A group called NOM tries to rally forces against gay marriage by using language that is intended to inflame the like-minded. On their blog I tackled their talking points one by one, but my reply was deleted. Since I expected such an action I saved my comment to my hard disk, and repeat it here in full:
Ah, feel the Christian hate.
Lets address those facts for a moment and see them in a wider context:
1) â€œIâ€™m a California doctor who must choose between my faith and my job.â€
I can come up with any number of situations where MDs have to choose between their faiths and their jobs. This is because even MDs are bound by secular law. Is NOM saying the Christian community is greater than the USA and its laws?
2) â€œIâ€™m part of a New Jersey church group punished by the government because we canâ€™t support same-sex marriage.â€
The building in question was, like a restaurant, open to the public. The court likened refusing gays to the building to refusing to serve blacks in restaurants. I don’t even dare think what NOM is suggesting here.
3) â€œI am a Massachusetts parent helplessly watching public schools teach my son that gay marriage is OK.â€
The state makes no moral judgment, it merely states that for the law both types of marriages are the same, which they are. Would NOM like schools to teach subjectively? Or would it prefer that schools stuck with the facts, and that parents would take the responsibility of instilling values in children?
4) â€œBut some who advocate for same-sex marriage have not been content with same-sex couples living as they wish. Those advocates want to change the way I live. I will have no choice.â€
The arguments given in your set of facts say that there will be conflicts, but not what these conflicts will be like. Please be precise, so that I can refute your reasoning with this point as I have done the previous three. Sure, there will be conflicts between groups. There always have been and there always will be. Is NOM claiming the religious are special, fragile ones that may never be touched?
By the way, I fully respect a publisher’s choice of what to publish and what not. I myself will either delete or change comments I don’t like, and have done so many times in the past. My rule for deciding which comments to edit or erase is a simple one to describe but at times difficult to apply: those (parts of comments) that are intentionally or unintentionally sapping the dialogue.
– spam (will be deleted),
– spammy contributions (I typically will take out hyperlinks).
– bad spelling (I may correct it if it’s too egregious),
– and so on.
I have in the past also deleted insults where the comment was nothing but. My rather confused post All games illegal has drawn comments like that; the more I am grateful to people who actually addressed the point in that thread.
In defense of NOM, not that it deserves to be defended, they have allowed critical comments to their message so far, such as this one.