Seen on Facebook

[Elijah_Baley]

So a friend’s status showed up on my news feed a little while ago.

So let me get this straight… Larry King is on his 8th divorce, Elizabeth Taylor is possibly getting married for a 9th time, Britney Spears had a 55 hour marriage, Jesse James and Tiger Woods, while married, were having sex with EVERYONE; yet same-sex marriage is going to destroy the institution of marriage? Really? Repost to your page if you agree - Proud to support equal rights for ALL

My reaction: “Hoo-ray for straw men!” Unfortunately, that’s exactly what I wrote as a comment. Someone replies that I’m being condescending. I snap back that there’s already plenty of condescension in the status.

(I get angry. I hate that I get angry …)

So it all goes downhill from there. One guy offers to set up a thread on his Facebook, and I oblige him. Something says, though, that I shouldn’t just let it slide. So I write:

In the future, please examine the issue more critically with an ear to what the other side is actually saying.

Let me tell you this. Its my page. My opinion is MORE than allowed to be on it. You don’t like it, don’t read it. I don’t frankly give a rip if you agree.

Truth is not a perspective, it is objective, and it would be in poor character for anyone to sit idly by when truth gets distorted. It isn’t about me being offended or us agreeing but about you being ill-informed.

For the record, if you don’t like the side of me that happens to have liberal tendencies, then don’t follow my posts. Assume that at 28, I have heard both sides of the arguement and have chosen mine accordingly. I frankly resent the implication that I don’t have an open mind. As far as I can tell, only one of us has a habit of getting inflamed when someone disagrees. This isn’t a matter of truth. My opinion on the subject is such, I believe that the institution of marriage is now a joke. For people to assume allowing same sex couples will somehow make this worse, is literally just plain silly. For you to idly cast you opinion and look down your nose at something that simply does not effect you is pompus at best. This topic is closed. Consider yourself the killer of my mirth for the day. Hooray you.

What would have been the right way to handle this confused perspective? Where should I have stopped?

 

[underacloud]

When you call someone “ill-informed” on their own page, you’ve probably crossed a line. I’m not surprised that they found your post condescending and pompus. You don’t have to be ill-informed to have a different perspective. The secular notion of marriage is so far removed from the Catholic notion of marriage now that I can certainly understand people holding the perspective that this person has. That’s not to say that I agree with it, but that I understand it. And understanding, or trying to understand, the other person’s perspective is fundamental to a fruitful discussion, rather than ill-mannered mud-slinging.

 

[vera_dicere]

I’ve seen that a few times on friends’ statuses, I just replied with “all that proves is plenty of hetrosexuals dont’ understand the sanctity of marriage - oh, and famous people shouldn’t get married”.

You have to be really careful with FB and comments, while my friends knwo my opinions, a lot of their friends that I’m not friends with will see said comments and may make sour comments to the original friend.

Its a good way to learn tact in apologetics.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

When you call someone “ill-informed” on their own page, you’ve probably crossed a line. I’m not surprised that they found your post condescending and pompus. You don’t have to be ill-informed to have a different perspective. The secular notion of marriage is so far removed from the Catholic notion of marriage now that I can certainly understand people holding the perspective that this person has. That’s not to say that I agree with it, but that I understand it. And understanding, or trying to understand, the other person’s perspective is fundamental to a fruitful discussion, rather than ill-mannered mud-slinging.

That’s a hard chunk of crow, but I’ll swallow. My justification at the time for “ill-informed” was “ill-informed on the opponent’s argument” but I always choose too harsh phrases.

I hate when a legitimate, calm reason is washed over with snarkiness and bigotry, and especially because the biggest bigots in the world tend to use that word as a weapon.

 

[broconsul]

Seeking common ground is a good way to approach things. Also, like you picked up on, getting frustrated is a good sign that there’s a logical fallacy somewhere.

I would have said…

All of those celebrities are definitely destroying marriage. I agree; we should certainly fight to promote fidelity and try to lower the divorce rate.

But I don’t understand how allowing one more twist of marriage is going to help it out at all.

I would understand your argument if Tiger, Larry, et al. were rallying against SSM. But they aren’t. In fact, I bet people who are against SSM disapprove equally of all those divorces, infidelities, and otherwise disrespectful marriages you listed.

If he is informed, let him prove it. Let him show that he truly understands what defenders of traditional marriage stand for. He needs to understand that we also disapprove of divorce and infidelity; that it’s not homophobia at work. Make yourself impossible to disagree with, while still maintaining your principles and focus.

If you take the high ground, readers will pick up on it. They will figure out who’s right.

 

[hxcCatholic413]

lol I probably would just have deleted him from my friends list

 

[_L]

Ironically, that exact same cliche was posed before me and a few others last night by a supporter of same sex marriage, and I would say that the best way to respond is to try and keep emotions out of it even though it is really hard when you are passionate about things related to morality. When even the slightest phrase resembles something sarcastic or condescending people pounce all over it.

Answering statement with a question is always good in this case a question like

“how do the personal lives and actions of people who happen to have been married affect the actual institution itself?”

after all the institution receives is worth and is defined by what it actually is, and not by the people that partake in marriage and ironically those that try to fight for equal “rights” in marriage and redefine marriage are the ones who try to strip it of its value.

 

[Joe_5859]

Your initial comment “Hoo-ray for straw men!” while perhaps correct in the sense of drawing attention to the deficiencies in using that anecdote as a logical argument is more than a bit sarcastic. Although the tone of his initial FB post sort of invites that type of response, by sinking to that level, it makes reasoned discussion very difficult.

Whenever I am tempted to rashly type a snarky response, I try to slow down and think it through. I think L brings up a good methodology. In rephrasing a response in the form of a question, it can often defuse the tone. Approach the situation as one trying to understand his perspective. Not only will it actually help you to understand where he’s coming from, but it will probably make him more open to listening to your perspective. Thus, the arguments in favor of the Catholic/natural law understanding of marriage can receive a more fair hearing.

As an aside, it seems obvious to me that he does “give a rip” over your comments or he wouldn’t get so worked up over it in his responses.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

18* For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20* Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21* for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23* and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. 29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

Romans 1:18-22 It would appear that homosexuality is the penalty levied on a society that ignores God.

Heterosexuals destroyed marriage with divorce and contraception. Same sex unions are the result of that folly.

One observes that men regret the results of their sins much more than they regret the sins themselves. At the Eighth Station Jesus tells the women of Jerusalem not to weep for what is happening to Him but for their own sins and those of their children which have caused this.

 

[SANxJONERO]

I saw something like that on facebook too, but didn’t bother saying anything to the friend. Some people are just going to think what they want & I’ve already talked about the subject so much.

 

[promethius]

What would have been the right way to handle this confused perspective? Where should I have stopped?

Try not to get too upset about it. In the end, homosexual “marraiges” cannot dispoil the institution of marraige because there is simply no such thing. A marraige is a sacrament between the husband, the wife, and God. Without God’s blessing and rendering of grace, there is no marraige.

What we’re really arguing about is whether or not the state has the right to supplant the religious context of “marraige” with it’s own civil unions. I certainly don’t think so, but even if homosexual “marraiges” were completely legal, I would simply respond: “they have the same state granted rights of any civily licensed couple, but they are NOT married”