What Huffington Wouldn't Post
Here, without amendment, is the original post I sent to the Huffington Post in response to this article on Chick-fil-A (Note: I’m sending the response I tried to get posted, which I had to edit a tad at the end, because apparently they have a word limit; nothing significant is changed from what I wrote. At the end, I am going to add a short explanation of something I wrote, for those who perhaps have not been long acquainted with my blog or my views on the subject, Further, I would really recommend you read the article first, if you haven’t.):
Possible responses I considered:
1. Because I work for Chick-fil-A and agree with this particular position, I am a bigot. Fine. You are a pervert. Now, let’s each take a few minutes and revel in our moral superiority. Or, we could each grow up and have a rational conversation.
2. So, it’s not enough for one (me) to have agreed with many of the equal rights objectives espoused by the gay rights community; one has to agree with every single one, including redefining marriage, or one is a “bigot”. No room for disagreement, no room for thinking. So that’s how it is…
3. Hmmm…one is a “bigot” for holding a position regarding marriage that was held by, effectively, everyone in the United States fifty years ago. OK, name your favorite liberal person fifty years ago, and begin to think of that person as a bigot. Oh, and Darling Obama was a bigot six months ago—and when you voted for him.
4. I trust you also support other forms of “marriage” that may be/have been proposed, such as polygamy, group marriage, incestuous marriage, and the like. Fine. Oh, you don’t? Bigot!
5. Thankfully, we have tolerant folks like Ms. Wilke to point out our intolerance by calling us “bigots”. Love that tolerance, Ms. Wilke!
6. Dealing with people as they actually are might have made for a nice, reasonable article, but building up, and then knocking down, pretty little straw men is just so much darned fun, isn’t it, Ms. Wilke?
I could think of more, but that’ll do for now; I have to get to work at Chick-fil-A. It’s a free country, Ms. Wilke, and on that point we agree, and as you defend Mr. Cathy’s right to believe as he does, I’ll defend your right to eat sub-par chicken sandwiches because you disagree with Chick-fil-A’s stance on gay marriage (even if you have imagined all sorts of other corollaries about what Chick-fil-A believes and doesn’t—I must commend your amply-fertile imagination!). Thanks for revealing your “reasoning”; it confirms again to me the basic mindset of contemporary liberalism. And makes me thankful for the mind God has given us.
OK, I’ll post now and brace myself for the barrage of ad hominem name-calling that constitutes most that passes for liberal “argumentation” today…
That’s what I wrote, and what one of Arianna’s minions apparently deemed unworthy of making the esteemed pages of the Post. I’m guessing it was the “pervert”, though a careful read will reveal that I wasn’t actually calling anyone that, but using that term to make a point about the word “bigot” and how ridiculous it is to use it in this context. Anyway…
Let me take a moment and elaborate on point 2, wherein I say that I agree with many of the “equal rights objectives” of the gay rights community (because I recognize that apart from a bit of explanation, this is a red flag to some). I consider myself a “libertarian conservative” (“libertarian” is an adjective here, and “conservative” a noun). As such, I have argued (contrary to some of my less-libertarian conservative friends) against laws that make consensual behavior between adults a crime. Further, I supported “don’t ask, don’t tell” back when that was considered a good thing by the gay rights community, and since my only issue with gays serving their country is military preparedness, I’m very open to arguments that our new policy doesn’t compromise that (i.e., I’m not all wrapped around the axle about gays serving openly, if the military experts assure us that our effectiveness isn’t compromised). I don’t believe it’s anybody’s business whom one person has at their deathbed in their time of need. I am appalled at some of the ways people refer to homosexuals as is they are worse sinners than the rest of us, or as if we can use whatever derogatory names we want in speaking of them. I can name some other instances of my agreement with the objectives of the gay rights community, but since I don’t buy the argument that “gay marriage” is about equal rights (search this blog; it’s easy to find), then I don’t stand with them on this one.
That’s enough for now…