It's been a while since we've had a substantial post. I meant to detail those wacked-out recent dreams of mine, but they can wait.

Blogger pal Dawn has written another entry addressing the issue of same-sex marriage, cleverly titled "There's Something About 'Marry'". She begins her post by noting a "typical tactic" used by those in favor of same-sex marriage to discredit their opponents: "creating the impression of moral equivalency so people will believe that any opposition to homosexual marriage equals bigotry."

Before I get into the rest of the post's content, let me stop to note that I like Dawn. She's an interesting character. She's certainly witty. She's had kind words for me in the past, and she's read over my e-mails and blog entries and has responded thoughtfully -- which is more than I can say for most people.

But I don't always agree with her. Sometimes her posts even make me cringe -- like when she links to one of Kevin McCullough's articles and appears to give it her stamp of approval. And I'll be honest -- reading his stuff gives me headaches. Not because it's so heady that I can't follow along, but because his articles are so poorly argued and ill-conceived that I can't believe anyone would even print them, let alone recommend them. For example, take his recent article entitled "Massachusetts burning: 'Gay marriage' leads to incest". That's the title, but nowhere in the piece does he argue that the two are really connected or that one necessarily follows from the other -- he just asserts it left and right in a muddled rant. Take the following paragraph, for example:

The "gay marriage" movement is all about "me" and "why can't I get the same rights." The judges deciding these cases have so bought into the mindset that "there are no absolutes" that it has left children not only unprotected, but targeted. As long as the child is not a blood relative, its OK.

As Kevin wrote in the article, "That doesn't even make sense." And take his concluding remarks:

Join the cause to protect marriage today, because by not doing so, the courts are targeting our kids for the pleasure of those who mean them harm.

And again, "Wha?" But lest you accuse me of taking that paragraph out of context, I encourage you to read the entire article -- unless I'm missing some crucial chunks of argument that were trimmed for publication, the only connection between the rulings on same-sex marriage and incest are that both occurred in the state of Massachusetts, possibly by the same judges. And I'm not even sure about that, since Kevin didn't explain a whole lot about it. Granted, the information's probably out there somewhere, but he's the one making the argument, so he should be the one making the connections, instead of relying on the prejudices of the reader to ignore the gaping holes in his argument simply because the reader agrees with his conclusion.

While I'm at it, the way Kevin ends his articles is also terribly irritating, with statements like "It's time to speak up!" and "Will you be one to help provide [steady leadership in changing times]?" Don't order me around, and quit trying to psych me out with your questions, thanks. And it does make me a little bitter that this guy not only gets paid to write this stuff, but also has a radio show. He's apparently won some awards. For what? These columns are awful. It is possible to impress me even when I disagree with you, so long as your position is clearly expressed and well thought-out. But Kevin's articles certainly are not. Also, the guy's bio page includes testimonials from Kenneth Starr and Oprah frickin' Winfrey -- which just goes to show that Kevin's not writing to inform, to discuss, or to convince -- he's simply writing to manipulate people who don't really need to be manipulated, since they already agree with him. Anyone looking for a worthwhile argument is going to end up with a serious headache and a sigh on the side.

But maybe Dawn links Kevin because they're friends (I think they're friends). I don't know.

Back to Dawn's latest entry. Now, this is not the first time Dawn has written about the subject, and in the past I've e-mailed her to say that despite my disagreement with her views, I appreciated that she expressed them clearly and gave the issue a fair shake. And in "Not a Good Sign", I detailed my experience with the God Hates Fags people. Towards the end of that post, after describing the actions of one particularly vocal and cruel woman in the group, I wrote, "Dawn is nothing like her."

But maybe that's going a little too far. Granted, Dawn probably doesn't stand on street corners waving placards depicting murder victims who are now supposedly "in Hell" and shouting, "You filthy fag!" at passersby, but I had red flags going up all over the place as I read "There's Something About 'Marry'". I'll just go through some of the highlights, quoting Dawn and then following with some brief commentary.

