. Quite often the collective opinion was that I'd lost my mind, or that I had tragically low self esteem, or that I didn't know that I had alternatives. Also, my inlaws were not fond of me in the slightest. When we were engaged, if I walked into a room, my mother in law walked out.

The fact that my family soon learned to adore my husband (and kids), and that the years bore out the fact that I had not, in fact, ruined my life, is an aside here, instead of the point. The point is that my loved ones continued to love me and continued to treat me and my family the same way they would have if I had done things differently. This does not mean that everyone lived in a state of denial or that nobody voiced concerns, complaints or (my least favorite) advice. It means that the fact that we disagreed was totally secondary to the fact that we loved each other.

That, folks, is what "support" looks like.

I cannot stand it when I read some account or other of someone doing something that could be controversial - leaving medical school to become a jazz musician, or coming out as gay - their loved ones think that they're doing the right thing, and say, "I agree with you 100%! Live your truth! Follow your path! God wants you to do this!" and other people respond, "Now that's the way to support someone!" and "Anyone who tells you that you're wrong is not supporting you!" Listen up, everybody. That's not support. It's agreement. It's expected. It is the very definition, the epitome, of expected. Can you think of any instance in which someone will agree with you, will think that you're doing the right thing, and will say something derogatory or rude? Will they question you and offer alternatives if they think that you're already taking the best course of action? Good gravy, folks, it is the closest thing to a guarantee that if someone agrees with you, they'll say something positive. I repeat, that is agreement, not support.

Displaying expected behavior is not amazing or worthy of praise. It's a given, like the sun rising.

Actual support should be expected behavior, but alas, it is not.

A friend posted a question on their Facebook page about whether or not it was possible to civil and supportive if your family members disagreed on religion. This was my response.

"When I joined my church at almost age 13, my parents and siblings were supportive (if baffled). I do not belong to the same religion as my parents, siblings, parents-in-law, siblings-in-law, or any of my 11 nieces and nephews (or my grandnieces and -nephews, either). (I also do not belong to the same political party as my husband.)

Having grown up in an environment where I was taught that all people have intrinsic value, unrelated to their beliefs or actions, and in which I was both encouraged to be respectful to everyone and to think for myself, I will never be able to understand people who think that everyone has to agree, or they can't truly be close, or love each other. I don't understand people who see differences of opinion as betrayal and rejection.

We recently returned from a naming ceremony for my grandniece, daughter of lesbian, Jewish parents. Someone actually said to my husband, "You would go when you don't agree with them?" Of course! They flew here and celebrated with us, with genuine happiness, when our daughter was married in an LDS temple. They don't agree with us or our religious practices, but it made no difference. That's just what reasonable people do for each other.

Most of my friends are pretty great about differences, too. When I invited a (very non-religious) family to my son's baptism, they didn't say, "We don't believe in that, and we think you're a little weird. It would make us too uncomfortable." They said, "What time do we need to be there, and what is the dress code?" When they invited us to their son's gay pagan handfasting (wedding) ceremony, we said about the same - "When should we get there, and what's the dress code?"

I know people who say they'd love people, regardless, but they'd be very upset if, say, their daughter announced a desire to be a nun. Unless someone is sacrificing children or planning other acts of violence, allowing them to freely practice their beliefs, or unbelief, benefits everyone."

I mean, how is this even a question? How are we not all clear on this?

When you look at my close friends, my lifelong friends, my relatives, people that I truly and sincerely adore, you'll find members of my religion. You'll also find drug addicts, drug traffickers, alcoholics, promiscuous people, transgender people, homosexual people, three pack a day smokers, cross dressers, unwed parents, people with multiple sexual partners/spouses, pagans, Jews, Evangelicals, atheists, Wiccans, people who fit more than one of those categories... all kinds of people whose lives do not mirror my standards. Why is this not a problem for me? Because they are my standards, that I have committed to live. They are not their standards.

And let it also be noted here, because this often gets overlooked, that these people love me, despite the fact that I live a vastly different life than they do.

Three of my children are adults, and the youngest is in high school, so now they sometimes hear details that I may not have shared when they were younger. They know now that one of their deeply loved bonus uncles spent years as a drug addicted, alcoholic, promiscuous manager of strippers. When they were children, I didn't let them in on those details, because they didn't need to know. They arguably don't need to know now, but we never ignored those things, or pretended that they didn't exist. We went the route of, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." Sometimes, we said a lot of nothing.

We've always answered questions truthfully, though. When one of my daughters was working on a play that I was in, she asked one night, "Did (our makeup artist) used to be a woman?"

"Yes, he did. His name was (different) then. I knew him as (that person) when we did university theater together years ago."

"I though so. Don't tell him that I could tell."

"He's not touchy about it. He doesn't broadcast it, but he doesn't mind if you ask. Most of us knew him back then. It's not a secret." I don't know if she ever asked him anything - probably not - but it was just another piece of info, like what any of our actors did for a living.

I have never told my children to love someone despite our differences - I simply love that person. There's no need to qualify the feeling or the relationship.

