It took all of about 5 minutes for someone to get upset with my recent post about the gay marriage interview I did. It struck me as legitimately funny that I actually didn’t know which of the sides was going to make their displeasure known first. [insert: "the life of a bridge builder between opposing worldviews"]
The first just so happened to be a more progressive individual, not at all pleased with how I engage by elevating the conversation. In response to this post, the individual posted the following on my Facebook wall:
This [interview] doesn’t impress me at all. You’re dancing around the issue, and spending a lot of time saying next to nothing. Outlawing gay marriage causes direct bodily harm to gay families including their children, so why in the hell shouldn’t people be offended by it? If you think Jesus was so dumb and vicious that he couldn’t understand loving relationships between people of the same gender, then just say it. One day, churches that hold to this position will end up being as apologetic as they were after supporting institutionalized racism during the civil rights movement. On the other hand, if you think that Jesus was more into love than legalistic scriptural laws and therefore would support gay marriage, then say that. These are the people that will lead the way toward marriage equality for gay families. Churches should not sit on the sidelines while peoples human rights are being trampled on.
Now, I could have systematically responded point for point to show this person’s wrong interpretation of what I’m trying to do. Then I could have pointed out that the Republican National Committee recently reaffirmed their stance of traditional marriage–highlighting once again that this debate is far from simple yes/no answers, as our country must contend with learning how to bring itself together through divisions stemming from varying interpretations of “correct.” Ultimately, it’s all a waste of time because these type of activists from either end are not looking to engage in thoughtful conversation, but rather lob drive-by-bombs to rally their base. Instead, this was my response:
I appreciate your assessment. However people who do not agree with you, or gay marriage, will never listen to you or anyone in your camp because they feel they’re right and they feel you’re crazy (that argument sounds familiar, doesn’t it?). So, the question becomes, do you want to have actual dialogue with people who are your “enemy” and fighting against gay marriage, or would you rather continue ranting and not have anyone fighting against you pay one ounce of attention to you, or your rants, and continue fighting against you anyway? That is the crux of the issue. I choose the former. Thanks.
To absolutely no one’s surprise, I haven’t heard back from that guy (or from this guy, or a number of others who refuse to have actual in-person conversations because that would be way to humanizing of an act for everyone involved).
I’m tired of being everyone’s punching bag because extremists from both ends only want agreement, not peace. So as I continue to wait for a response, which won’t come, I stand fully in the camp of building bridges between opposing worldviews. Our country cannot survive without it.
Which camp are you in? How do you want to engage? And what is your reasoning for your choice?