What's in a name? Proposition 8 and the definition of marriage: A Planetary Discussion

For those who are getting tired of my posts on proposition 8, I have good news and bad news. The good news: we go to the polls tomorrow, and my posts on this issue will probably largely stop after the election. The bad news? I've got about 36 hours left in which to defend traditional marriage, and I intend to take advantage of it!
I read a blog post yesterday ridiculing anyone who argues that semantics matter in the gay marriage battle. This blogger compared the argument over the definition of marriage to the recent argument over and redefinition of the word planet, claiming that since one didn't really make a difference neither will the other. I frankly thought his argument was a poor one, but we might after all learn something from the effort to define the meaning of the word "planet".
When the International Astronomical Union met in 2006 to reconsider the definition of planet, they were faced with two options: 1) define planet in a way that would include the numerous new pluto-like bodies being discovered in the solar system, greatly expanding the number of named plantes in the solar systerm, or 2) define planet in a way that recognizes the unique characteristics of the 8 major planets and distinguishes them from other orbital bodies in the solar system. Here is the definition they chose:
A planet is a celestial body orbiting a star or stellar remnant that is massive enough to be rounded by its own gravity, is not massive enough to cause thermonuclear fusion, and has cleared its neighbouring region of planetesimals
Some people have been upset that this definition excludes Pluto, which all of us learned years ago in the last of planets. The truth is, the IAU did not have any particular predjudice against Pluto. However, in the years since Pluto's discovery and inclusion in the list of planets, many more solar bodies of similar size and orbits had been discovered, including one larger than Pluto. These bodies, including Pluto, differed from the other major planets in significant ways. Astronomers were faced with two choices: 1) expand the list of planets to include all of these objects, or 2) refine the definition of the term "planet" to reflect the differences between these orbiting objects and the other planets of the solar system. They chose to refine the definition of a planet to make clear the distinction between the large planets with their unique properties and the smaller celestial bodies which they renamed "dwarf planets". Why make a distinction? Quite simply, because words are more meaningful and more useful when their definition is more precise. This is particularly true in scientific and legal spheres.
Because the major planets and dwarf planets have different characteristics, if both were simply designated as planets a scientists wanting to discuss one or the other would have to specify in some other way what he was talking about, i.e. "the type of planet that is rounded by its own gravity" or "the type of planet that is too small to dominate its orbit". Clearly, carefully defining our terms from the beginning makes those terms more useful. A scientific observation that applied to one group might not apply to the other, and confusion would result.
The application to marriage laws and definitions should be apparent. Limiting the definition of marriage to the union of a man and a woman makes the term more specific and therefor more useful. Including relationships that have some marriage-like aspects, such as a same-sex union, muddies the waters, and leaves open to interpretation what marriage really means. Are the differences between a same-sex union and a male/female union significant enough to warrant different names? Absolutely. Yes, there are some similarities: both may be close committed relationships between individuals, both may be sexual and romantic unions. But only the union between and man and a woman includes the potential to produce offspring. My marriage to my husband has produced three children; because their father is married to their mother, these children benefit from close and secure relationships with both of their natural parents, as well as with grandparents and other family members. That situation will never result from the "marriage" of two men or two women.
Is the real difference great enough to warrant semantic and legal differentiation? Absolutely. Will defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, as proposition 8 attempts to do, benefit children and society? Unequivicably.
Vote Yes on Proposition 8. It's the right thing to do.

Proposition 8 and Civil Rights, from those who know about Civil Rights

***Some content may not be appropriate for children***

In consideration of our gay brothers and sisters

I have written a lot about Proposition 8 and the need to protect the traditional institution of marriage. I hope people do not think this is because I hate gays or anyone else. I recently discovered a blog that I believe is worth reading for those who want to better understand some of the issues affecting gay people. This particular blog is written by a gay man who is an active practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Because of his faith, he does not engage in behavior that violates the commandments of God. But homosexuality is a reality for him, and the perspective and experience he shares in his blog help bring some balance to discussions on this issue.
You can read Clint's blog here.

Proposition 8 in Plain English

Please visit www.whatisprop8.com for more information.

