![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thebratqueenMy car issues somewhat taken care of (for now, anyway, it goes in for a second checkup in a couple of weeks) I was finally able to write back to the Baptist preacher.
Again I won't quote his email since it's not kosher to publicly post private letters, so here's the bullet point summary of what he said:
1) He thanked me for my thoughtful reply and hoped that his letter would be seen as a thoughtful reply in return
2) He pointed out that there are many banners and signs that are put on rotation in front of his church, including banners in support of the troops, banners in support of Israel, and banners proclaiming Jesus as Lord.
3) He disagrees with my Confederate flag comparison because the Confederate flag is a symbol of war, death, and segregation and the "Defend Marriage" banner is a symbol of none of those things.
4) He disagrees that the banner doesn't produce good results because it gets people talking to him, case in point myself. He says some are rude and some are nice, but it does start dialogue.
5) He says that the banner is about defining marriage, and if gay people want to be gay in the privacy of their own homes that's fine, but if they want to be married it's up to society to say "enough" and stop them.
6) He says the homosexual agenda is - and this is one that I'll quote since I can't reword it adequately and I think it's stand-alone enough that this one quote is okay - "not marriage but acceptance of deviant behavior that will only sell when society closes its eyes and ear to what is the long range plan."
7) He closes with another thanks for the dialogue and that he's happy to keep talking or to agree to disagree. He also says that the banner is only scheduled to be up for a little while longer before being put away for another time.
And that about covers it. BTW, as the bullet points indicate he's not short and pithy in his replies. I mention that b/c a couple of people thought I was being too wordy in mine and were thoughtfully recommending I pare it down so I don't bore the guy. Trust me, I'm not even hitting his word count ;)
Now then, on to my reply...
Dear [Pastor's name],
Thanks so much for your reply. I really do appreciate you taking the time to write with me. I also appreciate that we're having a pleasant conversation even though we don't see eye to eye. As I've said before, I think dialogue like this can be a great learning experience for both parties, even if neither one changes their views.
I can see what you're saying about the banner working out for you since it has started conversations with people you wouldn't have been able to get in touch with otherwise. After all, here I am as a living proof of that theory. I have to admit I can't help but feel this is a tiny bit like randomly calling people fat in the hopes that one of them will be nice enough to realize that what you really wanted was for them to be interested in joining your jogging club. But it's your church and your time, so I suppose you can decide to introduce yourself to people however you like.
I am going to disagree with your comment that your banner is not about segregation because it is. Anytime we say that we want certain members of society to not have the same rights or privileges as other members of society we are advocating segregation. It's segregation to say that people who commit crimes are now going to go to jail. That doesn't mean criminals *shouldn't* go to jail, it just means that not all forms of segregation are necessarily a bad thing.
When you say that your banner is about defining marriage as being between a man and a woman part and parcel of that is making sure it is *not* defined as man/man or woman/woman. This is saying that some people in society are allowed to do things that others cannot. Criminals are not allowed to walk around freely and homosexuals, under your banner, are not allowed to marry.
But what I don't understand - and this is honest curiosity on my part - is why your banner doesn't therefore say "Celebrate Marriage" or "Embrace Marriage" or even "Define Marriage" which has a similar letter scheme. It says *Defend* Marriage.
Why?
Defense by definition is reactive. We can't defend ourselves against something that isn't attacking, or at the very least planning to attack us - well, I suppose we can but then we're holding shields for no good reason and then we look kind of silly.
So if we've decided to defend ourselves then that means we have some kind of enemy at the gates. And based on what you and the websites you've pointed me to keep saying it seems like gay people are the enemy. Why? If we're going to protect marriage by defending it - which personally I find an oddly negative and passive stance - shouldn't we set ourselves up to go against things that actually hurt heterosexual marriage? Don't things like alcoholism, adultery, and abuse do far more to break up heterosexual marriages than the tiny percentage of the US population that's actually gay in the first place, let alone in some way interacting with straight couples and possibly giving them marriage advice?
You say that the homosexual agenda has a long range plan. What is it? Where did you find it? What did it say? How is it going to affect the marriage of my parents who have been together for 40 years through nearly every possible definition of richer or poorer, sickness and in health, and who I'm reasonably certain won't get divorced if a deli owner in Castro is allowed to marry his boyfriend?
I realize this sounds flip but I'm genuinely asking. You say that you're fine for gay people doing their own thing in the privacy of their own homes but they have to be stopped once it gets into the legal arena and I legitimately do not understand why. How does allowing same sex couples to have a piece of paper utterly destroy relationships that have nothing to do with that couple?
