I just don't understand...

Lately I have noticed the overwhelming majority of people who are in favor of things like gay marriage sling the word "hate" around. It is the answer to any opposition they get on their opinion. If another person is not in favor of legalizing gay marriage, or of homosexual acts in general, then they must be "hateful." It seems that it is easier to point fingers and cry, "HATE!" than it is to try to understand the other person's point of view.

There are other issues that are like this as well, in which the opposing viewpoint gets stonewalled with, "You're just hateful and intolerant." But it is the gay marriage issue that I have noticed it in the most strongly, especially in places like Facebook. Two or three times in recent weeks and months, I have encountered people calling Chick-fil-A a "hateful" organization because they have donated money to Christian organizations which do not favor the legalization of gay marriage. In their eyes, opposing this is akin to barring people of their civil rights, and therefore any association with such groups must mean that Chick-fil-A "hates gays." People even make ludicrous jumps such as, "Chick-fil-A gives 25% of their profits to groups who run seminars to turn gay people straight and to political candidates whose sole purpose is to keep gay marriage illegal." Totally fabricated. I am particularly noticing these CFA attacks because my husband works for their charitable organization. People boycotting CFA make it less likely that he will keep his job - but fortunately, these boycotts are not harming the restaurants at all, and they all continue to do a thriving business.

I think the reason I get so discouraged and am not able to understand is this: when I hear an opposing viewpoint, I don't just launch back with, "Haters!" I think about the words the other person has said, and I weigh them in my mind and based on my faith - a faith that is completely rooted in common sense and truth, not in feelings or fashions or societal whims. I also try to consider where the other person is coming from - why do they hold this viewpoint? Usually, it is not because they are some evil person who hates others, and usually it is not because they are completely unintelligent. These are typically smart, caring people.

A good example of this is the topic of abortion. Usually when I come across somebody who is in favor of abortion remaining legal - "pro-choice," they like to call it, which I don't because while there are many choices I am in favor of, this ain't one of them! - they are not some baby-hating pro-killing jerk! They really and truly believe that abortion must remain legal because, while not the choice they would make personally, they think it is compassionate to have this option for others. They basically see no other way, and they have convinced themselves that some babies are better off being aborted than being born into poverty or whatever other unfavorable conditions may exist. They think abortion being legal is a "necessary evil." These "pro-choice" advocates really, for the most part, think they are being compassionate. They do not "hate babies," at least I like to think that most of them do not. So, I can understand their position. I absolutely 100% disagree and believe they are misguided, but that doesn't make them mean, it doesn't make them stupid, and it doesn't make them hateful. Calling them that will never get them to listen to our reasoned pro-life arguments anyway! So I choose to say, "I understand where you are coming from, but I strongly and completely disagree," rather than, "You baby-killer! How hateful you are!"

As a side note, I see abortion as a much, much larger violation of human rights. It actually kills another human being, which is the worst thing to do. It isn't merely harming their bodily integrity (think genital mutilation here). It isn't merely denying their desire to have the law recognize their relationship. It is depriving them of their very life. If the law tomorrow suddenly stopped recognizing my marriage to my husband, then would it change things? Sure, some... but I would absolutely still consider myself to be married and behave as such, and the Church would still view our marriage as valid. Those are what are most important. But if the law suddenly stopped protecting me from being killed? That is an outright denying of my basic human rights, endowed to me by my Creator, as is said in the law of this land.

Unfortunately, I have yet to see an attempt to understand from the pro-gay marriage side. I have yet to see a conversation in which people attempt to explain why they think my side is wrong without playing the "hate" card. I understand their arguments and disagree. They don't understand my arguments and decide I must be "hateful." I am sure there are people out there who do hate gays in general regardless of their actions or positions on legal issues, and of course it is wrong to call people names or try to hurt them because you dislike them in general. But that is not the reason most people are opposed to gay marriage - at least not for other faithful Catholics - and I am sick and tired of the assumption that our reasons are rooted in hate and ignorance. Why is it that we must tolerate the gay marriage views while they refuse to tolerate the fact that some people disagree for real reasons and not just out of fear and hate?

Interestingly, I never hear mention of the fact that there are some homosexual people who dislike their homosexual urges and do think that homosexual sex acts are disordered, and therefore they disagree with the legalization of gay marriage. In the logic of some of the pro-gay marriage side, do these people "hate" themselves? No, of course not - in fact, these people refuse to define themselves based solely on their sexual tendencies. And it must take great courage and strength for them to do this!