For The Children, For The Future (Repost)

I am saddened to see so much argument in favor of so-called same sex marriage based on the assumption that "marriage" is personal affair between two people. Marriage is not and never has been a personal affair between two people. Marriage, throughout the thousands of years of human civilizations, has often varied with regards to the specific rights and obligations of the people involved. One thing, however, has remained constant: marriage is the socially endorsed union of a man and woman for the continuation of their family and lineage, and of the greater social structure, through the bearing and rearing of children. It is not surprising that we find marriage being radically redefined by "Generation Me". I know, I belong to this generation. I see the evidence all around me. Self-fulfillment, self-expression, and self-absorption are paramount. I should be able to marry whomever I want. And if that relationship ceases to meet my needs, I should be able to discard the marriage like an old pair of shoes whose color no longer pleases me. Oh, and society should give me a pat on the back for being so honest with myself in my search for personal fulfillment. I hate to break it to you, folks, but this is not what life is about. And this kind of attitude is most certainly not going to lead to a happy, healthy, productive society. Marriage and families are not about self-actualization. They are about building our future. They are about bringing children into the world within the security of a family including a father and mother, grandfathers and grandmothers, and the social support and endorsement that facilitate the children's future. We lament the state of the family in our country. We are faced with an epidemic of children born to unwed mothers, children of divorce, and the rampant breakdown of marriages and families. Can we not see that the past forty years or so have seen a weakening of the fundamental institution of marriage that has facilitated the current state of affairs? We introduced no-fault divorce to allow marriage partners to "get out" of a union that was no longer meeting their needs--did we look ahead to see that we were making marriage less binding than a common business contract? We liberated ourselves from moral restrictions that would limit sexual relations to marriage--did we stop to consider that we were stripping from the act that creates human life the soil and foundation upon which that life must take root? We legalized unrestricted abortion--did we recognize that we were undermining the value of human life itself as we bow to personal Choice? In every one of these cases it is the smallest, the weakest among us--those who are and will be our future--who bear the consequences for our choices. Whatever happened to accountability? Freedom of choice was never meant to be freedom from consequence, nor can it be. The consequences must be born. In our society, it is our children, born and unborn, who bear those consequences. Our nation was founded on principles of freedom, virtue and self-sacrifice. We who hold its destiny in our hands today. We, who will determine the world our children will grow up in and inherit, need to embrace all three of those values. Sometimes what I want must be set aside in favor of what my society needs. And right now our society does not need for the meaning of marriage to be further diluted. Marriage, as the life-long union of a man and a woman who will bear and raise the next generation of children, must be preserved. We cannot afford the loss of meaning that will occur if we re-define marriage to include same-sex (and inherently infertile) relationships. We as individuals make choices. We as a society also have a choice to make. We must choose the future. Support America's families. Support America's future. Please vote yes to protect traditional marriage in California, Florida and Arizona.
YES on California Proposition 8 http://protectmarriage.com/
YES on Arizona Proposition 102 http://yesformarriage.com/
YES on Florida Proposition 2 http://www.yes2marriage.org/

More Prop 8 Food For Thought

I came across a great blog post today, summarizing many of the legal battles taking place around the country as those who try to stand up for their religious convictions and traditional values are taken to court by those claiming such a stance breaches their civil rights as same-sex couples. Read the post here.

Proposition 8 Food for Thought

If you think same-sex marriage won't change your life, think again.

What same-sex marriage has done to Massachusetts

Proposition 8 and Our Children

Robb and Robin Wirthlin actually used to live in our town in California. About 3 years ago they moved to Massachusetts. This is their experience with same-sex marriage being taught in public schools.

Civil Rights and Proposition 8

I'm puzzled by the claim that gay marriage is a civil rights issue. I personally don't see that there is an inequality involved. Marriage is the union of a man and woman, and as such does not discriminate against anyone. You have as much freedom as I do to enter into such a union. If this is not your desired union, that's fine too--you are free to not marry. You may even form a union with someone of the same sex. No, such a union is not a marriage, and no, you are not being discriminated against.
Sigh. You know people, we're dealing with basic biological reality here. The union of a man and woman is different from any other. It produces children. Oh, someone else might care for children, but reproduction only occurs through the uniting of male and female elements. And yes, this is significant. And marriage is designed to ensure that reproduction takes place in an appropriate environment, where the energy and resources of the two parents responsible will be available for the rearing of their offspring. Changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex relationships is a drastic re-writing of society's most fundamental institution. Don't try to tell me it is just a warm fuzzy equality issue. When did civil rights campaigns ever redefine the right they were addressing? Should we have freed the slaves by simply re-defining freedom to include the state of being owned by someone else? Should we have extended the vote to women by re-defining a vote to mean nothing more than a chance to tell someone what you think? If you have legitimate civil rights concerns, you need to find a way to address them that doesn't fundamentally change the right you are laying claim to.

