An intellectual duel with the unarmed

I sometimes comment on the Facebook page of one of my local stations. They do a "Question of the Day" for their newscast, and although many of the questions are about local issues, sometimes they'll choose a topic that is significant nationwide. The other day, the question was whether gay couples should have the same rights as straight couples.

I think most of you know how I feel about that. Of course, they should, and I said so. Despite being in a conservative Midwestern area, I was pleasantly surprised to see that the majority of people who commented agreed. There were a few notable exceptions, though, and all of those who felt that way and went into detail stated no, because God says it's wrong.

Well, that's just not a legitimate reason in my book. Not when it comes to legalities. I've written here in the past how marriage is a civic institution, not a religious one. A couple can get married in a church, by a minister, but that marriage is not valid unless they have a license from the state. I'm not sure where we got off track and began thinking that marriage is strictly a religious institution. Besides, I pointed out, we are not a theocracy that is governed by any religion or set of religious beliefs. We do not and must not base our policies upon religion.

I was reasonable. You all have seen how I lay out my arguments here concerning politics or policy. When I offer my personal opinions on people or politicians, I definitely get a little more critical in my words (okay, sometimes a lot), but if I'm arguing a position on policy, I try to do my research and do my best to leave emotion out of it. I made no personal attacks on the thread—that just isn't my style. Well, one particular commenter there seems to have taken quite a disliking to me, which became evident in a thread several weeks ago. He decided to go after me (also my friend Doug, and a few others) and proceeded to call me a hypocrite, a liar, a phony, and hysterically delusional.

He wrote that I misused the words "civic institution," and said that I obviously meant "civil institution," and for a "supposed writer," that wasn't very good. When I provided the definitions for both "civic" and "institution," he wrote, sure, when you combine them into one word, it "changes the meaning." What? hahaha He took the time to visit me here at my blog, said that I seemed rather "trashy," said he was sure that my "3 readers" really enjoy what I have to write, and quoted me from my previous entry about Heidi Montag and her plastic surgeries, saying that for all my writing of equality for all, apparently I have no problem with ridiculing someone if I disagree with their lifestyle. I will cop to ridiculing stupidity and foolish behavior, that's true. But this is my personal blog, and my opinions here are just that: my opinions. They had no bearing on the argument at hand, which was concerning equal rights for gays.

He stated that 83% of Americans consider themselves Christians, so like it or not it's already done HIS WAY! I said thanks for singing "My Way," Frank Sinatra, and pointed out that recent polls indicate a drop in those who consider themselves Christians, to 78.5%. He mentioned that we govern based on God and the Constitution, and I asked him where he found any mention of God and/or Jesus in the Constitution. He responded with a paragraph that was taken directly from a website I found when I did a quick search, and I responded with a link to it saying that if he's going to cut and paste, it's best to include the link rather than pass such writing off as your own.

He wrote that I didn't seem to understand basic government, and that maybe in the "50 years" since I've been out of college, I've forgotten.

He said that he would pray for me (and others), and he hoped that I would find my way, but if not, he hopes that I enjoy sweltering heat! This was all becoming tiresome by now, and I said that I don't want or need his prayers, and that when it comes to evangelizing, he's failed miserably. You don't bring people over to your side with condescension, insults, and threats of eternal damnation in the fiery Pits of Hell™. Based on his behavior, why on earth would I ever want to be associated with his religion? His rudimentary argument, when countered with logic and facts, quickly descended into juvenile insults and pettiness. I pointed out that people like him are exactly why I moved away from religion.

On a new thread today, he actually mentioned me and my friend Doug by name, wondering what we'd have to say about the new topic. He also dug up something I'd written in November 2009 (I don't know if it was on my blog or in a comment) in which I said that I can't understand why Sarah Palin or anyone would find it desirable to be "purposefully retarded," and he wrote that I was making fun of the mentally handicapped. No...I was making fun of Sarah Palin, although I suppose the phrase "mentally handicapped" would also apply in her case! I'm seriously going to keep my eyes peeled for this guy, because he seems to have a rather unhealthy obsession with anyone who dares to question his superiority and authority. I never became insulting or abusive with him—again, not my style—but he apparently has a real problem with me. Since he lives in my area, that concerns me.

Perhaps he'll come back and visit my blog again. I invited him to, and welcomed his comments here. I said that some of my readers would probably enjoy them.

I know I would.