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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
I knew I had overstepped a boundary as soon as I brought it up, and so I was willing to do everything to make up for it -- except say that I would let go of the belief. It's not something I abandon as readily as a behavior. My faith might turn out to be misguided, but it is not "blind." I've had reasons to believe in papal infallibility, and there are logic-based arguments (not to say that opponents are illogical, but that these try to be logical too) to back the idea that I would be amiss to call SSM unproblematic. If you want to hear any of these reasons, I will oblige, but just bringing them up makes me feel preachy.
My view of sin may differ from many. I believe in trying not to practice it myself and repenting when I do, but I don't consider it my duty to spread, let alone enforce, the idea. Going by Rain's definition of bigoted intolerance, it sounds like every religion is full of bigoted intolerance, regardless of intent or further action. They all have do's and don't's. A church that calls tattoos sinful (on the grounds that they reject the body's natural form) is intolerant of tattoos and "bigoted against people who want tattoos." Rain himself expresses intolerance of things other than intolerance, like furversion. Does that make him a bigot against furverts? It is often a big party of their identity, after all.
But it's quite likely that my attitudes are mixed up, which is why I will re-examine my beliefs with the help of someone I know personally. Even a priest may get me to decide not to join the church after all. Until I've had such a talk, I'm done trying to make my position understandable.
If Rain and Orv were afraid I wouldn't uphold my promise not to talk about it anymore, they had a valid fear. If they thought I would continue to annoy them inadvertently in many ways, that's even more valid. How ironic that Rain's first post in my LJ was after kicking me out of his.
My condolences on the death of your friend.
no subject
It's so much simpler than that. I don't want anyone around who thinks the most important relationship of my life is "a sin." Period.
I don't think you grasp that, and at this point I've begun to suspect you aren't capable of grasping it, since you keep talking about it like it's just another abstract issue.
If and when you begin thinking for youself again instead of outsourcing that job to a corrupt religious bureaucracy (something even most Catholics don't do--I've known Jesuits who differed with the Church on certain issues) then maybe we'll talk.
Otherwise, this is absolutely the last you'll hear from me.
no subject
If anything good has come of my misbehavior (tho certainly not enough to make it worthwhile), it's a surge in my incentive to make the effort not to be cold. It's been perhaps my worst habit for quite some time, and after a deserved blow like this, I don't intend to dismiss it as "just like me" anymore. We'll see if my comments on other LJs are consistently better from now on.