So I was bopping around Facebook when I saw that someone wrote a post supporting gay marriage.  I added my two cents by posting a link to a dagblog I wrote about the issue. A woman by the name of Rachael took exception to the post and posted a comment back.  In turn, I took exception to her taking exception and this prompted her to write a direct response to my blog on her blog.  The following is my response to her response.  You can check out her response here.

Dear Rachael,

Aren’t epistle styled debates fun?

Unfortunately, I think you are confusing my jocular tone for one of disdain and malice.  You shouldn’t take the internet so personally.  The problem I had with your initial response was that you wanted to write off my reasoning  simply because I used a few naughty words and joked around and I assumed that was because you couldn't understand the arguments I put forth and didn't have compassion for the gays.  I am delighted and appreciative that you have taken the time to craft a well thought out response.  I love challenging my own opinion by exposing myself to arguments against it.  And while I may not agree with you, I like hearing the other side of an argument.

You state the the “…the burden of responsibility lies with you to craft an argument that is both [sic. you go on to list three things, not two as connoted by “both”] intelligent, comprehensible, and most importantly, respectful enough to engage the readers…” I understand you get distracted by harsh vernacular and humor, but you implying that my arguments were both unintelligent and incomprehensible just because they were not delivered in an Oxford style debate is intellectually dishonest.  Further, my main goal was not to win the hearts and minds of the opposition of the debate, but rather to take three common arguments against LGBT equality and show how ridiculous and self centered they are.  Whether or not those who hold those opinions are won over to my side is ancillary to my overall purpose.   If I were to craft an argument to try to bring the opposition around to my side I wouldn’t have called them idiots in the title, included a picture of 3 deer humping, or used the term “Sanctimonious F*ck Hole.”

That being said, I am honored that you have decided to get off your high horse and talk to a lowly person like me despite your reservations.  I’ll try to keep what you call “cheap shots” to a minimum.  I won’t call Lassie a lesbian or envision your reply given to me by someone who speaks in a southern twang and has a myopic world view.  I’ll be as straight forward as I can, allowing for humorous tangents of course.  In interest of readability, I have organized my responses regarding the three arguments I make and your attempt to refute.

Tab A Slot B Argument

You erroneously state that I “…equated and justified a homosexual lifestyle to impulsive behaviors of animals.”  You misunderstand the point of my point and extrapolate it improperly.  My point is that the argument put forth by anti-equality advocates that males and females having the sex is the only natural course of action in nature is misinformed and inaccurate.  It happens in nature all the time and is therefore natural, your moral misgivings about animal homos notwithstanding.

You then say that despite homosexuality happening in nature it does not make it “…suited to be duplicated in my own life.”  I agree that not all things that happen in nature are suitable for humans.  It’s why I defecate indoors and am not afraid of the vacuum cleaner, but your opinion of superiority for having a heterosexual “mamonogamous” [sic.] relationship is just that, your opinion, and you have a right to it, but not to adversely harm gay people, which is what opposing gay marriage does.

For some reason you go on to imply that I demonize people of your inclination.  Chide? Yes.  Poke fun of? Sure. But don’t take it so personally that I jest while making a point of reason.  Also, there are plenty of folks, unlike you, who are a bit more sinister and uncompassionate (violent even) towards gays and those folks are horrible people who should be called out on as being horrible (shout out to Matthew Shepard, R.I.P.).

The Bible Says So!

You start by saying, “…you have again asserted that the faith based bunch supports or approves of the Inquisition.”  I don’t know where else I refer to the Inquisition that would have you say “again,” but that’s besides the point: it was a joke and hyperbole.  Of course I don’t literally think that you and your ilk want to ensure papal supremacy by expelling the Jews, repressing Moriscos and Protestants, and censor those who disagree with the Catholic church.  I was drawing a parallel between those who participated in the Inquisition and anti-LGBTers in the sense that both groups are over stepping their bounds by imposing their paradigm on others.  It is a common thing done in literature, you take two things that though dissimilar in many aspects, have parallels and compare them to one another.

I’m not going to get into the country being founded upon Christian values (Christian should be capitalized btw, it’s disrespectful to Christians not to refer to their religion as a proper, noun as you do).  If the founding fathers wanted to keep this country Christian they would have written it into the Constitution.  It is the principles of fairness and logic that allows pro-equality folks to speak their minds, not Christianity.  As for citing your faith as what gives you the ability to tolerate homos and “…grace to stop living that life [homosexuality] if they choose.”  I don’t see that as very graceful.  Nor is it graceful to say that at least the US doesn’t kill gays like the Islamic countries do.  Whoopity freakin’ do – the real grace would be letting other people live their lives how they choose and not sticking your nose in it.

You state, “I oppose gay marriage because it conflicts with my understanding of marriage. This issue, like many others, cannot be reconciled with the principles of my faith.”  This goes to the heart of my argument: You don’t have to understand why two gay people want to get married, it is none of your business.  You don’t have to reconcile it with your faith, it has nothing to do with your faith.  Your faith is yours and you should be able to worship how you choose, just as others should be able to worship how they choose.  It’s okay that you think homosexuality is not the best choice for you.  I agree, it’s not the best choice for me either, but what is not a choice is following the ideal that everyone in this country should be treated equal in the eyes of the law, hence, gays should be able to marry just like non-gays.

It Will Threaten the Sanctity of Marriage

You inappropriately assume, “…your [my] article suggests again that heterosexual couples are predestined to destroy the sanctity of marriage all by themselves, exempting the homosexuals from any relational [sic.] failures.”  No, Rachel, just no.  I’m suggesting that the idea of treating marriage as a sacred institution solely built upon religion is categorically incorrect.  Marriage has religious components to it if you are religious, but regardless of whether or not you are religious there are legal aspects to it that gays are being denied, for what I see as no good reason.

If you are indeed “…equally saddened by those who enter into a marriage covenant and debase it by not honoring that covenant,” as you claim, you should fight to make that illegal.  Since you want to keep gay marriage illegal because it debases the marriage covenant – why not cheating on your spouse, or divorce?

Rach, can I call you Rach? Well, I just did.  Rach, I’m not saying you hate gay people or wish them ill will.  I’m saying that you are unacceptably forcing your religious beliefs on the legal system. One of the the things that this country was founded on is that the government shouldn’t use religion to determine the legality of something.  It’s why they wrote the Bill of Rights, so that the Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Rach, clearly you are not an idiot, but the ideas that homosexuality is not natural and therefore bad, that your faith takes precedence over others' legal rights, and that marriage is inherently a sacred institution to everyone religious or not, are idiotic.

Respectfully yours,

Larry Jankens.