When I read that expression, “professionally offended,” in David Harsanyi’s column, I first thought he would be writing about those gay marriage advocates who readily dismiss supporters of traditional marriage as “haters.” But, he was actually commenting on a recent cartoon in the New York Post:
It’s a discredit to our national confidence that each time some impolite thought — perceived or otherwise — is uttered, sketched or typed, a faction of professionally offended Americans engage in a collective hyper-sensitivity meltdown.
It has been a long-standing custom for opponents to shut down debate by tagging an adversary with some dreadful label. No one wants to be called a racist, a commie or a neocon.
Or a hater.
It seems that’s the strategy of gay marriage advocates, particularly given Sean Penn’s harangue at the Oscars. They want to shame people into supporting gay marriage, not necessarily because it’s a good thing, but because they believe anyone who doesn’t favor “full equality” (whatever that means) for gay people must necessarily be a bad person.
Perhaps, I’m just comparing the two because my friend Dale Carpenter (one of the most thoughtful advocates of gay marriage) just e-mailed the link to a column of his that I had recently read in draft form. And his wise words were in my mind when I followed Glenn’s link to Harsanyi’s column.
More sympathetic to the “No on 8” campaign than most have been, Dale observes that those trying to defeat the ballot initiative, “were trying to overcome deeply embedded views about something Americans think is the foundation of responsible family life.”
That line really hit home to me. It gets at at the essence of the opposition to same-sex marriage. And it is important that advocates of same-sex marriage, like Dale, acknowledge that simple truth rather than let themselves become easily offended by opposition to the social change they favor.
Most advocates of traditional marriage have strongly held views about the meaning of that institution. It’s not that they hate gay people. It’s that they see gender difference at the heart of marriage. And those who disagree with that interpretation should not let themselves be so readily offended by a heart-felt difference of opinion.
GPW, I agree. Gay marriage advocates (in which group I include myself) are proposing a change to something that society grants as a privilege, and should make a persuasive, constructive case for it; not self-righteously attack the very people they need to persuade.
And what about the rest of the, ILC and GPW? Those that *do* in fact lie and hate and preach both? Read this and tell me there’s not plenty of hate caught up in the argument? Tell me how to respond to these arguments rationally? I’d cut and paste some excerpts, but the language used by your non-hating traditional-marriage lovers won’t make it past the filters.
I’m glad to see the reasonable people coming out and discussing 8 without the hate speach. (rauch, Carpenter). The only way to change minds is with persuassion. Demanding rights versus two millenia of tradtion doesn’t work. If CA. Passed 8 what does it tell you about the rest of the country?
torrent, so I should judge you by the terrorists who sent powder filled envelopes to Mormon temples?
So be it.
What about it, TP? Let the other side hang themselves, if that’s their thing. As long as violence is off limits – and for Christians, it pretty much is – then who the hell cares??? GPW’s post is about how **our** side can clean up its act – and needs to. You know… the side that we can actually do something about.
If (note if) your opponent is being a jerk, you respond by staying classy and, if you want to go the extra mile, perhaps saying some things to underline that they’re not. I do this on GP. If some moron (left or right) starts calling me names, say, I don’t usually call them names back. I may give them mock-encouragement or make some other joke, to highlight the fact that *their* capacity to deal with differences of opinion and rational argument is so very limited. So, you stay classy. Highlight the contrast between you and them… by really being better than them. Even if nobody else seems to know it… you will know.
spamfilter
One more thought – There was somebody whom I eventually learned that I didn’t agree with very much on the issues, but I respected his irenic spirit in argument. He said, “Always treat your enemy as your friend, even if they’re not doing the same for you, because it will make it easier for them to change their minds and agree with you later.”
Now, I haven’t always followed that rule on GP. I admit that in the online world, I would rather just poke fun at certain over-the-top opponents. But they’re opponents I’m not trying to persuade. When I want to persuade someone, I follow the rule. And when I look at a political debate, I instinctively prefer the side that is following the rule, whether or not I agree with it on the issues.
Actually Livewire, that is exactly what some of the more unhinged people who comment here do constantly. Judging all of us by the actions of some and wetting their pants when called on it. Denying or minimizing the very real hate from SOME of our opponents is counterproductive. Attacking anyone that dares mention it is asinine and agreeing with their rhetoric (which some do on here) is disgusting. I agree with ILC that we should prove ourselves better than them in our reaction but that is not the same as whitewashing.
“As long as violence is off limits – and for Christians, it pretty much is – then who the hell cares???”