Thanks again for your time,
[TBQ]
Again I won't quote his email since it's not kosher to publicly post private letters, so here's the bullet point summary of what he said:
1) He thanked me for my thoughtful reply and hoped that his letter would be seen as a thoughtful reply in return
2) He pointed out that there are many banners and signs that are put on rotation in front of his church, including banners in support of the troops, banners in support of Israel, and banners proclaiming Jesus as Lord.
3) He disagrees with my Confederate flag comparison because the Confederate flag is a symbol of war, death, and segregation and the "Defend Marriage" banner is a symbol of none of those things.
4) He disagrees that the banner doesn't produce good results because it gets people talking to him, case in point myself. He says some are rude and some are nice, but it does start dialogue.
5) He says that the banner is about defining marriage, and if gay people want to be gay in the privacy of their own homes that's fine, but if they want to be married it's up to society to say "enough" and stop them.
6) He says the homosexual agenda is - and this is one that I'll quote since I can't reword it adequately and I think it's stand-alone enough that this one quote is okay - "not marriage but acceptance of deviant behavior that will only sell when society closes its eyes and ear to what is the long range plan."
7) He closes with another thanks for the dialogue and that he's happy to keep talking or to agree to disagree. He also says that the banner is only scheduled to be up for a little while longer before being put away for another time.
And that about covers it. BTW, as the bullet points indicate he's not short and pithy in his replies. I mention that b/c a couple of people thought I was being too wordy in mine and were thoughtfully recommending I pare it down so I don't bore the guy. Trust me, I'm not even hitting his word count ;)
Now then, on to my reply...
Dear [Pastor's name],
Thanks so much for your reply. I really do appreciate you taking the time to write with me. I also appreciate that we're having a pleasant conversation even though we don't see eye to eye. As I've said before, I think dialogue like this can be a great learning experience for both parties, even if neither one changes their views.
I can see what you're saying about the banner working out for you since it has started conversations with people you wouldn't have been able to get in touch with otherwise. After all, here I am as a living proof of that theory. I have to admit I can't help but feel this is a tiny bit like randomly calling people fat in the hopes that one of them will be nice enough to realize that what you really wanted was for them to be interested in joining your jogging club. But it's your church and your time, so I suppose you can decide to introduce yourself to people however you like.
I am going to disagree with your comment that your banner is not about segregation because it is. Anytime we say that we want certain members of society to not have the same rights or privileges as other members of society we are advocating segregation. It's segregation to say that people who commit crimes are now going to go to jail. That doesn't mean criminals *shouldn't* go to jail, it just means that not all forms of segregation are necessarily a bad thing.
When you say that your banner is about defining marriage as being between a man and a woman part and parcel of that is making sure it is *not* defined as man/man or woman/woman. This is saying that some people in society are allowed to do things that others cannot. Criminals are not allowed to walk around freely and homosexuals, under your banner, are not allowed to marry.
But what I don't understand - and this is honest curiosity on my part - is why your banner doesn't therefore say "Celebrate Marriage" or "Embrace Marriage" or even "Define Marriage" which has a similar letter scheme. It says *Defend* Marriage.
Why?
Defense by definition is reactive. We can't defend ourselves against something that isn't attacking, or at the very least planning to attack us - well, I suppose we can but then we're holding shields for no good reason and then we look kind of silly.
So if we've decided to defend ourselves then that means we have some kind of enemy at the gates. And based on what you and the websites you've pointed me to keep saying it seems like gay people are the enemy. Why? If we're going to protect marriage by defending it - which personally I find an oddly negative and passive stance - shouldn't we set ourselves up to go against things that actually hurt heterosexual marriage? Don't things like alcoholism, adultery, and abuse do far more to break up heterosexual marriages than the tiny percentage of the US population that's actually gay in the first place, let alone in some way interacting with straight couples and possibly giving them marriage advice?
You say that the homosexual agenda has a long range plan. What is it? Where did you find it? What did it say? How is it going to affect the marriage of my parents who have been together for 40 years through nearly every possible definition of richer or poorer, sickness and in health, and who I'm reasonably certain won't get divorced if a deli owner in Castro is allowed to marry his boyfriend?
I realize this sounds flip but I'm genuinely asking. You say that you're fine for gay people doing their own thing in the privacy of their own homes but they have to be stopped once it gets into the legal arena and I legitimately do not understand why. How does allowing same sex couples to have a piece of paper utterly destroy relationships that have nothing to do with that couple?
Thanks again for your time,
[TBQ]