What is the agenda behind the gay marriage push?

This article, titled "Gay Talk Show Host Opposes Gay Marriage" is worth reading. A few excerpts are below.

(Al Rantel is a conservative gay talk show host on Los Angeles's KABC station)

"To say that unfortunately the gay world is in a general state of hyper-sexuality that is not conducive to relationships which marriage was intended to foster is to put it mildly. Further, almost all of the issues the gay left claims it is justifiably concerned about like property, health, and financial partnership issues have already been dealt with by many states and can be dealt with through further legislation as needed. Such legal changes would encounter far less political opposition."

In other words, most gays don't want to be married anyway, and many states are already bending over backwards to give their partnerships rights similar to those of married people.

"Why then the seeming obsession by the gay left and their activist judicial allies like the Massachusetts justices to force gay marriage on an unwilling public?
There is an answer.
Forcing a change to an institution as fundamental and established by civilization as marriage is deemed by gay activists and other cultural liberals as the equivalent of the Good Housekeeping seal of approval for homosexuality itself. The reasoning goes that if someone can marry someone of the same sex then being gay is as acceptable and normal as being short or tall.
While I certainly do not think people should be judged by who they choose to love or how they choose to live their lives, the cultural liberals in America are after more than that. They want to force others to accept their social view, and declare all those who might have an objection to their social agenda to be bigots, racists, and homophobes to be scorned and forced into silence."

Yep, they're really good at the name-calling bit.

"The gay left has still not matured into a position of self-empowerment, but is still committed by and large to the idea that the rest of society must bless being gay in every way imaginable. This includes public parades in all major cities to remind everyone else of what some people like to do in their private bedrooms while in the same breath demanding to be left alone.
What more certifiable blessing than state sanctioned marriage of two men or two women, even for a group that has offered no indication that most even desire to enter into the kind of commitments that marriage ideally entails, or that serves the real purpose of marriage. Marriage exists in order to create a stable and structured environment for couples to reproduce and raise their offspring. "

Ah, but the gay left wants us to think only sexuality matters, not reproduction.

"And so we have come to yet another chapter in the story of those who would portray themselves as victims in need of another sanction from the state. This time the price of social acceptance of gays is the redefinition of an institution that is thousands of years old and a cornerstone of society. Does that really seem like a wise and prudent choice for America to make at the wish of a handful of judges, and at the behest of those whose real goals are more political than anything else? "

I couldn't have said it better.

Here is the article in it's entirety. Although I found it so good that I ended up quoting most of it.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/11/140806.shtml

