Kindred Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Here's the author's follow up response: John Medeiros, Amy Koch gay apology author, answers his criticsBy Kevin Hoffman Tue., Dec. 27 2011 at 7:30 AM Comments (53) Categories: Politics Continued from page 1 As the author of the open letter of apology to Amy Koch that was printed on the City Pages' blog on December 22, I feel as though there are a few things I need to clarify in light of the comments that have been posted. First and foremost, my letter is a piece of satire.* This means that I am using irony to expose the foibles of others.* It is also a piece of sarcasm, which means I am using irony to express my own disdain.* I realize there are those on both sides of the political fence that may not understand this, so let me put it another way: I was clearly not speaking for every single member of the GLBT community when I wrote it.* While it is true that I've received overwhelming support from the GLBT community since the letter was published, the reality is that I simply did not have enough time to gather the consent of every queer person in Minnesota before sending it.* Put another way, satire is important to dialogue. Second, while it appears that my "apology" is a direct attack to undermine Ms. Koch's own public apology, it was not.* In fact, I sent my letter to the City Pages the day before Ms. Koch made her apology; it just happened to be published after hers.* My letter was a response to her hypocritical behavior, not a response to her apology. And third, to those few who have called my letter mean-spirited, I would like to offer a bit of relevant background.* In order to craft my letter, I needed to understand the reasons why others believe same-sex marriage threatens traditional marriage.* In my quest for this knowledge, I consulted three very popular conservative websites.* I even printed out a brochure of "talking points" for why gays and lesbians should not be allowed to marry.* I used the exact same arguments and the exact same language that have been used against the GLBT community since the marriage debate started.* If people find the arguments and the language mean-spirited, I ask them to consider where they originated. Similarly, my letter has also been called (again by a very small few) a kick to someone already down.* If we want to use that image, consider the following. Minnesota law already bans same-sex marriage.* It also bans recognition of such marriages performed in other states.* In this respect, GLBT Minnesotans are already "down."* Add to that an unnecessary Constitutional amendment to codify such discrimination, and you've got the "kick" we've been feeling ever since the amendment bill was passed.* Such an amendment does nothing but add salt to an already unforgivable wound, so if we want to engage in a (thoughtful) dialogue about who's doing the kicking and who's doing the falling, let's start here.* If anything, my letter was an act of self-defense. And finally, speaking of advancing the dialogue, I, personally, think it is beautiful that this letter has gone viral.* Thank you, City Pages, for making these discussions possible.* And thank you, Governor Dayton, for calling on the GOP to abandon the Constitutional amendment. John Medeiros Minneapolis MN http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2011/12/john_medeiros_amy_koch_gay_apology.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 those that shout loudest. Tend to be as morally corrupt as those they are addressing from the soap box?? That does that say about those very vocal and violent occupy wall street types. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 That does that say about those very vocal and violent occupy wall street types. Exactly. I'm sure each and every one of the participants in Occupy Wall Street received large bonuses from companies took federal bail out funds. Your analogies are always so precise, ND. It's remarkable. You should really write SAT questions for a living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Aw, next you're gonna doubt the sincerity of people who claim that gays should be forbidden from marrying, because they can't get pregnant, but who don't have a problem with straight people getting married in their 80s. What wrong with normal people getting married in their 80's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 What wrong with normal people getting married in their 80's? I love when someone misses the point so badly they actually reinforce it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 I love when someone misses the point so badly they actually reinforce it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Who cares if they did attack her? She deserved to be 'attacked'... if that is what you call sending a letter that is pointing out the utterly laughable hypocrisy she exercises by being a worse example of the "sanctity of marriage" than what she fights against.. ( Is there a commandment against gay marriage? I know there's one against adultery...) At what point are people justified in "fighting back" against oppressors? I use the quotations because this is a comical excuse for using the word "attacked". She's getting what we in the real world like to call her "just desserts". She earned this ridicule. And if she's to be attacked, well, maybe those who believe so deeply in the will of God can explain why they aren't attacking her for breaking one of the top ten rules? Seems to me that would be a much more egregious afront to God, considering he spelled it out pretty specifically, right there in the top ten. Personally, I have no respect for an adulterer. Anyone who can do that can't be trusted in any capacity, as far as I'm concerned. There's not a lower POS on the planet than someone who would do that.) At least all the gays did was send a letter apologizing for ruining her moral fabric, and not a whole "shock and awe" campaign. The thinness of some skins is pretty amusing. Poor persecuted persecutor. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Tend to be as morally corrupt as those they are addressing from the soap box??That does that say about those very vocal and violent occupy wall street types. 20% believe in what they are doing and believe the 1% being taxed 30% more would save the country. 80% have taken over the movement for their own messages. Just like every other protest. I think what your trying to get at: If you gave any of those people the 206million megamillion lottery ticket they would drop that movement immediately, and in 'most' you'd be correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam@section118 Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Who cares if they did attack her?She deserved to be 'attacked'... if that is what you call sending a letter that is pointing out the utterly laughable hypocrisy she exercises by being a worse example of the "sanctity of marriage" than what she fights against.. ( Is there a commandment against gay marriage? I know there's one against adultery...) At what point are people justified in "fighting back" against oppressors? I use the quotations because this is a comical excuse for using the word "attacked". She's getting what we in the real world like to call her "just desserts". She earned this ridicule. And if she's to be attacked, well, maybe those who believe so deeply in the will of God can explain why they aren't attacking her for breaking one of the top ten rules? Seems to me that would be a much more egregious afront to God, considering he spelled it out pretty specifically, right there in the top ten. Personally, I have no respect for an adulterer. Anyone who can do that can't be trusted in any capacity, as far as I'm concerned. There's not a lower POS on the planet than someone who would do that.) At least all the gays did was send a letter apologizing for ruining her moral fabric, and not a whole "shock and awe" campaign. The thinness of some skins is pretty amusing. Poor persecuted persecutor. ~Bang You had me up until here. A cheater is worse then a child rapist or murderer? ___________________________________- FWIW, this letter is funny, but I dont agree with sending the letter. That said, freedom of speech, and if you dont like the harsh words dont commit the (IMO stupid) actions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 You had me up until here.A cheater is worse then a child rapist or murderer? ___________________________________- FWIW, this letter is funny, but I dont agree with sending the letter. That said, freedom of speech, and if you dont like the harsh words dont commit the (IMO stupid) actions Some people who kill have a very legitimate reason. If i had to choose between an adulterer and a child rapist, I'm walking out the door because i obviously have screwed something up somewhere to leave such despicable people as my choices. I don't trust any of them, and in my mind, when someone is an adulterer, yes, I view them about the same. Their crimes are different, but their level of low is about equal to me. They're both disgusting despicable pieces of ****, and there's really not any levels to that designation. A POS is a POS is a POS. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam@section118 Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Some people who kill have a very legitimate reason.If i had to choose between an adulterer and a child rapist, I'm walking out the door because i obviously have screwed something up somewhere to leave such despicable people as my choices. I don't trust any of them, and in my mind, when someone is an adulterer, yes, I view them about the same. Their crimes are different, but their level of low is about equal to me. They're both disgusting despicable pieces of ****, and there's really not any levels to that designation. A POS is a POS is a POS. ~Bang Yet I am sure some people who cheat feel they have very legitimate reasons (besides I was <staff edit by rule>) I will just have to agree to disagree with you on your analogy.....and your overall point. I could never cheat, but I do not see it the same way you do. I see it as stupid, immature, and even grossly disrespectful to not only your spouse but also yourself, but not on the same level as a rapist or killer, or even a thief Anyways....sorry for the derailment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.