It will always be a motivation in my heart to arm any LGBT people, especially teens, in the arguments they undoubtedly face in society from people who meet them with ignorance and bigotry. Part of me will always be an awkward teenager in a MidWestern class room staving off mental, physical and psychological/ideological abuse from 30 people all at once + a teacher. I will always have persons in that state of vulnerability in mind when writing about LGBT matters. I hope that what I write could help someone somewhere, in asserting or protecting themselves…in feeling that they are less alone, and not having to have an answer for everything all the time, as the screed of prejudice is endless and comes from more directions than one person can be prepared for.
In keeping with that motivation, I have recently come across another blog regarding the writer’s irritation at all these Gay people who are perverting the definition of marriage. He couldn’t be bothered with the fact that they feel oppressed and seek equality, and had this to say about it.
I left him 1 comment, which as of now, is viewable on his page. He responded. This is where the real unveiling begins. His response was replete with presumptions, lies, and the typical rhetoric that we are often faced with. It is for this reason that I wanted to publish my 2nd response to said commentary in order to serve as an Antidote because I am AntiDolt. At last I checked, my comment was idling in ‘waiting to be approved’. I suspect he will not have the honesty or courage to publish it, so I am publishing it here. If he remains an ideological coward and does not publish the comment, I will quote & post his entire article precipitating the comments here as well, but for now, it is viewable in the link above and here.
I read above that you’re a husband and father. I’d imagine those things are important to you. The next time you think about Religious opposition to Gay Marriage, consider that for a very long time that they have made it impossible for other men to be in those 2 aforementioned roles that are obviously of great import to you. How hard would you fight for the right to be married to your wife? How hard would you fight for the right to adopt or have your child? Unless you believe that a homosexual is somehow innately flawed or less humane than you, you must understand that they want for the same things that came to you without contention. Imagine what your life would be like, how void, if you lived in a Theocratic nation that was not a Christian one, and they disallowed you from your lifestyle “choice” – that being to practice Catholicism, marry your own kind, and raise a child in a household with your chosen beliefs.
Thank you for your comment and I apologize for the delayed response. I am a husband and a father as you point out. In that part of your comment you were correct. However, where have you read anything written or said by me in which I object to gay marriage on religious grounds? After that assertion you present a series of hypothetical questions and then attempt to bait me into saying that homosexuals are “somehow flawed or less humane” than I am. Using your style of argument I can assume that you’re in favor of burning churches and threatening people of faith believe in “Jeebus Crispy”, but I reject that style of argument and false assertions. Here’s an idea: instead of trying to neatly cast me into a stereotypical role so that you may quickly dismiss anything I say and justify your prejudices, you try to communicate in a more honest manner instead.
I do not object to SSM solely on religious grounds as you say. I object to the dishonest attempts to remake the world in your own image in order to destroy a foundation of civilization. In 2013, there is no ban on homosexual civil rights. In all fifty states homosexual citizens stand equally before the law and their civil rights are unequivocally protected. LBGTs can live alone or together, vote, run for elected office, open any bank account, live anywhere they choose, buy property, eat in any restaurant, attend any play, enjoy picnics in any park, choose to start their own or join a religious community that blesses their relationship(s), choose any workplace, write any binding contract, seek any physician, attend any hospital, visit a domestic partner in any hospital, buy any car, travel freely, gather freely, protest any cause, start any business, join the military, buy health insurance from any one of 7,400 insurers that offer domestic spousal benefits, contract to designate legal inheritances, write any legally binding will, and make legal end-of-life contracts. Contrary to published, widespread misinformation, the IRS recognizes community property. It is not possible, however, for a homosexual citizen to extend citizenship to an illegal, same sex partner — but that illegal partner can obtain citizenship through established, lawful means. There are no inequalities for LBGTs in government benefits or rights. Marriage grants no advantage that legal domestic partnerships, legal reciprocal beneficiaries, or legal same sex unions do not provide. Hence the repetitive mantra that equates homosexual choices with Jim Crow “separate but equal” atrocities is not valid.
I object to the dishonest attempts at destroying a word in the name of obtaining something already attainable in this nation. The “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage” manifesto written in 2006 states that legal equivalence (marriage) will not satisfy most LGBTs and gay marriage is not the end goal — “it is a way station on the path to a post-marriage society.” The end goal, according to “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage” is not to have the same recognition, rights, and benefits as heterosexual married couples, it is to legalize a radical redefinition of marriage that includes unlimited diversity of families until the very idea of traditional marriage itself is “stripped of meaning.” (http://www.beyondmarriage.org/full_statement.html)
Tell me, please, what is it that is truly wanted by gay marriage proponents if not the redefinition of a word. And be honest instead of setting up straw men. Don’t take away my chance to listen.
My currently banned rebuttal:
I’m going to have to do a line by line interdiction of your response in order to be thorough. It is beleaguered with false assumptions on your part about my opinions. As well, I would describe the integrity of your facts as leprotic.
“where have you read anything written or said by me in which I object to gay marriage on religious grounds?”
“I do not object to SSM solely on religious grounds as you say.”
….But you do object to them even in part on religious grounds then? Your words — so which is it.
All the opposition you have stated is based on conflict between the Biblical view of Marriage and Gay marriage. All of your statements of “redefining” are new definitions in contrast to the original Biblical one. I would consider that religious grounds.