Another issue where this stonewalling happens is whenever anyone mentions the Church's teachings in relation to condoms and AIDS and Africa. Instead of trying to understand the very real reasons why the Catholic Church won't distribute condoms, even in Africa where AIDS is widespread, people just assume the Church is "mean" and "intolerant." The Church must "want people to die." They refuse to acknowledge that maybe the Church thinks there are better ways to handle this (and more moral ways to boot). Or if they do acknowledge that, they assume the Church is "stupid" and that of course they could never think of any good alternatives to deal with the AIDS crisis in Africa. The very real answer is that if you don't have sex with multiple people, you are far less likely to get AIDS. If you hand out condoms, you are sending the message to continue to engage in risky behavior - increase it, even, since you have "protection" now, protection which is not guaranteed. There is even evidence-based research showing that condom distribution is not the answer, but since it seems like a common sense approach, any other idea is automatically discounted or seen as "mean" and trying to hurt rather to help. Many people (ahem, mainstream media) paint the Church as being archaic and "out-of-touch," when the opposite is true. People just won't take the time to dig in and explore further and jump to conclusions and make assumptions.

Can we not all just have the best assumptions of each other unless proven otherwise? Can we just assume that people can be mistaken, misled, and/or misunderstood, and that underneath that we generally do have good intentions and wish the best for others, even if we have different ways of going about it? And this does not mean that we back down on our positions - not at all. We shouldn't waver and capitulate on issues as important as the ones our world is faced with today. We should absolutely hold fast to what we believe, especially if we believe we have Truth on our sides. Those with Truth can present their side without being ugly about it, without refusing to discuss the issue and calling out, "Hate!" instead. We can discuss things with reasoned patience rather than bewildered anger at "those hateful bigots." We live in a day and age where the terms "hate" and "bigot" can be thrown at somebody as an immediate way to shut down the conversation. That is what they want - to not have to discuss it because they have decided your arguments are merely hate-based, so why discuss them? Or perhaps they have an inkling that you may have something logical or reasoned to say and don't even want the conversation to get to that point... in other words, they won't tolerate your view, so they shut you down by calling you "intolerant" lest your words actually have some sense in them.

Don't be afraid to stand for the truth, and don't be afraid to do it in love, in patience, and in knowing that you can disagree with somebody out of Truth and not just because they are "hateful."

What's Wrong with the World

That's the title of G.K. Chersterton book, written decades ago, and making some eerily true observations which ring true today even more so than they did when the book was written. The title of it comes to mind lately as I see some videos online... videos of college-aged students who are holding peaceful demonstrations in legal locations, and are being called "intolerant" for doing so. But who is really being intolerant during these demonstrations? Apparently, some people believe that it is okay to be rude, insulting, and behave violently towards others as long as you think their position is "intolerant." In other words, it is okay to not tolerate those who fit your definition of "intolerance" and show them this in a hateful way. So I ask, what is wrong with the world???

The students who were demonstrating were doing so in support of "traditional" marriage, that is, marriage between one woman and one man. That is what their banner sign said that they held. Other ways in which they demonstrated were by handing out pamphlets to those who passed by and would take them, answering questions from passersby, reciting prayers such as the rosary, and chanting lines such as, "A moral wrong can never be a civil right." Chanting, meaning repeating it loudly and clearly, not yelling it in anger. Oh, and they were playing bagpipes and a drum. ;)

So, what would the appropriate, tolerant response be for those passersby who disagreed? Perhaps they could ignore the demonstrators. Perhaps they could engage them in calm debate. Perhaps they could just roll their eyes and go snicker about it to their friends. Perhaps they could start a counter-protest in which they peacefully held signs of their own and chanted their own sayings loudly yet calmly. Maybe they could have even started praying for the demonstrators if they truly believed that their words were at odds with God, with morals.

But what did many of them do instead? Well, there is a video of it all (my summary beneath, as it is a bit long):

In summary, one counter-protester ran up and jumped through the banner, tearing it down from one of its posts, while others applauded the destruction of others' property. Tolerant? Others shouted cuss words at the demonstrators (who, by the way, were using no vulgarity themselves). Tolerant? Still others gave the middle finger to the demonstrators and their video camera. Tolerant? Others screamed at them, rather than calmly debating them, using insults and attacks ("You're disgusting, just look at yourselves!!") rather than facts. Tolerant? Another actually spit in the face of one of the demonstrators, and pamphlets were torn up and spat upon as well. Tolerant? There are other videos in which similar behavior is displayed: people spitting on their van windows as they leave, vulgar speech directed at the demonstrators themselves, and other acts of outright hostility, including people screaming, "God is dead!!" over and over.

