Monday, 7 March 2005 06:18 pm
Slam, click, sigh
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
deckardcanineI 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.
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.
no subject
Deckard, you've put yourself in a very tight spot; I seem to recall pleading you to give careful consideration to where you were headed at the time. The ignition point was abortion, and a cartoon I did about the Church's presumptuous attempts at coup d'etat through the wafer and the wine.
Put very simply, in the eyes of many of us, while the Catholic Church may have done some good in the world, it has done far more harm. If you take ownership of their ideas and tithe into their coffers, you are them. Even if you do not believe the secular world should forbid Gay Marriage, or Abortion, or whatever, you are putting your being behind people who do. Every coin you drop in the collection plate is an attack on Gay Marriage, an attack on Abortion rights, and a show of support for a church that would beatify a woman whose magnum opus was filled with the anti-Judaic "Christ-Killer" claptrap that was very likely a factor in the rise of german anti-semitism in the early 20th century.
The Church's premodern track record is even worse.
I am not likely to defriend you though, because I perceive you to be hovering over an abyss, and I would like to draw you back from it if I can. I have watched with some dismay as you have progressively sacrificed your humane and reasoned beliefs on the altar of someone the Pope calls "Christ" but who, I suspect, may be someone else entirely. It has been a bit like watching someone being absorbed into the Borg Collective.