The Meaning of Marriage: What Gay Marriage Advocates Don't want you to Consider

Words are a powerful force in our lives. As thinking, reasoning beings, it is through words that we define ourselves and reason about our lives. But words are only meaningful when the speaker and the hearer understand a word in the same way. In talking with people about California's proposition 8, I have discovered a serious difference between the definition of marriage as it has traditionally been understood, and the meaning that advocates of "gay marriage" are giving to the term.
Noah Webster's 1828 American Dictionary defines marriage this way: The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. A modern dictionary definition is not far different: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. This is the definition of marriage as we have all grown up understanding it. In contrast, here is the answer I received in a recent conversation with a gay marriage advocate; when I asked how she defined marriage, she replied "marriage is two people who love each other".
Now I certainly am not going to argue that two people who are married should not love one another, but this expresses only one aspect of what marriage is about. Of course, those who advocate "gay marriage" cannot use the traditional definition of marriage, because it automatically excludes any union other than that of a man and a woman. And so they cast aside completely the traditional meaning of the word "marriage" and in its place substitute a watered-down, truncated meaning that gives the nod to romantic love and says very little else.
Before we as a society accept this stripping of meaning from the word marriage, perhaps we should carefully consider what the implications of the two definitions are. Marriage as the legal union of a man and woman for life accomplishes many things. First, it provides that children are born into a stable family unit, with a father and mother who are committed to one another and to the children they will jointly raise. It establishes on a community and society-wide scale that the male and female halves of society, with their complimentary strengths and abilities, are working together for the good of the next generation. It guarantees that the resources of one generation will be passed down through a family to the next generation. It provides general stability for society. It means that each person belongs to an extended family network which is capable of providing a safety net in times of sickness or other hardships.This social, legal and biological framework has been and is the basis of every society, every civilization in the history of the world. The part played by romantic love varies; in many societies, marriages were or are arranged by parents or other responsible parties, with romance playing little if any role in the choosing of a spouse. Interestingly, this strategy seems to have been generally successful in providing a stable family environment. In recent history in western societies, young people have generally played the key role themselves in choosing a marriage partner. Again, with society's support, these marriages have generally provided a stable, secure environment in which children can be brought up. More recently, the emphasis has shifted more and more towards romantic and sexual attraction at the expense of all other considerations as the primary basis for marriage. I believe we can see the results of this shift in the instability of so many family units in our modern western society.
What has happened? If we base marriage solely on a passionate romantic and sexual attraction between two individuals, it loses it's stability. Why? Because romance and passion are not stable. Please note I am not saying that love is not stable, but love is not a state of being, love is a an action, it is something we do. When we talk about "falling in love" we are referring to the development of a romantic/sexual attraction for someone; this can result in a lasting commitment or it may lead to nothing more than a temporary infatuation. The lifetime commitment of marriage requires that both husband and wife understand and commit to a partnership through the ups and downs of life and of their personal relationship. In every marriage there will probably be times when the husband and wife to not feel "in love" with one another. In the emerging contemporary view of marriage, as nothing more than an affirmation of a romantic relationship between two people, this would be the time to dissolve the relationship! Sadly, that is exactly what we find happening in our modern society. Adults move from relationship to relationship, contracting and dissolving "marriages" with little thought for the instability this creates in the lives of children and families, and therefore in society in general. Not business contract could be dissolved as easily as we now dissolve a marriage! The implications for society? Millions of children growing up in single-parent homes, often feeling trapped between their need to love and feel loved by both parents and the conflicting lives and agendas of the parents. Redefining marriage as primarily a romantic relationship between adults disqualifies it as the foundational institution of society. Romance can be fickle, the foundation of the family should not be. When marriage is viewed as a life-long relationship between a husband and wife, a mother and father, marriage partners will work harder to strengthen their relationship and to promote the overall good of the family.
How does gay marriage weaken this structure? It is obvious that the traditional definition of marriage as the lifelong union of a man and a woman precludes "marriage" between individuals of the same sex. For such individuals to "marry" the very meaning of the word must be dramatically altered. Such a change will drastically alter our social understanding of marriage itself, and will further weaken our ability to establish and maintain solid marriages and families.
Folks, there is much more at stake here than the perceived happiness of a few same-sex couples. The Domestic Partnership laws of California already grant the rights and privileges of marriage to same-sex partners. Now they want to take away from us our right to have a marriage that means more than a romantic relationship between two people. The foundation of society is at stake. The future of our children is at stake. Vote for marriage. Vote for Family. Vote Yes on Proposition 8.

More Important Things?

Making phone calls, I get all kinds of different responses, from the "I agree with you completely and am voting Yes on Proposition 8" (I love this kind), to the name callers (actually I've only had one of those so far), to "we have so many more important things to be worrying about".

I have to say that last one puzzles me. More important than a dramatic change in the basic structure of society? Because this is what we are talking about here. I imagine the gentleman responsible for that quote was thinking about wars and economies and such. All very important, I admit. But I think we need to step back and consider here.

Steven Covey teaches some principles about time management that I think might apply here. He devides our activities into four quadrants, based on the importance of an activity and the urgence of an activity. Activities may be Important/Urgent, Important/Not Urgent, Unimportant/Urgent, and Unimportant/Not Urgent. We can prioritize our activities based on which of these quadrants they fall into--i.e., Important/Urgent is obviously a high priority, but so is Important/Not Urgent; Unimportant/Urgent things often get in the way of the Important/Not Urgent. And we are all prone to giving more time than is warranted to things it the Unimportant/Not Urgent categories.

I think something that is happening with this election is that many people do not understand the importance and/or the urgence of defending the traditional family structure. We see the stock market roller coaster playing havoc with our retirement savings, for example, and our internal alarms go off--we have to solve this crisis! The Crisis of the Family in our country is much more subtle, because the effects of changes in family structure and function take a long time to play out--at least as long as it takes for a new generation of children to grow up under the new family conditions. Folks, we can't wait that long. This is far to critical to take a "wait and see" approach to the changes being pushed on our society. At this point, it is still a small but very vocal minority who really want the definition of marriage and the structure of the family to be radically altered. The majority of Americans still believe that the traditional family structure, in which a mother and father unite to raise their children within the bonds of marriage, is best. But those who want to alter this structure are working hard to convince us that their alterations really are not important, they won't change anything for us, and maintaining the integrity of the family is neither and urgent nor a worthwhile cause.