All these actions show little regard for other human beings and their dignity, and their rights to disagree. The people who committed these atrocities probably believe that they are justified in that they think it was an atrocious topic on which to come out and demonstrate. But they are so caught up in seeing the pro-marriage side as being "disgusting," or "intolerant," that they think it is justifiable to respond in violence, insults, and outright rage. Do they not see that this greatly hurts their own position? No matter how wrong you think somebody is, responding with hostility and outrage and hatred is no way to respond. These people need to examine their mantra of "tolerance" and try extending it to everyone, including those who they think are wrong.

Another thing I have noticed is that the pro-marriage side, and in abortion debates, the pro-life side, are the ones who typically remain cool and collected, non-violent, non-vulgar. Sure, there are the wackos who kill abortionists and such, but you don't see a crowd of pro-lifers standing by and laughing or applauding such horrific acts, because pro-lifers generally don't respond to killing with more killing. So why do many people respond to what they perceive as "intolerance" with intolerance? I have yet to hear of a pro-life or pro-marriage rally in which vulgarities are shouted through a microphone, yet that was done at a recent abortion-supporting rally in DC. Some people who want abortion to remain legal actually raided and destroyed a crisis pregnancy center in NYC recently... stole all their equipment such as ultrasound machines, even stole the supply of Pampers (one of the more expensive diaper brands) they had in a closet to give to new mothers in poverty who were choosing to keep their babies. They even tore out the floors, just to be hateful and deprive the pregnancy center of some of its money, I suppose. And why can't I find a link in the first two pages of results on Google that comes from a mainstream media source? This was obviously not reported much by them. But has the pro-choice side come out strongly condemning the vandals, the way that the pro-life side responds when somebody murders an abortionist? No, they have not. Silence can be misconstrued as approval, and I would hope nobody really approves of this kind of behavior... but is there really a "they deserve this" mentality among some pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage people? That people are deserving of acts of hostility because of what they believe?

A public library recently denied a group access to a meeting room which they had previously okayed, because they heard that the pro-abortion side was going to come out and protest if they didn't cancel this group. The group wanted to privately view a movie called Blood Money, which is about abortion and the profits made by it and such. The library backed down and told the group that no, they could not use the room to watch this movie even though they'd been given permission already. Were they also showing some intolerance, or were they truly afraid that where pro-abortion people are protesting, they often make a scene and are vulgar? The video above has been removed from Youtube with no explanation - again, are they intolerant of the demonstrators' message, or are they acting out of fear of making waves due to the anger shown by the opposite side?

Does it make my blood boil to see people supporting abortion with sayings like, "It's not a baby," or "Get your rosaries off my ovaries" (clearly a misunderstanding of basic biology, as it is the uterus which they should be referencing here!)? Sure. But I am absolutely not going to yell cuss words at them, make obscene hand gestures, and try to tear down their signs. And how about gay marriage supporters? It doesn't even get me riled up. I disagree, and we can leave it at that. I don't feel a desire to tear up their pamphlets or spit on them.

If anybody ever sees a pro-traditional marriage person yell obscenities and give the finger to a pro-gay marriage demonstrator in public, let me know. I don't think you're really going to see it. And I live in the South, people, where we have some really fearful people... I saw KKK members in full garb on the downtown street corners here only 12 years ago. The thing is, it is not about fearing other people's beliefs and then attacking them with insults. It is about explaining one's position thoughtfully and respectfully. I only hope that no matter what their beliefs, more people can express their disagreement by being kind about it, by assuming that the other people have good intentions and are real human beings deserving of their own dignity. If they are demonstrating peacefully and respectfully, then we need to respond peacefully and respectfully ourselves.

And a bit more...

A little more to add to the NFP topic following the video I embedded in the last post... this is very important in understanding why homosexual unions should not be defined as being the same as marriage between a man and a woman.

The Difference is the Difference is the name of the article... h/t to That Married Couple for the post which linked me to this article.

The article is not a long read at all, and for those who feel strongly about defending traditional marriage, it is a must-read. But it also concerns me... without the fullness of the understanding of the differences between man and woman, without the truth about human sexuality as presented by Catholicism, what is to stop gay marriage from becoming legally the same as traditional marriage? I have thought a lot about this, and I cannot defend it properly without coming back to the birth control issue. If anyone else can argue against gay "marriage" effectively without including the heterosexual couples being open to life, then I would sure like to hear it! Once you take away the major difference between homosexual acts and heterosexual acts - procreation - then there is not much of a difference any more. Sex becomes only for pleasure in both cases, whether new life cannot be transmitted because of biological impossibilities (as with homosexual acts), or when the sexual act is rendered sterile purposely by heterosexual couples.