I've never told them to choose only LDS friends, or to avoid certain people, or not to listen to a friend or relative if they have questions or want to explain their own beliefs or practices. When we've been invited to other churches, if our schedule allows we've said "yes." My kids have gone to Vacation Bible School with their friends. I have never displayed dismissive or superior attitudes because someone is different from me. I don't allow my kids to behave that way, either.

Someone once accused me of being "hateful" and "homophobic" because my religion teaches that homosexuality is aberrant behavior and because I believe that same sex unions (and perhaps even opposite gender civil unions) should be "partnerships" instead of "marriages." I felt compelled to point out that my toddlers were sitting on the lap of my gay, HIV+ best friend back in the 1980s, when people were terrified that the virus could be airborne - and, I might add, before my accuser was even born. I have little patience with anyone trying to give me a sensitivity lecture without knowing about my life. Don't assume that because you have one piece of information that you know me.

Do my kids always agree with me? No. As in so many other areas, I follow my mother's lead.

Two of my children have decided to leave my church. Keep in mind, according to my beliefs, this means that they have effectively opted out of the family unit. They may be in heaven, but they won't be my children in eternity. (This is, arguably, harder than my parents had it, since they had no beliefs about an afterlife or the state of one's eternal soul.) Is this painful? Deeply. Does it feel like rejection? Sure. Do I hope that one day, they change their minds? Absolutely. Do I love them less, criticize them more, insist that they move away, withdraw any financial help, tell their siblings to ignore them or plead with them, lie to our family and friends (or ask the children to do so), refuse to spend time with them or to take them on family trips, or engage in any other ridiculous, alienating behavior? No. Do I forbid discussion of religion? No. Do I continue to have weekly family night lessons that are religious in nature? Yes. I do things exactly the same way I always did. My choices are mine. Theirs are their own.

A friend asked not too long ago how I felt about something in my child's life. I replied with a wide smile, "I adore my child."

"Well, that's a very political answer," they said. Yes, it is. It's also the only thing that really matters. How I feel about my kids and their lives is 1. no one else's business, and 2. not going to change anything.

Thank you for your support.

Let Me Explain

Just so we're all on the same page, I want to point out, again, that I share my opinions so that others will understand me, not so that I can change their minds.

Compare it to someone who refuses to eat breakfast until they've made an origami flower for the table first. You, especially if you're the caregiver, maybe of an elderly relative with this trait, find it to be an aggravating waste of time. But, when Granny explains that this is her good luck charm, and that her days just seem happier and more successful if she has that flower on her breakfast table, you can understand her, and maybe even help her make it. You still don't think that the flower affects anything, but that's not as important as understanding Granny.

Also, people who might already agree with me can feel supported, and not quite so alone. That's important, too.

Now - let's discuss religion.

I belong to a religion. It affects everything I do, every day - what I wear, say, watch on TV, eat and drink; it's important to me. I realize that others live differently, and I'm OK with that. Free will is the most important thing that humans possess.

Whenever someone shares why they left their religion, especially if it's my religion, I always hear a chorus of voices in agreement - "Me, too!" "I thought the same thing!" "That's why I left." Nobody seems to want to hear a dissenting voice, one saying, "I think that's a mistake." Those comments are deemed rude. So, in case anyone wants to peruse, at their leisure, what I may be thinking when I hear or read those reasons and/or comments, I've written them down here.

The thoughts or reasons will be like this, in bold type.

My thoughts will be below that, in regular type.

I just have to live my own life and make my own decisions.

Well, that's a good thing. As I stated, free will is the most sacred of human rights.

I do find, though, that overwhelmingly, people say this when they are disagreeing with their family, and/or the way they were raised, and very infrequently when they are disagreeing with their friends or mentors. Very rarely does anyone say, "I have to make my own decisions, and that's why I do things differently than my friends/classmates/mentors do."

People tend to pat someone on the back for being "brave" and "independent" and "free thinking" when they disagree with their parents. Keep in mind, though, that if I was brave for, say, leaving my parents' Christian faith to become an atheist, then my children would be brave to leave what I had taught them, and become fundamentalist Christians. I know many people who congratulate others for leaving any faith, but say to someone who's joining one, "Are you sure you've thought this through?" They say that they will support whatever their children decide, "provided that they've really thought it through," but would be horrified if their child converted to Islam, or became a Buddhist monk or a Catholic nun. ("I raised you better than that! How can you turn off your brain that way?")

The problem here is using the thoughts and decisions of others to determine what YOU, yourself, think and do, and why. I understand all of the built in human needs to be part of a group, to feel accepted and protected. I understand, too, the necessity of differentiating oneself from one's parents. I just find popular, or unpopular, opinion to be a very unreliable way to make important life choices. That's NOT thinking for yourself, that's a herd mentality. "Others that I admire are doing it this way. I feel protected and accepted when I am like them. Therefore, I must believe what they believe." Or, "Because most people think this, and I am more intelligent and educated than they are, I cannot agree with them." I just can't understand someone seriously thinking that the best way to decide what you believe is to gauge what others believe - or how well spoken those beliefs are.

