HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Genghis_Sean » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Wed May 25, 2011, 11:58 AM
Number of posts: 39

About Me

8th grade English teacher in Indiana.

Journal Archives

My wasted attempt to get through to a conservative, Catholic colleague on the whole Chick-fil-A mess

She posted the following link to a friends' FB status:

(Her words:) Thank you for stating this so well.

(His status:)With the recent Chick-fil-A controversy, I now realize modern man is almost incapable of distinguishing between these four things:

1. Approval and Implicit Condemnation. Just because you support one thing doesn't mean you're viciously antagonist toward another (i.e. "anti-" the opposite.) If Dan Cathy supports traditional marriage between one man and one woman, that doesn't mean he ipso facto "ha
tes gay people" or is "anti-gay."

2. Disagreeing and Hating. I disagree with ideas all the time. This does not necessitate hating the person who proposed them. Your beliefs are not your identity.

3. Beliefs and People. This is somewhat similar to #2. Rejecting a belief does not equal rejecting a person. You can reject the validity of same-sex marriage on philosophical and social grounds while still profoundly loving people with same-sex attraction. I reject at least some opinions or actions from each of my friends (such as "double-rainbows are boring" or "playing the lottery is wise." They in turn reject plenty of my own. But we don't hate each other. In fact, just the opposite is true. Our relationship is grounded on a communion of persons, not a symmetry of beliefs.

4. Bigotry and Disagreement. The definition of bigot is "one unwilling to tolerate opinions different than his own"--not "someone who disagrees with me." Toleration doesn't require agreement, merely recognition and respect. (Ironically, those quickest to accuse people of bigotry are often bigoted about their flawed definition of "bigot."

The solution to these failures is not more dialogue. It's better philosophy, logic, and reason. Unfortunately, until two people are capable of making these distinctions, healthy, productive dialogue about same-sex marriage is almost impossible.

(My words:) Respectfully, K--, and you know I've got tremendous respect for you, I disagree. While I doubt Mr. Cathy "hates gay people," since he probably doesn't know any, there's no question his business continuously directs money to anti-gay causes
and legislation intended to deny gay people legitimacy. To me, that's active discrimination and bigotry.

My wife and I live next door to a couple ladies that have been together much longer than we have. They were the first ones to welcome us to the neighborhood when we built here, my daughter uses their back porch swing, and they gave us shelter when our house caught fire a month ago. It seems only just that these young grandmothers who are going to spend the rest of their lives together be permitted the same recognition of their commitment to each other as my wife and me.

I'm going to fight for Maggie and Jo. They're good people and deserve the same chance at happiness as everyone. I look forward to the day when people can be themselves and people like Sally Ride who had the courage to be the first woman into space isn't intimidated by the idea of coming out prior to her obituary. These people didn't choose to be gay any more than I chose to be straight. They aren't asking for anything more than equality, and I think we ought to give it to them. I thought Zach Wahls said it best:


(Her response:) I have seen this played over and over again. Zach is an exceptional young man. However, there are studies to show that Zach and his family aren't the norm. That isn't even the issue.I won't go into my religious beliefs here. However, here's a what if: if you say that same-sex marriages are valid, then you have to accept that all marriages could be same-sex marriages. How do you continue the species?

Her reponse #2:) I know and love quite a few homosexuals - some are in committed relationships while others are not. I have no objections to protections provided in a civil union but I have to say that marriage is a sacrament between a man, a woman and God.

I didn't follow up with anymore comments, preferring to stop after voicing my perspective to her. I found her concern about continuing the species baffling to say the least, as if humans were in danger of extinction. Similarly, I couldn't think of a polite way to say that a connection with God as I understood it was a personal one, and I didn't think one person could determine for another what that relationship was. Nor did I understand how something that didn't affect her in the least was something she should want declared illegal.
Posted by Genghis_Sean | Mon Aug 6, 2012, 05:09 PM (3 replies)
Go to Page: 1