I beg to differ. I can think of nothing on our collective political plate at the moment that needs more urgent or dedicated attention. The world of a generation from now is the world my children will inhabit, the world my grandchildren will be born into. If that doesn't matter, I don't know what does. When we take a stand for the families of America, we take a stand for the future of America. Help us perserve the integrity of Marriage!

So Little Time

I spent several hours this weekend making phone calls to urge people to vote Yes on Proposition 8. I really appreciate the encouraging comments many of you have left. I would like to share a nice video I watched today made by the Catholic Church here in California that explains why marriage between a man and a woman is important to children. I haven't figured out how to embed this one, but here is the link: http://www.marriagematterstokids.org/.
I am feeling tired today, and we are having some friends over to join in our Family Home Evening tonight, so I need to go clean my house. I'm glad to know there are other people out there who care about the same things I do--please feel free to pass this blog on to anyone you know who might be interested.

Why We Must Pass Proposition 8

This is a video I found at the evangelical outpost . It tells more of a story that was covered briefly in a video I posted several days ago, about a family facing the ramifications of legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

Why the LDS Church Supports Proposition 8

Elder Bednar discusses the consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage from and LDS perspective.

Activism

Warning! This blog has been hijacked by a political activist!
Well, OK, it's just me...But I thought I would offer you all an explanation for the many recent posts related to the upcoming elections. The main purpose of this blog is to write about issues related to family and homeschooling. Earlier this year, a few judges on the California Supreme Court took it upon themselves to redefine marriage for the entire state of California. My immediate response was "I have to fight this!" I knew that many, many others share my concerns, and I started to look for ways to get involved. I signed up as a volunteer with ProtectMarriage.com, the coalition sponsoring Proposition 8. I have since gone door-to-door to talk to voters, I have made phone calls, I have a bumper sticker on my car--and I have posted my thoughts on this issue on my blog. I believe this issue cuts to the core of what is important in life--that is our families, and our freedom to worship God in accordance with out concience. I feel that there is a wind blowing in our country--a wind trying to silence the majority of the American people, the majority who believe in virtue, in morality, in God and Family. There are those who push their liberal agendas openly and loudly, while accusing anyone who speaks up for virtue and morality of bigotry. We are a majority. We need to stand up for right. We need to make our voices heard. The Savior commanded us to love our neighbour, and to be a light to the world. He never suggested we should condone sin. Thank you to all those who are reading and studying the issues. Let us move forward with prayer, with faith and hope, in support of what is right.

For the Children, For the Future

I am saddened to see so much argument in favor of so-called same sex marriage based on the assumption that "marriage" is personal affair between two people. Marriage is not and never has been a personal affair between two people. Marriage, throughout the thousands of years of human civilizations, has often varied with regards to the specific rights and obligations of the people involved. One thing, however, has remained constant: marriage is the socially endorsed union of a man and woman for the continuation of their family and lineage, and of the greater social structure, through the bearing and rearing of children.
It is not surprising that we find marriage being radically redefined by "Generation Me". I know, I belong to this generation. I see the evidence all around me. Self-fulfillment, self-expression, and self-absorption are paramount. I should be able to marry whomever I want. And if that relationship ceases to meet my needs, I should be able to discard the marriage like an old pair of shoes whose color no longer pleases me. Oh, and society should give me a pat on the back for being so honest with myself in my search for personal fulfillment.
I hate to break it to you, folks, but this is not what life is about. And this kind of attitude is most certainly not going to lead to a happy, healthy, productive society. Marriage and families are not about self-actualization. They are about building our future. They are about bringing children into the world within the security of a family including a father and mother, grandfathers and grandmothers, and the social support and endorsement that facilitate the children's future.
We lament the state of the family in our country. We are faced with an epidemic of children born to unwed mothers, children of divorce, and the rampant breakdown of marriages and families. Can we not see that the past forty years or so have seen a weakening of the fundamental institution of marriage that has facilitated the current state of affairs. We introduced no-fault divorce to allow marriage partners to "get out" of a union that was no longer meeting their needs--did we look ahead to see that we were making marriage less binding than a common business contract? We liberated ourselves from moral restrictions that would limit sexual relations to marriage--did we stop to consider that we were stripping from the act that creates human life the soil and foundation upon which that life must take root? We legalized unrestricted abortion--did we recognize that we were undermining the value of human life itself as we bow to personal Choice? In every one of these cases it is the smallest, the weakest among us--those who are and will be our future--who bear the consequences for our choices. Whatever happened to accountability? Freedom of choice was never meant to be freedom from consequence, nor can it be. The consequences must be born. In our society, it is our children, born and unborn, who bear those consequences.
Our nation was founded on principles of freedom, virtue and self-sacrifice. We who hold its destiny in our hands today, we who will determine the world our children will grow up in and inherit, need to embrace all three of those value. Sometimes what I want must be set aside in favor of what my society needs. And right now our society does not need for the meaning of marriage to be further diluted. We as individuals make choices. We as a society also have a choice to make. We must choose the future.
Support America's families. Support America's future.
Please vote yes to protect traditional marriage in California, Florida and Arizona.
YES on California Proposition 8 http://protectmarriage.com/
YES on Arizona Proposition 102 http://yesformarriage.com/
YES on Florida Proposition 2 http://www.yes2marriage.org/

