Controversy

So Elder Dallin H. Oaks gave a speech up at the old Ricks College a short time ago that has gotten a lot of pub as it was about gay marriage and prop 8. First of all, I'm going to put in my two quick cents on that one, and then I wanted to point out my favorite paragraph in his talk and my favorite line of that paragraph.

Gay Marriage - It seems to me that what we're really arguing about here is the definition of a word, so let's go over this real quick with some basic examples. A car. That's a vehicle with four tires, a motor, a seat and a steering wheel. Well, what if it has only two tires? Oh, well, that's not a car, that's a motorcycle. Ok, what if it has two tracks instead of any wheels. Well, that's not a car, that's a tank. Ok, what if it has a propeller, no tires, and it floats. Not a car, that's a boat. What if it has no motor? Not a car, that's a kid's toy of a car. What about if it has no motor and only two wheels? Not a car, that's a bicycle.

Ok, do we all understand how this works? We can call a word whatever we want and define it as we wish. It's our english language and we can decide together, what each word means.

So now let's head over to gays, and we'll start with sex. Put the kids to bed for this part, I'm going to be more PG-13 rated than I usually am on this blog. Definition of sex: A penis going into a vagina. Ok, well, now double the penis and add a bum, is that sex? No, that is not sex. That is the closest thing to sex that two men together alone can come up with. Call it whatever you want. Call it gay sex, call it homoism, or if you want, make up a new word for it. Call it jupilap or tabadoo or whatever, but don't call it sex, that word has already been created, with a proper definition, and that definition does not include what is going on here. Ok, how about two women and a hand, is that sex? No, it is not. Again, call it whatever you want, but, you have twice as much as you need of one ingredient, and you're missing a different ingredient, so don't tell me you want to define this peach cobbler as strawberry shortcake. How about if we have a man and a woman and only the lips touch, is that sex? No it is not, it is a kiss. It is a separate word for a separate operation with a separate definition.

It's the same thing for marriage. Marriage has been defined for thousands of years as a man and a woman, making a commitment of love, trust, and friendship to each other. If two gays or two lesbians want to make a commitment of love, trust, and friendship to each other, then that's fine by me, but don't call it marriage, because it's not. That word, marriage, already has a definition, and has had ever since the written word started being written. This definition includes a few key components, two of which are a man and a woman. Two key components to a taco are the shell and the beef. If you double the beef and leave out the shell, do you still call it a taco? No, you call it taco salad or whatever you want to call it, but if you call that a taco, your friends are all just going to look at you confused. So the state of California asks its citizens "Do you want us to call this a taco? It has double the beef and no shell, should we call it a taco anyway?" The people of California voted and said, "no, we don't want to redefine the word Taco to include that other food whatever it is over there." We're allowed to do that. It's our language, our rules, our laws, if we want to vote that a Taco minus the shell with double beef doesn't get to be called a taco, then we'll vote that way. Don't call me a bigot just because I don't think your crazy new food invention fits under what I would like the definition of a Taco to be.

Ok, now onto my favorite paragraph, and the reason I was writing this post in the first place before I got so distracted on the gay deal. My favorite paragraph of his talk, and my favorite line of that paragraph. Wonderful.

This principle of sovereignty in the people explains the meaning of God’s revelation that He established the Constitution of the United States “that every man may act . . . according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment” (Doctrine and Covenants 101:78). In other words, the most desirable condition for the effective exercise of God-given moral agency is a condition of maximum freedom and responsibility — the opposite of slavery or political oppression. With freedom we can be accountable for our own actions and cannot blame our conditions on our bondage to another. This is the condition the Lord praised in the Book of Mormon, where the people — not a king — established the laws and were governed by them (see Mosiah 29:23–26). This popular sovereignty necessarily implies popular responsibility. Instead of blaming their troubles on a king or tyrant, all citizens are responsible to share the burdens of governing, “that every man might bear his part” (Mosiah 29:34).

I think that is just great. It's wonderful to hear an Apostle of the Lord say it so darn clearly. He's really good with that language thing. I should spend more time citing him and less time talking about tacos.