This church leader (or church member) is someone I don't like. They've done things that upset me.

If an individual hurts, upsets, annoys or confuses you, that's normal. That's OK. It's about them individually, as a person, though (even if what they've done or said is based on their understanding and practice of their religion). Using this to dismiss an entire religion is like saying, "Because no human being is perfect, I don't think that truth exits," and that should be an obviously flawed conclusion.

I've seen them make mistakes (or do something hurtful).

See above answer.

The church leaders seem to be wrong on scientific issues.

In my case, people have frequently pointed out to me that one of my church leaders said publicly that he didn't think men would ever reach the moon; he said it only a handful of years before men did land on the moon. People love to crow, "How could he talk to God and not know that?"

Simple. Did Moses invent the internal combustion engine? Did Abraham understand molecular biology? Did the Apostle Paul invent the airplane? No. I don't go to my accountant to fill my cavities, or my surgeon to repair my home, or the guy who built my deck to do my taxes, either. People have areas of expertise. Religious leaders are inspired to tell the people about how God wants them to behave. These are the things that will do the most good on Earth, and bring us the most happiness after this life. Those things - be honest, be kind, be hardworking, be compassionate, be trustworthy - are the same whether we're living in caves and just discovering fire, or building a self sustaining colony on Mars.

There are huge worlds of knowledge and accomplishment for humans to discover on their own, because learning on our own is what best benefits us, but the religious basics will never change. And unless a religious leader is a doctor, I won't ask him/her about medicine. It's not in their job description.

I think that their youth group (or Scout) activities are lame.

I'm not making this complaint up. Sincerely, folks? If you were talking about leaving a club, or skipping your neighbor's next party, I'd be with you. I think, though, that you're missing the point of religion. You're going to decide what you think that the creator of the universe wants you to do for the eternal salvation of your soul based on whether or not you thought that a group's youth activities were lame? I'm sorry, I have a hard time taking that thought process seriously.

There's no evidence for it.

There's no "evidence" of most of my ancestors. There's no birth certificates or death certificates; even when they were "recorded," that meant that it was hand written in a family Bible. Go far enough back, and there's no military service records, employment records, bank accounts, census records. Yet, because I am here, they obviously existed.

For most of human history, "recording" something meant that the community leaders memorized it. The idea that everything important can be verified to the satisfaction of most people is a very new (in terms of human history) idea. And, for crying out loud, if we can't agree on whether the moon landing was real, whether OJ Simpson is a murderer, whether the Holocaust happened or whether the trails left by airplanes are part of a sinister plot, despite those events being recent and the fact that we have pages and pages and volumes upon volumes of scholarly research and conventional, modern documentation on the subject, there is NO way that we will agree on things that happened long ago, or that defy conventional documentation.

("But only people who are being deliberately ignorant disagree with me on those things!" people say to me frequently. They disregard the fact that the opposite side says exactly the same thing about them.)

Does it matter to me whether we have the actual stone tablets containing the Ten Commandments, or if we can examine Noah's Ark? Not in the slightest.

I've had doubts for most (or all) of my life.

OK. Doubts are legitimate. Still, you need to allow for the fact that reality is not shaped by opinion, yours or others. When the best and brightest scientific minds on the planet thought that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around us, it didn't affect the actual shape of the planet or the orbits of heavenly bodies or the laws of physics or anything else.

Look back at law enforcement during my early lifetime, and I'm not even out of my 40s. Science could only determine a person's blood type if they were a "secretor." DNA identification was impossible and unheard of. Almost every year, a discovery is made that "changes everything" in a certain field.

The brightest and most educated humans tend to be the ones who know that we as a species have hardly scratched the surface of the knowledge that's out there. Believing that you, personally, hold all the possible knowledge in the universe, or that everything can, and should, be explained to your personal satisfaction is just arrogance. You don't have all the answers because no one ever will have all the answers.

I don't understand/agree with certain principles.

See above answer.

The meetings are boring.

Again, this strikes me as self centered. "Because I am not entertained, this can't possibly be true." Churches could, and sometimes do, dress up meetings with rock music, dancing and any number of other efforts to be engaging. If they offered alcohol, snacks and scantily clad dancers, they'd draw bigger crowds, and the people would be more enthusiastic. Would that be "success"? I do't think so, because it would have zero effect on whether the message was true.

I feel uncomfortable (or like I don't belong) in church (or in this congregation).

See above answer. Truth is unaffected by whether you're having fun, or even understanding something, or whether other people are "nice." Again, I assume that you're searching for a religion, not for a club or for entertainment.

God can't possibly punish me for doing my best.

This assumes that God's primary purpose is to punish, which I think is flawed thinking, but look at it like this: the world is a classroom. In a classroom, each child can try their very hardest, and stretch their very farthest, but only some will do A work. Should everyone else be handed an A, on the theory that it's "unfair" otherwise? Are the kids getting Bs or Cs (or even lower) being punished, or picked on by a teacher who hates them? No.