If homosexuals really do want to bond out of love, then a civil union is the highest form in which such love could be expressed. It is an outrage that homosexuals should attempt to take an institution which, while battered and bruised, still stands for something, and turn it into something that stands for nothing but a vagina and a vagina, a penis and a penis, or a vagina and a penis.

First, Dawn seems to admit that it is possible for people to desire to bond out of love -- as opposed to just wanting to have rights as consistent bedfellows. But then she proposes to place limits on the depth of their love -- saying that, "...a civil union is the highest form in which such love could be expressed" -- which suggests that the members of a same-sex couple could not love each other as deeply as the word "marriage" would imply. And then she goes even further, suggesting that the loving union of a same-sex couple is meaningless -- because marriage "still stands for something," thereby implying that civil unions do not -- and asserting that to allow same-sex partners to marry would be to reduce marriage to something that stands for nothing more than sex. Or, the way Dawn's phrased it, it would be to reduce marriage to a pair of disembodied sex organs. Now, I don't think that opposition to same-sex marriages necessarily equals bigotry, but the tone and content of that particular excerpt certainly smack of it. But let's continue.

Within Dennison's rant against the demonized phantoms of conservative Christians that he has imagined through photos that he appears to have swiped from YahooNews, lies this telling quote: "What kind of person would say to a homosexual, 'If [your lover] is accused of a crime, I want you to be forced to testify against him'?

Here, Dawn makes reference to a blog entry by Phil Dennison. The full quote, from his entry, is as follows:

What kind of person, claiming to have love for all mankind in his heart, and who claims to at least try to love his neighbor as himself, can look at his fellow citizen and say, "If your partner falls ill, I want you unable to visit him in the hospital. If he dies, I want your common property to go to the state absent a will. If he has children, I want you to be unable to be legally recognized as a parent. If he is made infirm, I want you to be unable to make decisions for him. If he is accused of a crime, I want you to be forced to testify against him. If he is from another country, I want your relationship to be extinguished when his visa runs out."

But clearly Dawn took it out of context in order to better suit her ends, as evidenced by her followup statement:

Well, well, well. I hadn't even thought of that. What a great idea. Two men plot a murder and, just in case they get caught, they get "married" first. That way, they can't testify against one another. If we have homosexual marriage and the crooks get wise, it's possible practically no one might ever have to testify against another ever again.

I don't even know what to say to this -- it's ludicrous. Dawn knows it, too:

Sounds ludicrous? Not as ludicrous as the idea that law reducing marriage to a purely sexual institution would better society.

And again, she asserts that to allow same-sex marriage would be to "[reduce] marriage to a purely sexual institution" -- as if allowing same-sex partners to marry would knock love, mutual concern, and all of those other tender qualities that two people feel for one another right out of the picture. This is where the bigotry comes in.

And just before the break, Dawn writes, "This is not a man interested in fairness or in truth. This is a man who has a penis and is going to use it." Come on, Dawn -- that's really hitting below the belt. I'm not so certain that Phil has "demonized" all conservative Christians, but even if he had, he'd just be attacking a generic mass -- here, you're attacking him. Not just his views -- him, personally. But if you'd said he wasn't interested in fairness or truth, fine. The penis crack was out of line.

In closing: I understand that Dawn and others feel very strongly about this issue, but that's no excuse for resorting to the same kinds of tactics they decry when "the other side" employs them, and that's no excuse for expressing your views in a poorly thought-out and insulting manner, all the while pretending to take the high-road. Those who characterize all opponents of same-sex marriage as bigots often taunt "the good Jesus people" by asking, "Where's the love?" After all, you don't often see it among the righteous counter-protesters, but you do see quite a bit of hatred (and lunacy). And you hear a lot of raving, but little intellectual merit. And I'll be honest -- I found more of those in Kevin's articles and Dawn's latest entry than anything remotely indicative of that loving Christian component I've heard so much about.

Oh, and regarding the last entry, thanks, Christina. 🙂