Monday, November 3, 2008

Challenge-

I'm sorry Farrah, but did you not read anything I mentioned in my e-mail?
You're being manipulated and lied to. This has NOTHING to do with your faith or your tolerance and acceptance of gays. If Proposition 8 is defeated, your church, your religion, your marriage and your life will not change AT ALL. In fact, the constitution will not change at all either. The "What is Prop 8" website that you included a link to is full of misinformation and lies. It says that churches may be sued over their tax-exempt status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriages. Think VERY carefully about how well crafted and deceptive that statement is. Sure, churches MAY be sued, but that doesn't mean that the law suit will be settled in favor of the plaintiff. In other words, same-sex couples are welcome to try to sue churches for discrimination, but religious freedom will prevent those couples from winning their cases. Once again, the crux of your reasoning for voting Yes on Proposition 8 is based on lies and misinformation. If logic and truth don't matter to you, then we're not even going to be able to have this discussion.
-Nathan

Karn and Nathan, my friends, you have depicted me as racist and sexist among other things. Those of you whom know me (Karn!) know that there is not a spec of me that is either of those - never has been and never will be. Nathan, you prescribe straw man arguments to me that I never even made and are preposterous. Do not embellish my points and put words into my mouth - take my points for what they are or ask for clarification. Karn - your lecture to me about the need to accept difference? Your accusation that I think gay men are perverts! How insanely innaccurate...and you know me! If I'm *that* guy you describe, it's amazing we've been close friends for so long.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is not a *single* observation I made in my e-mail that you won't find observed in mainstream media, on NPR, on public tv, in Newsweek. Nathan, among the biggest insults or condescensions I've possibly ever received is your lesson on Blacks when you tell me, "it has nothing to do with the fact they are Black." It's sickening how you claim to have gotten that from me. I made no such claim and anybody who reads what I said will see that. In fact what I said isn't even my original statement! Black leaders speak of this issue in our communities. Columnists speak about it. Obama has given speeches related to this, and praise him for that!
I abhor racism and sexism and evil. I am passionate about making our society good. These are my opinions. Disagree with my conclusions, please. But do not publicly hang me under false accusations.
Nathan, consistent with your responses up until this one, there are some interesting points you make in your reply to me (in between the false accusations) that I'll give some thought to. Thanks for those. Also Nathan, I think you assume that I'm straight in your "this won't affect my marriage." Not so. And I know other gay men who also want to keep marriage as traditionally defined for similar reasons as mine - i.e. even some gay men are for 8.
-Jordy


I will say it once again -- you've been lied to and mislead. Freedom of religion will not be affected. The government will not be allowed to alter "God's law". That's why in this country we have separation between Church and State. "God's law" has been interpreted and perceived in so many different ways by so many different religions that it would be not only be an impossibly huge task, but it would be fundamentally wrong for government to even begin to get involved. By saying that "God's law was here before our laws of the land" is essentially saying that God's law trumps state and government laws. Are you sure you're willing to stand by that statement? As I said, God's law has an infinite number of versions, yet you're clearly combining Church and State and stating that your God's laws overpower all other laws. You say that you're not judgmental, but I'd suggest that you be extremely careful about assuming that your savior, your God, and your religious views are superior to any or all others. I'm sure you'll agree that no single religion should dictate the law of the land. Therefore, no single religion, or group of religions, should be given a monopoly on the concept of marriage, the institution of marriage, or the word "marriage". By definition, "marriage" is NOT religious, and separate-but-equal institutions are wrong. That's what this all boils down to...
-Nathan

PS-
Jordy,
I don't think you're racist or sexist, but you admitted yourself that your statements are generalizations about race and gender, and you're clearly using those very generalizations to justify your position on Proposition 8. The "straw man" arguments that you claim that I prescribe to you were simply provided as counterpoints to seemingly one-sided arguments that you presented -- that's why I made those types of statements and posed those questions at all -- to highlight the nature of the perspective that you were presenting. Sorry if you felt that I was putting words in your mouth. Hopefully it's apparent to everyone else that I wasn't.
The observations you made may in fact be accurate, but once again, they are generalizations, and in my opinion shouldn't be used to inform public policy. Hopefully that was clear and the point was emphasized by the counter-examples I provided. Obama has given speeches about how the black community is suffering from the absence of fathers, and I commend him for that as well. I'm not denying that it's an issue. What I'm saying is that it's not because they're black that they're facing these challenges. It's because in those segments of society, among other things, responsibility for one's actions is not being encouraged. They just happen to be black segments of society. Just because all the irresponsible men in those communities are black doesn't mean that all black men are irresponsible. Get it? That's all I was trying to say. We have to be careful about racially, or sexually profiling people. I'm not saying that you're advocating that we do. I'm just saying that by using race/gender/sexual-orientation generalizations to inform public policy, we run the risk of that happening...
Sorry if it seemed like I was making false accusations. And, I honestly don't care if you're straight or gay. I was simply trying to provide a more balanced perspective and challenge your perceptions. :)
-Nathan

1 comment:

caroline said...
This comment has been removed by the author.