“Using your style of argument I can assume that you’re in favor of burning churches and threatening people of faith believe in “Jeebus Crispy”
It is not possible to be a Catholic who is against Gay Marriage unless you believe that sex between people of the same sex is a sin.* A sin of homosexuals. To call this act/lifestyle/choice a sin would be synonymous with saying that they are flawed and therefore accountable for enacting this sin. Do you seriously want to tell me that the act of homosexuality is not flaw in the homosexual? ….Or perhaps you also share this flaw. Do tell….
A sin is an ontological flaw or imperfection, let’s not quibble over minutia…
Because if you don’t believe that Homosexuality is a sin, yet you still wish to disallow Gay Marriage, then you’ve got some serious accounting for prejudice and bigotry to do.
*(and don’t bother to dig up people who are 1. Catholic 2. against Gay Marriage 3. but don’t think gay sex is a sin. I don’t find the Chris Christie political approach to this to be ingenuous at all, and I will shoot that down the moment you attempt it). ….More on that gluttonous Catholic later.
“I object to the dishonest attempts to remake the world in your own image in order to destroy a foundation of civilization”
Wow. Destroy a foundation of civilization? No one wants to stop Heterosexual Christians from marrying each other first of all,…only you are interested in doing that to others. No part of Marriage Equality is to pursue a Federal Ban on Traditional Marriage. That’s your schtick. And whilst I freely admit, as would many others pro-SSM, that marriage and families do provide value and stability and growth to society—the inclusion of an additional form of union toward that same ideal does not take away anything from one man/one woman. That is unless the foundation you speak of is not nearly as sturdy and effective in its segregated form as you would suggest. I think your real fear lies in the insecurity you have about the veracity of your own Religious worldview—that being the necessity of traditional marriage and traditional values to be upheld in order for an ideal society to even exist. I think the light being shed in on this by your own disastrous divorce rate of 50+% must be a frightening indication to you that these arcane notions of control are being evolved out of, and your jig is up. If 50% of the straight married couples truly believed that divorce was a sin and could put them in Hell like a good Catholic does, then 50% of the married couples would not be getting divorced. …It must really eat you up when that many people, of your own kind, are thumbing their nose at you. This, is where the real seat of your protestations lie. That you have lied about Protestants, reform, and evolution at large, since time immemorial. The scent of death is on the Catholic worldview. It is impossible for you to maintain the breadth of lies that you have with consciousness being as connected as it’s about to be. Adieu.
Furthermore, what is dishonest about two people wishing to have their love recognized by law? Isn’t that what you’re doing when you get married? And the bit about remaking the world in “your own image” is histrionic, baseless and presumptuous, which is I believe something you chastised me for earlier. I am not Gay. And I have never even heard of a Homosexual stating that they are for Marriage Equality because it will alchemize the world into their own Gay image. Such degrading rhetoric is why you encounter the dismissive opinions that you complain about.
“In all fifty states homosexual citizens stand equally before the law and their civil rights are unequivocally protected”
What an utter load of horse spit.
…And that is to say nothing of the additional discrimination that Trans people face. Nor are these two links meant to imply
the extent of how Homosexual citizens are unequal under the law. This was that integrity of fact problem I had alluded to before..
The research you could do to edify your self on this manner is abundant, and would not have been difficult. Your abdication of effort in doing so suggests a viewpoint rife with the very prejudices and bigotry that you chastised me for assuming you had.
A litany of things that Gays can do under Civil Unions that are the same as the Marriage Equality they desire.
Here is a litany of things that are not the same:
“the repetitive mantra that equates homosexual choices with Jim Crow “separate but equal” atrocities is not valid.”
Yes it is.
“I object to the dishonest attempts at destroying a word in the name of obtaining something already attainable in this nation.”
As was elucidated to you, an equality in Marriage is not already attainable. And I still have no idea what you mean to imply by calling the attempts ‘dishonest.’ There is no agenda in the pursuit of equality beyond equality. To suggest otherwise is to fraught your argument with a level of irrationality that I think you’d like to think you are above. No one wants to destroy anything. They just want to be included in what you claim that they want to destroy. So can we sit for a minute and see how your assertion doesn’t make sense…
…What are tantamount to out right lies regarding the “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage” statement.
This has to be the low point of what you’ve written here, as you purposefully mislead your readers in a way that can’t be construed as anything other than biased and nearly hateful. You actually put into quotations two derisive statements that are not contained anywhere in “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage” statement that you linked to. They were:
“it is a way station on the path to a post-marriage society.”
“it is to legalize a radical redefinition of marriage that includes unlimited diversity of families until the very idea of traditional marriage itself is “stripped of meaning.” ”
Neither of the phrases in quotation are found ANYWHERE in the “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage” statement. In fact your first quote is from a FICTIONAL conversation made up by blogger Stanley Kurtz on the right wing blog EPPC. It is NOT a statement quotable to “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage”. It was someone else’s writing meant to express his interpretation of opinions he didn’t agree with. It was never in fact, stated verbatim by anyone. In addiction to that intentionally misleading plagiarism, your entire second paragraph was lifted as well.
It is amazing to me that you began your rebuttal with, and I quote: “Here’s an idea: instead of trying to neatly cast me into a stereotypical role so that you may quickly dismiss anything I say and justify your prejudices, you try to communicate in a more honest manner instead.”
…And to think you are to be representing the ideals of an honest Catholic man.
You have portrayed content as your own, intentionally mislead, and outright LIED.
Congratulations on nullifying your own viewpoint beyond any way I ever could hope to.