Several captivating and intrinsically linked discussions are taking place over at AmbivaBlog.  Like moths circling a flame, these conversations began in different places but eventually wound up interconnected and complementary.  The general theme has been religion (usually Catholicism), gay marriage (and law in more general terms), atheism, and politics.

I at first felt completely engaged with the civil discourse irrespective of those opinions which I found distasteful or inappropriate.  (For example, the use of religious contexts to define laws.)

But then something happened.  I found myself increasingly defensive.  My own emotionally vested interest in the whole of the topic became less reasoned and more aggressive.

How did this happen?

After rereading the various threads, it occurred to me I had suffered through a series of shifty, underhanded, vile insults seeking to debase persons like me.  Much of it came in the disguise of highbrow treatises that failed to cloak the authors’ inherent revulsion and disgust.  While skipping over it at first, I eventually took the bait.

You see, in debates such as this, one cannot help but accept that views will be expressed that seem undesirable, if not downright vicious.  The issue came not from the presence of a philosophical deliberation that proffered the same tired rhetoric that often oozes out of this subject (e.g., picking and choosing from the bible, using religion as a means to control the state and people’s rights, being referred to as deviant, and so on).  It instead rose up from the duplicitous, guileful references being made about gays.

Having made clear my own homosexuality from the beginning to ensure my perspectives were understood, I then sat and read page after page of people comparing those like me with murderers, gluttons, cannibals, and all manner of evil and aberrant behavior.

It was as though I was sitting at a table with a group of people who were talking about me in the third person… and not saying very nice things while they were at it.

This is by no means a reflection on Annie, by the way, as she’s always a gracious host who welcomes engaging dialogue from all points of view.  She has spent a great deal of time in the discussion challenging many of the tired preconceptions and assumptions offered by many.

This is, however, a poor reflection on those who stand and declare their truths about homosexuality with slurs, backhanded innuendo, and analogies linking it to unsavory, hurtful actions.  It all comes down to this: in order for the majority to feel better about subjugating a minority, it begins and ends with dehumanizing the target.  Once those you hate are no longer thought of as equal to you, brutalizing them with words, the law, and even baseball bats becomes a much simpler task.

So it is with equal shares of regret and relief that I have decided to forgo participation in or perusal of what originally was a fascinating and charismatic confab.  Misrepresentations, misinterpretations, misinformation, misbehavior, and a litany of other misdemeanors can be tolerated; on the other hand, direct and indirect abuse can not.

Do not assume this to be an indication of oversensitivity on my part.  I assure you I can handle opposition regardless of its vehemence, but that does not mean I should accept or condone by way of civility the kind of linguistic cruelty taking place.  If the topic had been women’s equality or miscegenation, no one would stand for the kinds of class-based rudeness that have become the mantra of the anti-gay marriage crowd, and no better example of this truth can be found at present than in the content spewing from this intellectual lynch mob.  So long as they adulterate the humanity of gays, it appears no one sees it on quite the same level.

Finally, let me add this: the majority of this ignoble conduct comes from none other than the high standards of Christianity.  Like when it supported slavery and anti-miscegenation, hate can be a holy cause so long as those being despised are seen as less than real people.