Because a person can claim to be a Christian without having a clue what that really means and violence can be justified in their minds. Sure most of the crap is just hot air but not all of it and we have to care, watch carefully and make sure that the true haters are not allowed to hide behind pretty “christian” language. And when the true haters are elected officials we sure as hell better care. Fanatics (of any kind) don’t have boundaries.
filtered
Actually Livewire, that is exactly what some of the more unhinged people who comment here do constantly.
I didn’t think the clue meter could register a negative number until now. 🙂
#8: “Judging all of us by the actions of some and wetting their pants when called on it.”
So, ADD, you don’t want to be judged based on the actions of others…
“Because a person can claim to be a Christian without having a clue what that really means and violence can be justified in their minds. Sure most of the crap is just hot air but not all of it and we have to care, watch carefully and make sure that the true haters are not allowed to hide behind pretty “christian†language.”
…but you strongly advise vigilance for spotting subversive, violent Christians.
So, in summary, all gays can’t be judged by what some gays DO. But Christians can be judged based on what Christians DO NOT DO.
Well, ADD, I have to say, this is perfectly consistent with the “logic” you apply to every issue.
Uuuuuuuug! Filtered again! Please release comment! Thanks.
Perhaps in the general cosmic sense, like “a person can be clinically insane” or “a person might conceive a great hatred of dirt and wire hangers”, yes. But it’s rare and frowned upon, by nearly all other Christians.
#5 If some moron (left or right) starts calling me names, say, I don’t usually call them names back.
*snicker*
Iggy, you can read, right? (Hint: ‘usually’ 😉 )
I don’t think all the people who voted against same sex marriage in these ballot initiatives were “haters”. But the protesters definitely are. The religious right have seen that they are losing the culture wars and marriage is their default position. They still aren’t for antidiscrimination laws either. You would think that marriage is the only gay rights issue from how they have framed the debate.
Sorry but most of what is said by anti-gay activists is think-tank created PC language to make their bigotry more appealing to moderates. You are smart enough to see through it, as am I.
Sean, don’t be dense. There is no judgement of all Christians in anything I said yesterday or have ever said on here. If you want blanket, insane and unjustified condemnation just read NDT’s frothing. Or better yet, learn to read.
What I advise is not thinking that because someone says he/she is a Christian that they are above hate and violence. But, if you and others on here are comfortable with your heads buried somewhere dark and stanky, that’s fine, but it’s not going to provide you the slightest bit of protection from those who mean us harm (Christian or not).
You mean the No on 8 protestors, right? The ones who have been demonizing religious people. The ones who assaulted a peaceful old lady on camera. The ones who demonized a restaurant hostess who made a private, small donation to the other side. The ones who have been engaging in terrorism (sending fake-anthrax letters to try to terrorize certain religious people).
houndterror,
Except that most of the right, religious and otherwise are for anti-discrimination. That’s why we oppose affirimitive action. (discriminating for someone on basis of race) Hate crimes (discriminating based on thought) and other such travesties.
I propose to Houndie the same offer that I did with another leftie – I dare you to go to South Central LA and tell every person of color that if they supported Prop 8, they were bigots in your eyes.
And then after you come out of the ER, we’ll talk more Hopey Changey.
Regards,
Peter H.
The Republican party is not even for civil unions according to its leader Michael Steele. The man who was supposed to be a moderate. Yeah right! I could care less about engaging conservative’s about my right to wed or not, or self hating homos who think they are not worthy of any rights except what the majority decides to give them. Time is on our side, even if the California Supreme court rules against us, we will prevail. We only lost by 4 percentage points!
Just a question to throw out – what has Howard Dean said about his views regarding civil unions? And why is everyone flipping out over what Steele allegedly said?
Regards,
Peter H.
PS to Dan – the “Professionally Offended” (or POS) has been around for a long time. I used to call them the “Perenially Indignant” back in the 1980s. Times may change, but libards never do.
Just my $0.02 here.
Regards,
Peter H.
@21 “Just a question to throw out – what has Howard Dean said about his views regarding civil unions?”
Peter, you really are an imbecile and a jackass to boot.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_15_117/ai_62324426
#23 – Here we go again. When libtards can’t win an argument, they regress to their junior high days and start the name-calling.
I refuse to let your comments go unheeded, David. You are truly one of the Professionally Offendeds. In other words, you’re a POS.
Regards,
Peter H.
@24 Hey, you threw out the question dude. And you’re still an imbecile.
Ok, he signed a bill. What has he said as the DNC chairman?