If you are working hard, and doing what you believe is right, you will receive rewards, whether you recognize them or not. This is especially true if you actually are doing what's right. Does that mean, that in the interest of fairness, every person who ever existed should get exactly what you get?

If God existed/if this church were true, the teachings would make sense to me.

Remember that God is a parent. He has lived longer than we have. He has more experience and knowledge. He wants what is best for us. This means, almost by definition, that He will occasionally ask us to do things, or give us information, that makes no sense to us. That doesn't mean that He's non-existent, or cruel.

Every day, especially when they were young, I told my children things that confused, annoyed, frustrated, baffled or angered them. I insisted on behavior that they thought was "stupid." I gave them unpleasant tasks, and unpleasant consequences when they broke the rules. Is that because I'm mean and I don't love them? They sure thought so, many times. Instead, it was a reflection of the fact that I knew more than they did, I had more experience than they did, and I truly wanted them to be happy. Sometimes, that meant not caring how they felt about me or my rules.

Plus, there's that whole, "My judgement is infallible and all knowing" thing again. There are some things you personally don't know, because there is no person who has all knowledge.

A loving God would never want some of His children to be separated from Him eternally.

God's been pretty clear on this subject; He loves us all. He wants us all to return to live with Him eternally. The things that will make this possible are available to everyone who ever lived or will live. God has said that the requirements can be met by the weakest and most rebellious of us. The choice is up to us, and it pains Him when we make choices that separate us from Him.

Think about being a parent. Do you say, "Because I love you kids more than life itself, because I want you to be successful and happy, there are no rules. It is not possible for you to ever do anything wrong. There will never be any punishments or negative consequences." Of course not. God doesn't say that to His children, either.

I don't agree with the church's stance on this issue.

Here you have two main options. You can decide that the religion itself is valid, and therefore, you might be wrong about this issue. Or, you can decide that disagreement on one issue will cancel out every agreement on every other issue, and that therefore, the entire religion has no merit.

For me, I again have to allow for the fact that I do not possess all the knowledge in the universe, so there may be a part of the big picture that I don't see.

I think that the church asks too much of us/you.

Nothing worthwhile is easy.

The Bible describes the same event differently in different books.

Of course - they were written by different authors. Think about the family stories your family has. Will it sound different if you or Uncle Bob or cousin Cyril tells the story? Do those differences mean that it never happened, or that you're being deliberately deceitful?

The Bible never mentions this subject. How can this rule about it be valid?

Imagine, again, that you're a parent. You go out for the evening, leaving your oldest in charge. You say something like, "Be good while we're gone!"

When you come home, and discover chaos, how will you feel if your child says, "You never said that I couldn't tie Timmy up and leave him in the closet. You never told me that I couldn't use your coin collection for the ice cream man. You can't be mad, and you can't punish me."

The best rules are broad enough to be applicable across many behaviors, time periods and eventualities. Just because the Bible never tells us not to sell national or company secrets doesn't mean that it's OK to do so.

All of the above arguments are pretty standard, no matter what your religion, although a couple of them are specific to Christianity. There's a couple more that I hear frequently that are peculiar to my specific religion. These include:

There are scriptures in the Book of Mormon that are identical to scriptures in the Bible.

Of course there are. If something is important, you make sure that you repeat it to every group that you speak to. Think about any story that you tell over and over. Think about instructions that you give, and methods that you use to teach. You will say the same things over and over. Others telling the same story or teaching the same subject will do so, as well. To me, this simply shows that the source - God - is the same.

I'd be worried if the Book of Mormon said, "That whole 'love your neighbor' thing? Forget it. And baptism isn't necessary any more."

I don't believe that the leaders in Salt Lake are prophets. What are the chances that most of the modern prophets would be old, white American men?

Do you believe that there were prophets in the Old World? Well, what are the chances that God would have chosen only people from the same race and the same geographic area?

(Plus, we're taught that there were prophets across the earth, and on all the "isles of the sea," in antiquity. We have the writings of only a few. Plus, if anyone missed the chance to hear the message on Earth, they have that opportunity later. Each community no longer needs their own prophet in order to receive instruction, because ideas can be so widely distributed in written or transmitted form.)

The church has too much money/I don't agree with tithing.

I'd worry more about this if we had paid clergy. We don't. Leaders, teachers, organists, cleaning crew, nursery staff - we're all volunteer. You won't find us going on TV to plead for people to send in additional offerings, only to have it go toward buying a new Lexus for the bishop.

Of course there are many more complaints, and many more answers. I'm not trying to Create the Final Word or mold official doctrine. As I said, I'm just writing it down because I hear these things so often, and I've been told that it's rude or intolerant to reply.

That doesn't seem OK to me either. If it's OK for someone else to tell why they think one thing, it's OK for me to say why I think another.

Thanks for listening.

A Truly Grand Parent

My mother hated crowds and noise. For her, the concept of "crowd" was pretty small, too, encompassing groups that others might deem modest or intimate. When we celebrated my children's birthdays, she would only come celebrate with us if it was just the immediate family. If they were having a party, she would come by earlier that day to drop off a gift and then skip the party. They never felt neglected - they knew how she felt. If she went to the extended family Christmas party (and she didn't always go), she would stay for an hour or less and then slip quietly out without saying goodbye.

