tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1758865109606570119.post2622312257595009953..comments2023-03-30T15:20:52.854-07:00Comments on Glory Looks Forward: On Bigotry, Boycotts, and Chicken SandwichesGlory Looks Forwardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03434171911496259405noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1758865109606570119.post-60711328680405376002012-08-03T16:31:28.865-07:002012-08-03T16:31:28.865-07:00Well, no, not at all. Sorry, I probably should hav...Well, no, not at all. Sorry, I probably should have been more clear. I'm suggesting that the media inevitably impacts our views, and characters holding views typically considered in line with Christian conservatism are often vilified as raining on everybody's love parade, as if the reason we object to SSM were to try and withhold one of life's greatest blessings simply out of spite. This portrayal has an impact. When I examine the rhetoric of popular media (and I could offer numerous examples), I think it'd be naive to suggest that they *don't* impact our views, whether subtly or powerfully--directly or indirectly. Truth be told, such influence is inevitable, and I'm quite sure that I've been similarly influenced myself.<br />This is anecdotal, but when I in turn look at my Facebook feed or read Twitter posts, or read blogs written by SSM advocates, most of what I read are blanket appeals to "equal rights" (gosh, that sounds so good--who could be against that?), or Christian conservatives are folks just standing in the way of true love--we're cold, and we really should just get out of the way and let people be. After all, if heterosexuals can marry, why shouldn't homosexuals? But its the superficiality of these objections (strong language coupled with emotional appeal tends to suffocate nuance) and the frequency with which they are raised that makes me question whether or not, at some level, we're being influenced in these ways.<br />(Christian conservative responses, I'm sorry to say, are often just as superficial, and sometimes down-right mean-spirited, without a clue as to how they are being heard--things said like "Life doesn't come from you," or "God hates you, you wicked sinner, you." I detest such superficiality just as mch, and believe me--I've taken to task friends who use such language.)<br />That said, I have no reason to believe that those in favor of SSM are only so because they're simply "brainwashed by TV" or something, I wouldn't suggest that for a moment, and I apologize--I should have been more clear. People are clearly more complex than that, and I understand the weight of appeals to equity and justice; I do hope that I've responded in kind. If I've said something offensive, I do apologize. But if the offense is taken at my voicing my personal view supporting traditional definitions of marriage, then I'm afraid that that's something I cannot apologize for. We may also have different understandings of precisely what "marriage" is. But my question to you is this: Do you think less of me as a *person* for supporting a traditional definition of marriage? Are you so offended by this? If so, where is tolerance? What of the freedom to disagree, yet insist on civility in discourse? If you were to think less of me as a person, the divide between us is likely to be sharper and our words harsher. I do hope we can at least agree that this is to be avoided.<br />I cannot stress enough that this post is not the proper forum for a debate on the legitimacy of SSM. My point is about rhetoric, how we respond to it, and how it is being abused, in this instance, by the left. The right has been just as guilty at times, but at the end of the day, I love those with whom I disagree--gay, straight, bisexual, male, female, young, old, liberal, or fellow conservative. Can you (metaphorical "you") say the same?Glory Looks Forwardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03434171911496259405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1758865109606570119.post-87076784124641313642012-08-03T13:49:17.441-07:002012-08-03T13:49:17.441-07:00Not to be argumentative, but are you suggesting th...Not to be argumentative, but are you suggesting that I (or others) who support gay marriage do so because of the TV we watch?? Because that is far from the truth. It is because I have experienced the world of marriage and raising a family, and I want my loved ones who are homosexual to be able to experience one of the best things life has to offer.Jillianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12336911729683193887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1758865109606570119.post-5868081144153762002012-08-03T13:38:17.372-07:002012-08-03T13:38:17.372-07:00Hey Jill, thanks for the response. I guess just tw...Hey Jill, thanks for the response. I guess just two quick points.<br /><br />First, the point of this piece was not so much to ask why CFA is being protested, or even to defend the organizations they donate to. (I personally think the causes they donate to are productive, and list many of their benefits under point 2.) I just don't think that boycotts are always the most productive response as a first recourse when there's disagreement for reasons I listed above, and I provided some liberal counterexamples (Oreos, Microsoft, Starbucks). I suppose we could discuss a particular point or example you take issue with, but as I said, you're perfectly in your right to choose not to buy from CFA if it offends your conscience.<br />*The point of this piece, rather, was to raise the question about whether or not the left's rhetorical tact is appropriate in attacks on the individual rather than the position, especially in thinking through what "tolerance" actually means.* It's an attempt at clarity, since I do believe both sides wind up talking past each other for this very reason. I also find it readily apparent that there's bullying of Christian conservatives going on, and I tried to provide some preliminary evidences of that.<br /><br />Second, while it's true that there certainly are some conservatives who favor same-sex marriage (as well as some liberals who oppose it), the fact is that the majority of proponents are disproportionally liberal, while the majority of folks who question SSM's ethical tenability are disproportionately conservative, and this piece is aimed at that general audience. I tried to be careful to specify that I was talking about *Christian* conservatives in particular, which adds another wrinkle to it. Yet, I recognize there are many (theologically) liberal Christians, who believe themselves politically conservative, who nevertheless side with liberals on certain social issues. Bottom line--people are complex, and don't always hold consistent views (including me, I'm sure). I didn't mean to minimize the diversity of opinions here. I plan on addressing the question of (theologically) liberal Christian objections to conservatives' hesitancy on SSM (i.e., "Jesus never forbade homosexuality", "Leviticus also condemns shell fish, so why does the right pick and choose morality from the Bible", "Jesus was about love and unity, and told his followers not to judge," etc. The "Biblical" arguments favoring SSM are plentiful and, IMO, not very...nuanced. Not sure if that's what you had in mind as a conservative supporting gay marriage. Maybe you're referring to those who are economically conservative but socially liberal (I'm aware you hold other liberal stances on other critical social issues as well, but this may not be the proper forum to take you to task on those). But you make a good point--there's a lot of diversity of opinions out there and I didn't interact with as many as I could have. This piece was aimed at a general audience, so I admit I painted with a broad brush at times.<br /><br />In some ways, at the popular level, I guess we're less conscious consumers of rhetoric. Even popular TV shows like The View, Modern Family, GLEE, How I Met Your Mother (a show I love, btw), among countless others, are quick to vilify those who just want to "stand in the way of true love" and crash the gay-marriage party, while glorifying SSM as normative. Maybe conservatives are love party-poopers, maybe they aren't--my point is, I can't help but wonder how much the shift of popular opinion owes to popular TV, media pundits, liberal intellectuals, and an increasingly powerful government that's more interested in giving people what they want (including unfettered sexual expression) in their fight to retain and expand power (Menino & Emanuel?)<br /><br />Thanks for the read, Jill!Glory Looks Forwardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03434171911496259405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1758865109606570119.post-91609508818811206912012-08-02T21:08:46.747-07:002012-08-02T21:08:46.747-07:00Dillon, what a thoughtful post on this. I was part...Dillon, what a thoughtful post on this. I was particularly fascinated with your breakdown of the rhetoric and free speech rights. I would really like to talk with you more about this. great post!Jamarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03644685831652476742noreply@blogger.com