#16: “Sean, don’t be dense. There is no judgement of all Christians in anything I said yesterday or have ever said on here…What I advise is not thinking that because someone says he/she is a Christian that they are above hate and violence.”
ADD, you are utterly hopeless. I have a suspicion that you are a professor at Duke University because you have the same reasoning capabilities. Even after the Duke “rape” case was proved to be a complete fraud perpetrated by a lying, trashy who*e, the professors couldn’t admit that they had been suckered by their own idiotic liberal fantasies of crushing oppression in every corner of society. Instead, they believed that the university’s complicity in attempts to ruin the lacrosse players lives had been positive because it brought attention to the problem of violence against poor, minority women perpetrated by rich, privileged, white men. So, the whole cluster was worthwhile because it brought needed attention to violence in our society that never actually occurs in our society.
However, at least the Duke professors had a false accuser to rely on. But you don’t even need that to cast bigoted suspicion over self-identified Christians as hateful monsters who are on the verge of snapping into violent, bloody carnage against gays at any moment. Good for you, ADD. What would the world do without people like you “bringing needed attention” to the “problem” of violence committed by Christians (without a thing to base it on except your own pathetic, paranoid fantasies).
@26 Oh, don’t be tiresome. I frankly don’t give a fuck what he’s said. I don’t especially care for Dean. I’ve always liked Steele, but am a bit surprised by his recent comments.
Peter H. is not nearly as clever as he thinks he is and I really enjoy pointing calling him on some of his idiotic statements.
#25 – Back at you Miss Thang. Please answer both my and LW’s question.
Regards,
Peter H.
I replied earlier, but it has yet to appear so here goes again.
@26 Don’t be so tiresome. I’m guessing he must have reversed himself somewhere along the way or the two of you would not be baiting me. Since I’m not a democrat, I frankly don’t give a hoot what he said. I’ve always liked Steele and am somewhat surprised at his recent rhetoric. It does not sound like him.
Peter, you’re not as clever as you think you are and I take some measure of delight in calling you on it.
#28 – If that’s the case, how do you explain the fact that you lied in your first response when you were trying to back up what you claimed was Howard Dean’s views on civil unions as DNC chair? You have basically admitted that you don’t know and/or don’t care! All you did was regurgitate an old piece of legislation that he signed.
However, I can remind you of the racist remark that Dean uttered during the 2008 campaign where he said that the only blacks at a RNC convention would be the hired help. Nobody excoriated him for a blatant lie or for engaging in racist politics.
Your method of “calling me out” stinks at best. And I think I have enough bona fides on this blog and elsewhere to bolster my own credentials.
To quote Faye Dunaway as Joan Crawford: “Don’t fcuk with me fella – this ain’t my first time at the rodeo.”
Regards,
Peter H.
Dale, while a really nice guy, who actually supports some Gay civil rights measures, appears to me to be a ‘waiter’. That is, willing to wait for advances.
We disagree. The natural state is to keep everything the way it is. Sometimes agitation (in the form of protests etc.) are necessary to move the agenda forward.
I’d argue that the Prop 8 protests have already accomplished the following:
1) Completely demobilized the Mormon church from funding anti-Gay causes.
2) Provided notice to the mainstream Gay groups that they will be passed by if they don’t get off their rear ends, stop hosting dinners, and start fighting for change
3) Provided notice to the Democrats that if they won’t move on our issues, there will be no end to the ugliness. They can’t call Barney Frank and the HRC to sign off on delays to DADT repeal etc. They can try, but its not going to be effective.
Due to real anti-Gay hatred by many Conservatives (not all, but MANY – ask if you want names and I’ll name them.), any time any Gay public policy issue is forced up to the agenda, it will engender controversy. I don’t see any reason to wait for the controversy.
Tom, what planet do you live on? The Prop 8 protests have done none of what you claim. They have:
1) Made gays look like haters, driving away sympathetic straights.
1a) Thus doing nothing to de-mobilize the Mormon Church or any others from anything.
2) Provided notice to the mainstream gay groups that results don’t matter to their gay and lesbian base, only theatrics matter, provided the theatrics are directed against the right Christian (or Mormon) target;
3) Provided notice to Democrats that they don’t have to move on gay issues because, again, gays and lesbians will never hold them responsible for anything.
I say bring on the controversy. I really don’t care about the will of the people. The “will of the people” gave us Obama. The will of the people should have no bearing whatsoever in this case.
You will not give us gay marriage, so we will take it. And God help anyone who stands in our way.
Attmay,
That sounds like a threat.