Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Mud throwing opponents diminish their own effectiveness

This is something that is way overdue.


It's is an invitation to the legions of naysayers who hate my column.


Here's the invite: hate my opinions, but not me.


This is  what I mean.


I have taken a stand against abortion and gay marriage.


I believe these things are helping to  disintegrate the moral fiber of America.


There are reasons for this approach.


I believe a child exists fully human at the moment of conception.


Deserving full constituitonal protection as any other citizen. 


Marriage by definition is a union of one man and one woman.


This union has served as the foundation of families for generations.


The Holy Family depicted in the bible is our shining example.


I actually believe any other definition causes confusion for youngsters awkwardly growing into the sexual identity God intended through his assignment of gender.






I welcome and encourage debate.


Maybe I'm wrong about the Bible stuff.

Maybe I'm wrong about the definition of fully human.


I'm pretty sure I'm on target about such matters.


But let's dialogue regarding these issues because our free-speech society gives us that opportunity.


I would love to have a talk with my detractors.


But let's skip the name-calling.


You've got some good arguments, I'm sure.


A recent letter to the News-Herald didn't attack my logic, it attacked me.


At least the writer signed her name.


That brave literary giant named Anonymous fills the News-Herald blogosphere with the following epithets directed at me.







Look, I hope I'm none of those things.


But you can do better than that.


You can tear apart my reasoning and my research.


In the film  " The American President",  Andrew Shepherd, played by Michael Douglass, makes the following speech:



    You want free speech? Let's see you       acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.


I guess what I'm saying is that if you disagree with my writing, attack its content.


I am not without flaw when I set pen to paper.


And I can survive the personal attacks. 


My prior  life in politics means I'm used to that kind of response.


It's just that we isolate  ourselves from each other even more when we detour from the subject matter by resorting to invectives.


I like all of you who disagree with me because you are at least engaged in the debate.


Apathy is a most egregious crime.


So please, vigorously reject my propositions.


Vehemently spit on my rationale.


But the figurative spittle I wipe off my personal countenance does nothing to advance your viewpoint.


It diminishes it.


You see, there's something that you are seeking that you refuse to embrace  when it comes to those whose opinions vary from your own.






  1. I enjoy the column in the News-Herald because it gets me to think and make my own evaluations. Everyone has their own perspective- thanks for taking the time to share your ideas and experiences.

    Somehow this comment got listed under another blog of yours- different date so I placed it here where I intended.

    1. Dear Erun: Thanks for the remarks. Sometimes the greatest benefit of a column is not its perspective but the healthy debate it stirs up. I'm not trying to win a popularity contest but if I provoke thought I've made a mark. Keep those cards and letters and comments coming! Dave Lynch

  2. I look forward to your weekly column. That said as much as I respect your views I still see a difference in our thinking.
    First you tell me the French haven't been on the right side of anything for over two-hundred and fifty years and now if the agree with you they seem to have found the light? I'll stick with your orginal odds.
    Abortion, I agree more than disagree yet ask a married couple if the child that has been conceived during rape she by law must carry to birth? Wife, mother, sister, daughter I just don't feel the way you do about this.
    Next if these laws pass we will see serial rapist who will seem empowered by this law.
    I guess abortion has always been with us yet if someone want's to make it safe that becomes a sin?
    Birth control? The hypocrisy of fellow Catholics. Where are the children? Families of more than three children are the norm. What does anyone believe this is by divine intervention? How many abortions has birth control prevented?
    Mr. Lynch I don't need another Pastor. Please no more of the holier than I, Please. PWHP

    1. Dear Anonymous: I usually don't respond to comments from the unidentified. Your statements are pretty sound although I don't believe in imposing the birth control concept on others. The abortion issue involves a person's right to live and that is the reson for my position. As for the French, it is indeed complicated. I just thought it helped contrast with the malaise found in the
      White House. Don't be afraid to sign your name. You have much to offer. Dave Lynch