It was a big deal, then, when she went with us to Las Vegas for our daughter Terry's college graduation.

Mom had never been to Vegas. For most of her life she'd loved to travel, but at 78 she was frequently in pain and always walked with a cane. She also hated leaving her home and her cat in someone else's care, trusting only my cousin Ted to do a good job.

We offered to fly her there and back, sparing her the experience of a road trip of almost 450 miles one way. Still, she opted for the whole road trip, including the post-graduation trip to Disneyland. She'd be rooming with us, and sharing a bed with our oldest daughter. The kids were thrilled.

The graduation invitations had indicated that the ceremony would be held not at the school, a hotel or an auditorium, but at the Fashion Show Mall. We found that very odd - a mall? Really? Then we attended the rehearsal and saw why. The graduates would enter by being raised up out of the floor in a huge glass sided elevator, then walk down the fashion show catwalk, all the while accompanied by special effects smoke, lights and music. I forget which of my family said it first - "It's a very Vegas graduation."

So there's my elderly mom, surrounded by the regular shoppers, the graduation crowd, and loud rock and roll accompanied by smoke, in the Fashion Show Mall on the Las Vegas Strip. It would not have been unheard of for her to simply flee, but she didn't. She sat through the whole thing.

She also let us take photographs of her afterward. This too was not something she enjoyed. To say that she hated to be photographed is understating things. She would, however, agree to a few on special occasions.

Look at the sheer joy in that photo!

There was no question that she was proud of Terry.

Three years later, when Lana, our oldest, graduated from college in Provo, Utah, it was important to her to have Grandma there. It was even more important because she was getting married the day after graduation.

Again, we offered to fly Mom there and back. This time, it was 560 miles one way. Again, she opted for the road trip and shared hotel, this time sharing a bed with Terry.

She was even slower and in more pain when she walked than she had been for Terry's graduation. Climbing in and out of our Suburban was difficult, painful and laborious, yet she didn't even consider not going.

Take a look at the size of that auditorium, and how high up we were sitting! Still, not a single complaint - not so much as a bad mood from Mom.

After she passed away, Lana found that "I <3 BYU" button in Mom's bedroom.

The graduation was so huge that it spread over 2 days. If you wanted to actually hear your name called and to walk across the stage, you had to attend your department's ceremony the day after the huge commencement.   Mom was in such pain from navigating the campus that she skipped those ceremonies for our son in law (morning) and daughter (afternoon). Even then she didn't complain, but simply said, "If I'm going to be up to all the walking tomorrow, I have to rest today."

Weddings in our temples tend to be small and private, often with only the couple and their witnesses or their immediate family present. Often, even the wedding party is not present for the actual ceremony. The reception tends to be the big event. Sometimes, there's more than one reception, especially if the wedding takes place away from the bride's or groom's home town. I've known couples who've had a wedding luncheon for the family and wedding party after the ceremony, gone on their honeymoon, and then returned to a reception in the bride's home town and one in the groom's home town.

In order to witness the actual wedding ceremony, you need to be an adult member of our church, in good standing, and have received certain ordinances.

Because they've grown up in this culture, my kids have never minded not attending someone's actual wedding, even when they're in the wedding party. They don't mind at all waiting in the waiting room. I fit all the requirements to attend the ceremony, but I've spent many weddings in the waiting room, simply because I'm not immediate family (and the rooms are small). I find that to be normal. Others, though, especially those who aren't members of our church or those who haven't been exposed to LDS weddings, find it very odd and are sometimes quite put out.

Not my mom.

Allow me to digress a bit here for some history. I joined my church, by myself but with my parents' permission, when I was 12. My dad's family was not particularly religious at all. My mom's family was moderately religious; they claimed a denomination, and my mom was baptized as a baby. When my siblings and I were children, we attended church once a year, on Easter, at the Methodist church.

All three of my mother's daughters joined churches that our parents did not attend. It did not bother or fluster Mom in any way. She spent all of my pre-driving years driving me to and from church services and activities. Sometimes, when invited, she'd attend meetings or activities with my sister, with me or even with my cousins. She never felt that anyone, at any church, was trying to convert her, or was judging her, or was expecting her to explain herself. If she had, she would have firmly declined any further invitations. When one of her granddaughters converted to Judaism and married a rabbi, my mother met it with the same acceptance and grace and true happiness for her that she had exhibited when her daughters joined Christian churches.

One of the governing documents of my religion says, "We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where or what they may." I had been taught that precept by example my entire childhood, so when I heard it, I already knew of its validity. Your worship, or lack of it, is between you and God. I am neither of those people. I might admire you, pity you, or be annoyed by you, but it won't affect whether I love you or how I treat you. I learned that first, and best, from my mom.

Mom was not into very existential "there is no right, there is no wrong" philosophies. She was very sure of what she felt was right and what she felt was wrong. She just had no interest in making you agree with her, or even in knowing if you did or not.

