The following Facebook interaction took place on May 26, 2009:
UNNAMED1-- just got back from San Diego and had a lovely time at (Jack) & (Diane's) wedding. California itself was great, but their Supreme Court sucks.
XXXX at 1:01pm commented:
Thank goodness you had time to get some legal observations in....
Mr. Geisel commented around 1:10pm:
"Power to the people" which the profile owner, UNNAMED1, removed almost immediately.
UNNAMED1 at 1:12pm then responded to XXXX:
What's a vacation without legal observation? :)
Later that evening Mr. Geisel commented:
"censored for political views? :-(" UNNAMED1 similarly removed this observation from the page.
I then received the following e-mail:
Hi Theodore.
As you may or may not know, I do a lot of volunteering here in New York working for marriage equality and have many gay and lesbian friends who were absolutely devastated by the decision today. I took you comment "power to the people" to mean you were in support of Prop 8, but right now I have friends who are in loving, committed relationships, some with adopted children, who feel that the "people" (i.e., a small majority in California) took away their rights as a minority.
While I'm happy to debate you all day on my public page about differing views on economic policy, I just didn't want my friends, who were told today that their relationship is less valid than mine, to see any comments that would make them feel worse. I think that you can understand that it was a personal, not political, "censoring".
Best,
UNNAMED1
------------------------
After some deliberation, I decided that e-mail was a humongous pile of self righteous, holier-than-thou crap. That e-mail practically called me a callous jerk for making such an insensitive comment and insinuated I lacked empathy for homosexual "victims" and therefore had no right to be opposed to judicial activism on behalf of same sex marriage. I could not ignore it and penned the following response:
UNNAMED1.
I don't even remotely see it that way. By taking the issue into the political arena it is no longer "personal" but political. Therefore it is political and not personal censoring. More to the point, I understand exactly how it feels to have a minority use things like judicial activism to take away rights from myself and others. I also understand exactly how it feels to have a small majority of Americans vote for a President that is taking away the freedoms of my children and their children. You have probably had similar feelings, but it hasn't silenced you any more than I should be silenced.
The beauty of the Constitution is it allows states, and individual citizens living in those states, to make these decisions for themselves. I am grateful New Yorkers can do what they think best and Californians can do what they think best. While it is horrible that your friends in NY may feel offended by what took place in CA, I and many of my friends are just as personally offended by actions to legalize homosexual marriage in many other states. We believe those actions diminish the sanctity of what we feel is an institution that builds up and strengthens society.
Regarding economic debate. First, in addition to social consequences, decisions legalizing homosexual marriage DO have ECONOMIC consequences as well. Second, I agree social/moral issues probably shouldn't be the focus of political debate because I believe such issues, like religion, should not be dictated by government. They should not be politicized. Unfortunately, the milk has already been spilled and the law of entropy won't allow us to put it back in the bottle.
Allow me to illustrate point two. I hate that my tax money supports something as abhorrent and morally vacuous as abortion for non life-threatening purposes, but there is nothing I can do about it. Judicial activism has ensured that choice is taken from me and I am now obligated to obey the law of the land. I do find it extremely interesting how the same idiotic small activist group (the Supreme Court) and faulty reasoning not only declared that blacks were not people and therefore had no protected rights (Dred Scott v. Sandford) but that fetuses too are not people and are similarly devoid of rights (Roe v. Wade). How can logic so obviously wrong before be so obviously right now? (rhetorical question).
I see your activism and follow your links all the time as they come along Facebook. It often seems like gloating from your side of the bleachers. I'm ecstatic to be able to now cheer from my side. I hope you can understand that.
Best Regards, Theodore Geisel
-------------------------
I think the above interaction illustrates beautifully just how closed-minded the secular progressive mentality really is. Only one valid point of view exists; the victim's point of view. If a person isn't either one of the victims or sympathetic to the victims' perceived plight, that person must be an oppressor and will quickly find themselves relegated to the moral low ground in the secular progressive's mind. Any argument a morally defunct oppressor could possibly make against the victim's viewpoint is either insensitive or invalid by virtue of coming from an oppressor. Either way, there is no need to listen any longer. Simply marginalize the oppressor's argument and move on.
Speaking of moving on, it's time for interaction two. I beg the reader to allow me some license here because I will have to do my best to paraphrase. I no longer have access to the verbatim conversation, but the conversation itself really isn't the point. The point is I no longer have access to the conversation. Interaction two occurred something like this:
UNNAMED2--is so glad his home state NH shares his views on gay marriage. if only NY would get with the times!
XXXX commented something about how proud he/she was of UNNAMED2 for courageously voicing his opinion on such a controversial topic on Facebook.
UNNAMED2--stop it. you'll make me blush. if only something as obvious as equal rights could be solved by simply posting something about it on my Facebook page.
Mr. Geisel commented: "where is the dislike button?"
For those readers who are not familiar with Facebook, when someone posts something on Facebook, all of their friends can either comment on the post or click a button to "like" the post. Well what if I don't like or agree with the post? I, and for that matter, the person who posted, may not want to launch into a big discussion about it. Worse yet, silence could be misconstrued as support for the post. I just want to click on "dislike" and move on. Facebook should be heaven for secular progressives.
The point I wish to make is that my desire to "dislike" gay marriage apparently proved to be too much for secular progressive UNNAMED2. I arrived at this conclusion when within thirty minutes or so after commenting, I had one less friend on Facebook. Rather than take a chance on hearing from someone who didn't parrot his opinions back at him, UNNAMED2 chose to close his mind and further insulate himself in his group think world. New York hasn't learned to share his views on gay marriage and he obviously hasn't learned about New York cynicism. He'd rather suck down some ice cold kool-aid served up by one of his sycophants. Hey! What's that weird aftertaste?
No comments:
Post a Comment