Slam, click, sigh

[deckardcanine]

I had a terrible feeling this would happen someday: Rain and Orv have banished me from their LJs. I never wanted to make them mad. I often liked reading what they had to say. But their reactions to my replies were usually neutral at best, and several times I had either broken a critical rule of etiquette or said something so thoughtless that Rain got out his icons of sheer annoyance. I always apologized, but this time my apology was clumsy and insufficient, leading them to believe that I had no place on their LJs.

Many of you already know what happened. Orv put up a link to an argument against bans on same-sex marriage (SSM for brevity). I have long held SSM to be as good as cross-sex marriage, including much of the time that I've read those LJs. But within a year after deciding that the Roman Catholic Church was my best choice for aligning with God's wishes -- an idea which I have had mixed feelings about advertising -- I ran into a dilemma. If I believe that I should accept the Church as the body of Christ, then I can't pick and choose: I have to take all its doctrines seriously, even when the leaders are demonstrably corrupt. This includes the perennial doctrine that SSM is bad in the eyes of the Lord. Whether or not the source of this doctrine was unfairly biased, there are nonarbitrary reasons given to back it, which I will share only upon request. It is still difficult for me to feel like SSM is a sin. Fortunately, I don't believe that all Church-designated sins should be banned by law, so I felt justified in continuing to support the legalization of SSM.

What I fool I was to bring up my belief, even matter-of-factly rather than preachily, in response to Orv's link! I had figured that he might use something from my perspective to counter an opponent who thought that legal SSM was impermissible. Instead, he and Rain called me a bigot, altho on further reflection they decided not to be too hard on "one of the good religious bigots." Now, I thought that that term applied only to people who want to suppress others out of hatred. Since gays and bis are defined by a desire rather than anything else, I saw this as little different from me supporting the legalization of marijuana despite calling it a sin, then being accused of bigotry against people who want marijuana. (Not to say that gays and bis are anything like potheads otherwise.) If I weren't so prideful, I would have dropped the subject after my first apology. Instead, I indicated that I didn't think myself a bigot. After that, whenever I tried to assure them that I sympathized and meant no harm, I decline to retract my statement of belief that SSM was against God's wishes even if they were well-meaning and otherwise good people and probably weren't going to get punished. I thought we might agree to disagree and never bring it up again, but they challenged me to say why they might want someone like me around. My final reply convinced Orv that my interests in open-mindedness and strict Catholicism rendered me self-contradictory -- how could I see SSM as a sin yet treat it in all ways as a non-sin? What's worse, I insinuated that Rain was oppressing my freedom of religion, which they took as a hypocritical accusation of intolerance to intolerance. I had one more reply ready, but it was too late.

There was one thing that Rain definitely misunderstood in my last message. I had foolishly said that I had not called the practice evil, when I had. He called it a lie, one that insulted his intelligence. In truth, it was forgetfulness. I had said "evil" twice in my first message, which now seemed long ago, as an example of what a zealous opponent would have called it. But it hardly matters. They saw enough of the truth to tell that they didn't want me around. (Orv was the politer of the two, as always.)

Ashkitty, Zombiechick, Richard, and the rest of you: please don't do the same. Know that I have found contrary statements from you without deciding to ban or de-Friend you. I still like and respect Orv and Rain, even if I fail to show it.

Nevertheless, my dilemma is bringing me close to tears. Is there nothing I can do that would not in some way be hypocritical? I've been keeping this to myself so as not to bring controversy to others, but now I know I can't handle this alone. I need someone who can talk to me without getting angry at me for hypocrisy or reluctant intolerance.

Comments

[zombiechick.livejournal.com]

I can’t speak for Rain and Orv (especially since I didn’t read the whole conversation). What I can say is that SSM is a subject very close to both of their hearts evidenced by the fact that they are willing to leave the country in order to make a commitment of this sort to each other. So what made you think they would respond positively to you arguing against it? I am in complete support of their decision because I feel that marriage is a basic civil right that should be offered to all American citizens. The problem I see here is that you’re arguing from a religious perspective which isn’t something that either Rain or Orv really value (truthfully neither do I) and so basically the three of you aren’t even speaking the same language.

If I believe that I should accept the Church as the body of Christ, then I can't pick and choose: I have to take all its doctrines seriously, even when the leaders are demonstrably corrupt.

I don’t have any plans to ban you from my LJ but let me give you a piece of advice that you can choose to take or completely ignore. Accepting the doctrine of any church completely, even when it goes against your own personal beliefs, is extremely foolhardy. Ultimately that sort of thinking is going to do you more harm than good and I speak from personal experience on this. If you do believe in the Christian God than you also believe that he gave humans freewill which gives you the right to seriously consider the doctrine created by humans (even if it is divinely inspired) who are fallible.

[bluerain.livejournal.com]

I was going to point out the entire thread (http://www.livejournal.com/users/orv/90733.html?view=368237) but I think you've found it already, Shae.

Let's be clear. I don't think Deckard is evil (there's that word again), but I'm pretty sick of his level of cluelessness on this issue and a few others. I really don't like to hurt people's feelings, which is why this moment hadn't arisen before now, but my level of tolerance for people declaring that God is antigay is, in fact, zero. I gave Deckard the chance to apologize and take back some of what he said. He didn't. So I'm through.

[zombiechick.livejournal.com]

That's totally understandable and your right of course, which I respect. He asked someone to respond to the situation and so I did.

[bluerain.livejournal.com]

That's fine; you're free to handle or not handle the situation any way you please.

Ironically, Orv was in fact "politer" about this than me, as always, but I'm the one who's really bothered by it. :/ He's already moved on to other things and would probably never think about it again if I didn't bring it up, but it's kind of ruined my day. Part of the reason he's nicer than me is he's a lot better at being detatched.

[billis.livejournal.com]

Deckard may create painfully dorkish documentation of every opinion he or his mother has, have a dogmatically self-centered viewpoint, and lack any semblance of tact, but he is a prince of honesty. He's one of the few contrarians in your LJ who can be identified with any mainstream, and there's some sort of bizarre value his presence there.

Steve: I know what I've written is slightly insulting, but just take it slightly- it's pretty much true, so what? I love the 19th century clarity with which you write about what you're thinking, no matter what it may be. You're someone who always has a contribution to make, and you always put effort into understanding others' positions. You obviously didn't realize you were being a total bitch, in the future, when you that tingling feeling like you've just got to have the last word on a subject, take a step back.

[deckardcanine.livejournal.com]

I'm not the least bit offended, Chirpasee. In fact, you may be giving me a little too much credit. I've given up on defense. You valued my presence, but the cost surely has outweighed the benefits, and I expect neither Rain nor Orv to miss me after any period of time.

My hope is that you won't lose interest in me now that I have resolved to improve myself.

[billis.livejournal.com]

Thanks for not being very touchy about what others think. Maybe I oversold your "clarity" a bit, but I wouldn't say I'm giving you undue credit. It's not that I read your comments because I want to see you troll others, I usually find myself having some kind of internal reaction to what you write, and it gets me thinking.

[bluerain.livejournal.com]

Oh, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with liking marijuana. Quit while you're behind. (Although, to be fair, my identity is not at all wrapped up in what anyone thinks about the drugs I choose to smoke.)

[deckardcanine.livejournal.com]

Admittedly, that was a hasty example. I think marijuana is like all medicinal drugs: potentially dangerous but just as potentially beneficial. I'm not even sure if the Church calls it a sin, tho there's a good chance about tobacco smoking.