I have seen and heard the way some other people react to situations similar to ours. Relatives who can't attend the wedding ceremony are very hurt, feel very left out, and are often vocal. They say things like, "I've waited my whole life to see you walk down the aisle!" and, "Your church can't really care very much about families if they're willing to put them through this kind of pain."

My mom, far from home and in physical pain, didn't even think about complaining. It's not as if she put on a happy face for us and vented to people about how awful and inconsiderate it was after she got back home. Trust me, my mother had no problem being very vocal about her displeasure. She never even considered that the day should be about what she wanted or expected. It was about what Lana and Craig wanted, and she was truly happy for them that they got to have what THEY wanted. She was very, very happy that her presence there that day made her granddaughter happy.

She wore the same dress she'd worn to my wedding 24 years earlier. It matched Lana's wedding colors.

She waited in the waiting room with the younger children during the ceremony. They had loaner wheelchairs, which she accepted after three full days of walking farther than normal, and climbing in and out of our behemoth of a vehicle. After the family photos were taken, a family friend - the closet thing we had to our side of the family being there that day - whisked her off on a tour after hearing that she'd never been in Salt Lake City before. She loved it.

She spent the reception that evening commenting on how happy the couple was, and what a wonderful thing it was for them to have a happy wedding day. She even let us take more photos.

A week later, after their honeymoon, she braved a larger crowd to attend the reception in our home town. Almost all of my side of the family made it there; my sister and her husband drove for 12 hours to attend the reception, then drove 12 hours back home so as not to miss work. My daughter felt very loved.

Some people spend a lot of time talking about tolerance, consideration, kindness and respect. Often, unfortunately, I have observed that what they mean is, "I don't think that you are sending enough of these things my way. You should do better." My mom didn't spend much time talking about such things, or telling us to treat everyone with respect; she just did it. She never said, "So-and-so is just as good as we are, even though his skin is a different color;" she treated So-and-so the same way she treated everyone else. We learned by watching.

So many people don't understand the difference between understanding someone, accepting someone and agreeing with them. They say, "I want your understanding," when what they mean is, "I want you to agree with me." They say, "I just can't accept you because of your belief system," instead of realizing that it's totally possible to accept someone while disagreeing with them. I think I have an easier time navigating those feelings than many people do, because I had such a stellar example.

Just as an aside, the niece I mentioned who married the rabbi - perhaps that's not an entirely accurate way to describe it. The rabbi is a lovely, red haired woman, and as far as I know, they haven't had a ceremony, religious, legal or private. They simply decided to form a family - and so, years ago, I gained a niece, my kids gained a cousin, my mom gained a granddaughter.

(Postscript: four years after this was written, my nieces made it official with a wedding on the beach, attended by their children.)

One of the last pieces of mail my mother got was a card from those nieces, letting her know the gender of the baby they're expecting. "Did you know that Kara and Mari are having a girl?" she excitedly asked Terry that night. She was looking forward to this 5th great-grandchild. None of us are concerned with the biology of this child; she's already ours, and always will be.

I have no idea how my mom felt about many things, including gay marriage. I do know that I was raised to accept others for who they are, not who we want them to be. We do not need to agree to love one another, to treat each other with respect and kindness, and to enjoy each other's company. My mother taught me that. My religion reinforced it. Most of the people I choose to fill my life with embrace it.

Take a look again at the elderly woman in a wheelchair, in front of a building she would never enter. That is the face of religious tolerance. That is the face of someone so secure in her belief system that she didn't need to challenge or argue with anyone. That is the face of love and acceptance. That is the woman who taught me  that to be sure of yourself does not mean belittling or demeaning others.

That is my mom.

The Frog vs. the Chicken

If you know me fairly well, you know of my love for anything ever created by Jim Henson. I adore the Muppets. I regularly cry while watching them. Their stuff is genius, pure and simple. I also value their contributions to society in the form of lessons on how to treat one another: size, shape, color, origin, housing etc. are unimportant. Always be nice. Share your things. I also support their current CEO's right to believe and act as she sees fit, and to direct her company without interference.

 I also like Chik-Fil-A products. They're tasty. I also have always been impressed by the company's choice to monetarily support things that are important to me, such as public television. I support their current CEO's right to believe and act as he sees fit, and to direct his company as he sees fit.
...
 I find it ridiculous that I am now being asked to choose which company I will support, with my money and my approval. I find nothing contradictory in supporting them both.

 I realize that their CEOs have recently aligned themselves with groups having opposite opinions on a divicive issue. All laws of God and all reasonable laws of man allow them to do just that, and should allow them to do so without fear of attack, verbal or otherwise, by fellow humans.

 The last time I had a similar conversation with someone about this very issue, they assured me that there was no middle ground, that they could not possibly tolerate the view that opposed their own. I held that opposing opinion. "You realize that I find your belief to be immoral and dangerous," they said, trying to explain why they just could not be civil about this issue. My answer: "Yes. Yes, I do realize that. Do you know how I can be sure? Because I find YOUR belief to be immoral and dangerous. I am STILL willing to support your right to hold and express that belief."

