"We are called to join the fast that our homosexual brothers and sisters in Christ have had to observe all their lives," said the Rev. Robert Hirschfeld, rector of Grace Episcopal Church.
Stupid begets stupid, I guess. For I don't see how reverse discrimination against traditional couples who want to marry (which is what this is, though we don't know Rev. Hirschfeld's orientation) will help end discrimination against gays.
What'll they do next, ban straights like Elvis Stojko from figure-skating to teach us all a lesson?
6 comments:
Well, here it definetely comes at a cost if you are a straight couple and you want to get married at this church.
And if you want to call it a different name than "discrimination", that's fine by me. I still don't think "it", whatever you call "it", is a good or healthy or useful thing.
Also, in what sense are gays currently "at the bottom" of any mountains? Socio-economically, they seem to be doing pretty well.
So when something is denied to everyone, you feel that your population bracket specifically is being discriminated against? Intersting. And idiotic.
This is a pretty logical protest. If everyone can know what it feels like to be turned away at the church door when they want nothing but to commit themselves to another individual, then we will have a better sense of what same-sex folk need to put up with. It's just that simple.
Calm down BigCityLib... no need to panic there will be plenty of pastors, etc, to perform opposite sex wedding! haha
Everyone, anon?
No, something that has been denied to same sex couples is now being denied to straight couples. Who else is being denied?
You then write:
"If everyone can know what it feels like to be turned away at the church door when they want nothing but to commit themselves to another individual, then we will have a better sense of what same-sex folk need to put up with. It's just that simple."
Arsenio Hall once famously remarked during the time of the L.A. riots that it was wrong for blacks to go around beating up white folk just to show them what it was like. Same applies in this case.
Hey Big City,
I actually tend to agree with you on the basis of this - and I say this as a gay man who was just thrilled he was finally able to marry my partner of over a dozen years. I don't think it's good to deny the joy I feel about that to anyone.
However, I do have two comments:
First, only someone who has never experienced it could say something as callous as "in what sense are gays currently "at the bottom" of any mountains? Socio-economically, they seem to be doing pretty well."
Do you realize just how all-encompassing and broad that off-the-cuff remark is. How is that any different than saying "blacks are doing pretty well" or "Jews all own businesses" or "women get all the breaks in family court." I am an individual - not an interchangeable representation of anybody's "socio-economic" class. And I am happento be an individual who served in the military in silence and until very recently could not benefit from the fruits of my labor in contributing to programs that help protecting my family and their future. That has changed - thank goodness (and the Liberal Party, and good Canadians across the country). But it doesn't change my life experiences, which were very painful. So it is offensive to hear those experiences so callously regarded or dismissed by anyone.
No great angst - I read your column often and enjoy your observations - and see that you offer a lot of good. I'm not a saint either. I just wanted to point it out so you'd be aware of the pain your words can unintentionally cause.
My second comment is just that this is a response from within a church. That makes it somewhat different in how I respond to it because it is "their" issue. I could chew myself up over how any given church treats homosexuals, but at the end of the day it's not my "club" so what they do - or how they respond - internally (key word) is of little importance to me. Outside the chuch, I care VERY much - and fear quite a bit. But within their walls they have their own society. So I don't think I'm in a position to understand - much less judge - what they consider appropriate in terms of action - or reaction.
Apparently this preacher - and some others, and some congregants - feel this is an appropriate protest of the spirit. Its up to them as a church to determine if that's appropriate or not. I simply don't know their "language" when it comes to disagreements on spiritual matters.
Yes, polly, there is reverse discrimination. And it is just as wrong as the original discrimination. But what is worse, is that it is inflicted on those who usually had no part in the original discrimination. So it just perpetuates stereotypes and hatred of other groups. It's stupid and should be eliminated in all it's forms masquerading as 'affirmative action'.
Post a Comment