How Same-Sex Marriage will affect YOUR family

Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage a few years ago. Here is how it affected two families with small children. If you have heard the claims of those promoting same-sex marriage that this is only a personal rights issue and doesn't have any effect on most of society, you MUST watch this video.



Please vote YES on Proposition 8 in California, YES on Proposition 2 in Florida, or YES on Proposition 102 in Arizona to protect true marriage in our country. Let's not confuse our children and overide parents rights to choose what their children are taught about marriage and sexual relationships.

What happens if Proposition 8 fails?

I read an interesting article today:

Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Will Increase Prevalence of Homosexuality:Research Provides Significant Evidence
Here's the link for anyone who would like to read it.

http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_legalizing.html

The Parable of the Butterfly

As you can tell, I am concerned about the current debate over the definition of marriage in our society. I am worried that we, as a nation, may be willing to sacrifice the great social patterns that have guided the lives of countless generations on the altar of personal fulfillment and choice. Where will our children look to find a pattern for their own lives? This little parable came to my mind. Like all parables it is imperfect, but I believe it contains a grain of truth. Read it and tell me what you think!

Through the long summer days, butterflies flittered over the meadow. The sun glinted off bits of white, yellow, blue or orange wings. Below, amid crisp stalks and tender leaves of the meadow plants, the caterpillars crept. Moving from leaf to leaf, from plant to plant, they ate the good food the meadow provided. They watched the butterflies flitting in the air above, landing here or there on a flower, and talked amongst themselves of the day when they two would fly on bright wings through the air and drink the sweet flower nectar. Here and there among the plant stems were the quiet crysalids, the caterpillars that had already begun their process of transformation. They rested quietly in the shadows, and the swayed in the soft breezes, and dreamed of floating through the blue skies.
One day, a caterpillar was inching along toward a juicy looking nettle stalk, when a beetle crossed it's path.
Hello! said the caterpillar. I'm on my way to eat some nettle leaves. I'm growing as fast as I can so that one day I can be a buttrfly!
Why, said the beetle, then you'll be just like me!
The caterpillar was puzzled. But you're not a butterfly! butterflies have large colorful wing, they flit through the sky and sip flower nectar. I am sure they do not crawl on the ground with hard cases on their backs!
But the beetle insisted. I am a butterfly. See, I have an official certificate to prove it! And the beetle held up an impressive looking document with official seals and signatures, certifying that he was indeed a butterfly.
Now the caterpillar was confused. If this creature was a butterfly, then what were the bright-winged folk flying up among the flower tops? And what was he? When his caterpillar days were ended, when he entered the great transformation, what would he become? Troubled, he continued on his way among the green stems that now seemed less friendly.
Days passed; now the caterpillar was fat and full. His skin stretched tight. He climbed high, found a spot that seemed secure, and spun the sticky threads that would attach him securely. It was time for the change. His old skin dropped away and he hung silent, his outer shell giving now clue of the transformation taking place inside. Changes were occuring, but the caterpillars dreams were troubled. Mixed with images of sailing on bright wings through the sky were images of scampering heavy-backed on the dark earth. At last the transformation was complete. The one-time caterpillar shed it crysalid shell and emerged trembling into the sunlight. It waited, gaining strength, and spread its wings to the wind. But oh! Something was not right. The butterfly hung from its perch, fluttering wings that were misformed and crippled. The butterfly-that-should be could not fly. The dark confusion he had taken with him into the crysalid had warped his transformation. Without a clear idea of what he was to be, his growth had been stunted. With wings that would never lift him to soar through the skies, the butterfly fluttered awkwardly to the ground.