 If people want me to get behind them and their rights to have and espouse and act on beliefs that I find wrong, immoral, offensive or otherwise unacceptable, those people MUST (must, must) be willing to stand behind me and my right to have and espouse and act on beliefs that they find wrong, immoral, offensive or otherwise unacceptable. If they're not willing to support someone that they think is wrong, they have NO right to ask me to support them when I think they're wrong. NONE. (And the thing is, I will still support their rights, because it's the right thing to do.)

 So will eat my Chik-Fil-A products while I watch my Muppet entertainment, and I will not feel bad about it all. Who's with me?

Marriage Opinions

                Sometimes I feel like I'm repeating myself too frequently (and really, I'm not fond of repetition), but people keep asking the same questions. Generally, I write down an answer I've been asked to give over and over, in the hopes that having it "down on paper" will mean that I don't have to say it as often.

                Part of the problem is differing views on the act of communication itself. I have always believed, and continued to function on, the idea that asking for someone's opinion is a way to understand what they're thinking. The point, it has always seemed to me, is for people with differing ideas to say, "OK, now I know why you act the way that you do. It's because you believe X." Then everyone goes on their way having been heard and with their views recognized. The world is a better place when we understand each other.

                I am completely uncomfortable, and in fact, flabbergasted, at a very common occurrence in modern "communication," the idea that everyone will, or should, walk away from a conversation agreeing with one another. I cannot imagine how this is supposed to take place. Get a small number of people together – say, 4 to 6 – and ask them to come to a consensus about what to have for lunch. It is not a quick, easy, painless or bonding kind of process. Yet otherwise rational people continue to believe that if they simply tell you why they don't agree with you on any topic, that you will see the error of your ways and change your opinion. The larger or more important the issue, the more they are convinced that this will happen. When it doesn't occur, instead of realizing that they have faulty expectations, they will get more and more upset, accusing those who continue (the nerve of them!) to believe something contrary to their own opinions of being stubborn, ignorant or the current favorite, hateful.

                It is not, nor has it ever been, hateful to disagree with anyone. It IS hateful to say things like, "You shouldn't even be allowed to say that!" and I have ironically heard that sentiment come out of the mouths of people who are claiming that they represent open mindedness and tolerance.

                So let me be clear – I express my opinion in order to ensure that others understand me, not so that everyone will say, "My goodness, she's right!" Understanding and agreement are not the same thing.

                I recently read a list of reasons that the author gives on why no one should ever oppose gay marriage. One of the reasons was, "Marriage is a civil ceremony. Therefore, marriage is a civil right." Here is why some of us will never agree on this issue.

                Some people believe what my religion teaches, which is that marriage is a religious rite, like baptism. We believe it was instituted before the world was created, by a Supreme Being, and is unaffected by the rules or whims or desires of men. Just as we do not believe that someone can choose or alter the correct form, or the necessity of, baptism, we do not believe that legal, man made rules have any effect at all on marriage. If you believe that marriage was instituted by humans, and especially if you believe that marriage was instituted by men in order to subjugate and oppress women, we will never agree on this subject. We will never have the same definition of marriage. We can understand each other, and we should, but we will not agree.

                The fact that civil marriage exists at all is a concession, we believe. Civil marriage came about because people wanted, but did not qualify for, marriage in its original form. Or, they wanted the benefits of marriage, but did not want or agree with the religion that provided it. People came up with a compromise – folks who did not want or did not qualify for a religious marriage could have a civil service, a union recognized by governments but not necessarily by churches. It is the religious equivalent of a GED, saying, "You can have the same legal standing and rights as couples married in the church, but you didn't fulfill the same requirements that others did." We believe that one of the biggest differences is that marriages performed only civilly last only until one spouse dies, whereas marriages performed by proper religious authority last forever.

                Even in my church, not everyone is married by such religious authority. It is not seen as a guaranteed right, but as something very precious and therefore obtained with a degree of difficulty.

                We're not alone. Many churches will have new converts rebaptized or remarried, even if they had already done these things years ago, because their church authorities do not recognize ceremonies performed outside of their church. Even if you are legally married for decades, in order for their church to consider your union (or your divorce) valid, you must fulfill their religious requirements.

                It goes without saying that the vast majority of folks on the planet will disagree on this subject. Not agreeing is OK.

                One of the other statements on the list was, "It is no longer your personal religious view if you are bothering someone else." Um, I'm sorry, but that's just silly. That's like saying that your opinion doesn't really exist if it bothers or offends me. You have a legal and God-given right to do things that bother and offend me. I have a legal and God-given right to do things that bother and offend you.

                I wish I remember which elected official said it, so I could properly attribute one of my favorite things ever said on the floor of the U. S. Congress. It was in the mid to late 1980s, when burning the U. S. flag was a hot button issue. One man stood up and said, "What makes this country great is not that it protects the rights of those that are right; it's that it also protects the rights of those that are wrong." If this man were from my state, he would have had my vote for life.

                I realize that it offends people when I say that I don't think that marriage laws should be changed. Pointing that out to me wastes both of our time. You are not changing what you think and do if I'm offended; I should not be expected to change myself because you are offended.

