![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On Principle
Sep. 15th, 2009 12:59 pm'Zine editor rejects ad calling for LGBQT submissions.
And what I really want to say is "He said it well."
I am not outraged. I am ... actually ... heartened. Yes, it would be nice if everyone agreed with me about everything. Yes, this is a subject near and dear to my bisexual polyamorous heart. But people are going to disagree with me, and when they do, this is how I want them to do it.
I don't know how to explain it properly. Yes, there are things that I can't imagine arguing in favor of without being offensive, no matter how polite or gentle the argument is. Making a serious and heartfelt plea for the legalization of slavery, or to give employers the right to kill their employees, or any number of ridiculous and some less ridiculous things, would alienate me from the arguer.*
But what the editor wrote is nothing like that extreme. Not just because of the way he said it, but because of the means by which he is acting on his conviction -- which is not a call for violent action or legal reform, but a simple "I won't promote or use space on my site to promote something I believe is wrong". I can respect that, just as I could respect, say, a Muslim site if it refused to display ads for a group promoting Christianity, or atheism.
I believe that polyamory, homosexuality, and biseuality are beautiful things, just as heterosexuality is a beautiful thing. I believe that gay marriage is right and proper, just as straight marriage is right and proper. Nothing anyone says to me at this point in my life is going to change my mind on that. I believe the world is moving towards a time when this will be the commonly-accepted view, when to argue otherwise will be as outdated as arguing in favor of slavery or against women's rights is today.
But even with those convictions, I don't have a problem with the debate, with people who have the opposite conviction and feel the need to take a stand on their principles.
Does that make any sense at all?
* You don't need to take that as a challenge,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
terrycloth. I'm just sayin'.
And what I really want to say is "He said it well."
I am not outraged. I am ... actually ... heartened. Yes, it would be nice if everyone agreed with me about everything. Yes, this is a subject near and dear to my bisexual polyamorous heart. But people are going to disagree with me, and when they do, this is how I want them to do it.
I don't know how to explain it properly. Yes, there are things that I can't imagine arguing in favor of without being offensive, no matter how polite or gentle the argument is. Making a serious and heartfelt plea for the legalization of slavery, or to give employers the right to kill their employees, or any number of ridiculous and some less ridiculous things, would alienate me from the arguer.*
But what the editor wrote is nothing like that extreme. Not just because of the way he said it, but because of the means by which he is acting on his conviction -- which is not a call for violent action or legal reform, but a simple "I won't promote or use space on my site to promote something I believe is wrong". I can respect that, just as I could respect, say, a Muslim site if it refused to display ads for a group promoting Christianity, or atheism.
I believe that polyamory, homosexuality, and biseuality are beautiful things, just as heterosexuality is a beautiful thing. I believe that gay marriage is right and proper, just as straight marriage is right and proper. Nothing anyone says to me at this point in my life is going to change my mind on that. I believe the world is moving towards a time when this will be the commonly-accepted view, when to argue otherwise will be as outdated as arguing in favor of slavery or against women's rights is today.
But even with those convictions, I don't have a problem with the debate, with people who have the opposite conviction and feel the need to take a stand on their principles.
Does that make any sense at all?
* You don't need to take that as a challenge,
terrycloth. I'm just sayin'.