                Here's the thing: because civil marriage exists completely outside the framework of religion, there's some wiggle room. (I don't understand people who think that their religious leaders should change. If you believe that God is the author of your religion – and if you don't, why do you belong to it? - it doesn't make sense that you would say to God, "Gee, good job creating the universe and all, but I think you're wrong about this, and I think that I can do better.") This is why I think there's room for the creation of new laws, by humans and for humans. What any nation or group of people decides is not binding upon God.

                In order for gay couples to have all the legal rights and obligations of married couples, I believe that what needs to change are the domestic partnership laws, not marriage laws. Domestic partnerships should have, aside from gender, the same requirements as a marriage license. They should cost the same, be as readily available, have the same documentation, waiting periods, paperwork, officiants, whatever. Aside from gender, they should be the same as a marriage. Adoption of children, alimony, insurance, everything should be identical. Commonlaw marriage laws already recognize that people can be granted the rewards and obligation of marriage without going through the usual avenues. I think that domestic partnerships should be another reflection that you can take different roads to the same legal  destination. Governments should recognize domestic partnerships as being equal to a marriage, the same way a GED is the legal equivalent of a high school diploma.

                I read an opinion that said that civil partnerships were not equality because "they deny me the right to call my chosen partner my husband." I don't think so. First, "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Second, I know heterosexual unmarried people who refer to their partners as "my husband" and "my wife."  In my life, we have aunts, uncles, siblings, nieces, nephews and a grandchild who are not related to us by birth, marriage or adoption; we still refer to them by those familial titles. I know both heterosexual and gay families that practice plural marriage – not legally, of course, but that's the point. They consider more than one person a spouse, regardless of the law. When someone introduces me to someone else, I will refer to that person by that title, whether legal or not. Call someone "my husband," and I will always introduce and refer to them as "X's husband." I know men who used to be women and women who used to be men – I refer to them by their chosen gender and new names (despite the fact that I think their spirits will be returned to their original gender after death). It's just common courtesy.

                I've also heard, repeatedly, that it's discriminatory and offensive to call gay unions by a different title than heterosexual unions. I just can't get behind that. Here is a group expecting others to change, bend or give up their religious beliefs, the teachings of their parents and/or their moral convictions, (opinions that, by the way, have been accepted for many years) because that group believes that those beliefs are wrong. (I'm not concerned with which side is a majority; I think that majority votes are a very unreliable way of determining moral considerations.) They expect this to happen immediately and quietly and painlessly. They further expect that their ideals should be made law, the sooner the better. Yet, they are unwilling to bend themselves on the matter of a single word. "It must be called a marriage, or it's inferior," even if it is legally identical. That equation is extremely lopsided. When I was a kid, people said, "All we want is the legal rights that others have." Now, they say, "It's not equal unless it has the same label."

            I would not mind if all partnerships formed legally instead of religiously were called "partnerships," leaving "marriage" as a strictly religious term. I don't think that's "discriminatory" at all. I do mind when someone tells me that that opinion means that I'm "hateful" and that I view some people as less than human. I don't call you "hateful" because you disagree with me, I tell these people, but they tell me, "It's different." No, it isn't.

Churches should always be free from government interference, and free to choose what they will or won't recognize. Freedom of religion does not mean that choosing to practice a religion is unpatriotic. Read any founding document of the United States, or speech given by someone revered as a Founding Father, and you will find phrases like "Almighty God" and "the Hand of Providence." They intended that there be no state religion and no government interference in religious matters, not the absence of religious thought or influence. Every person is legally (and morally) allowed to choose for THEMSELVES, not for everyone else.

I really cannot stand hearing someone say, "You can't legislate morality." OK, I'll say – let's take, "Thou shalt not kill." Coming from the Bible as it does, we obviously have to weed that out of our laws, so let's eliminate all laws regarding murder, manslaughter, wrongful death, child abuse that causes death, medical malpractice or neglect of any kind resulting in death… out they go. "Thou shalt not steal" – out go the laws on theft, burglary, embezzlement, fraud, robbery, tax evasion. "Thou shalt not bear false witness:" perjury, libel, defamation of character, fraudulent claims, misleading advertising, plagiarism, intellectual property right, copyright – gone.

Please. You can try to tell me that it's just a coincidence that those laws have a counterpart in ancient religious law, but I won't buy it. I don't believe in coincidence.

Disagreeing with anyone – let me make that clear, ANYONE – does not mean that you should ever view them as less of a person, less valuable, less intelligent, less deserving of your consideration or friendship or love or courtesy. That includes people who hold opinions that you find wrong or offensive or immoral. If you are going to call me, or anyone else, choice names because of their beliefs, if you are going to believe that you don't need to be polite to me because I'm wrong, if you feel that it's OK to make fun of me because I'm wrong (or misguided or uninformed or brainwashed - I've heard them all), then you have no leg to stand on, and in fact look rather ridiculous, when you tell me that your view is the one that celebrates and breeds tolerance.

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.