  3. Dear Mr. Lynch:

    Our country was founded on the freedom of religion. You are more than welcome to believe anything you want, as am I. But to then use your religious views to deny someone basic civil rights and equal treatment under the law is bigoted and homophobic. Please tell me how it isn't? And for someone who complains that he is being attacked personally, you do a lot of attacking other people personally yourself. Saying that, as a gay man, I do not deserve the right to legally marry the man I love is a personal attack on me because you are saying that I am not as equal under the law as you are. That's a personal attack. If you want to live your live by the "rules" of the Bible, then please condemn the people who are REALLY destroying the sanctity of marriage (the heterosexual couples who cheat on each other). Using your religious beliefs, regardless of how hypocritical you are in voicing them, to legally deny a group of individuals their civil rights is against everything our founding fathers believed in. If I went around preaching that Christian couples shouldn't be able to get legally married because it goes against my religious belief, that would make me just as bigoted as you are. The next time you sit down to a meal of shrimp, crab, oysters, or any other shell fish, which is specifically prohibited in the Bible, please think about how hypocritical you are being and quit making yourself the victim. As a white, straight man in American, you are FAR from being a victim.

    1. Dear Adam: Thank you for the thoughtful critique.You are right in that I am not victim. I was merely trying to focus the discussion on the issues as opposed to the anger at the person. I do not object to the civil union concept independent of the definition of the term marriage so that you can enjoy the legal benefits. You are just as important as I am and as anyone else is. Continue to call me out if I launch personal attacks as I try to be vigilant to remain issue focused. Those that cheat in marriage are as you say really destroying the sanctity of the sacrament. I can tell that you are a good sincere person.Please feel free to call my office at 440-278-4246. I'd enjoy continuing the debate over coffee or lunch. Respectfully, Dave lynch

  4. David, I respect your views now you should respect others. I just don't see very much tolerance in your views. I am not Gay I wish as my savior believed to learn that if people do good works here and bring happiness to the table they are welcome to his flock. I never believed Gays made the choice to be Gay anymore than I woke up one day and decided to be straight. Maybe it's another one of God's tests?
    Now on abortion. There is no way I could make a woman carry a child conceived in a rape. I cannot in good conscience make a mother, sister, daughter, even a stranger. This should be left up to the woman not the government. Sorry if I pay for my views in the afterlife for this sin. I am PWHP
    I look forward to your column. That said Marianne from Kirtland sort of took you to the woodshed.
    My name PWHP Angelo Cimaglio. I have my own blog.

    google whats happening painesville.
    You think you catch it?

  5. My first comment is directed toward your statement that reads "CNN now stands for something else." I hope this is not a recent revelation to you. CNN is a liberally-biased program and has always been.
    My second comment is that all organized religion that falls under the umbrella of Christianity is under attack.CNN used this man as an opportunity to do that.It's what they do.
    My last comment is a married priest is not in conflict with God's law. It is in conflict with Catholicism.

  6. Mr. Lynch

    I have read a few of your recent opinions aand I personally am bewildered that some of them are published due to the strong anti-gay rheotric contained within many. Like yourself, I am an attorney who is a strong supporter of both the freedom of religion and freedom of speech. However, I do not believe that those two tenants of our democracy should be used to bully others and be utilized to deny fellow citizens of basic rights. In your February 6, 2013, article entitled "Mud Throwing Opponents Diminish Their Own Effectiveness,” you plead for tolerance, and encourage your detractors to "attack the content" of your message. I find it funny that you plead for tolerance despite being so intolerant yourself. I believe that your consisent attacks on gays are the only intolerance displayed in any of your articles or the comments attached.

    Gay couples and straight couples actually have a lot in common. Yes, we might have two walk-in closets instead of one, and our dvr’s might be at capacity thanks to Bravo programs rather than Sports Center, but we actually want the same things as opposite-sex couples when we decide to marry a partner. We want our love and commitment to one another to be broadcast to the world around us. We seek only validation from our family and friends and, just as importantly, we seek protection and equal treatment from our government. Gay couples are neither demanding to be married in a religious institution nor are they demanding that their union be recognized under the Bible.

    You label gay marriage as a threat to “the sanctity of marriage,” or as you so eloquently put it, an agent that "disintegrates the moral fiber of America." You wholly ignore the fact that more than 50% of "Straight marriages" currently end in divorce. You also ignore the fact that gays are not seeking to end religion or the Bible, but to end the discrimination against them and obtain equal protection under the law. Did you know, due to the Defense of Marriage Act and other laws prohibiting gay marriage, that straight couples have over 1,000 rights and protections that gay couples do not. Do you really want to prevent a gay man from visiting his partner of 50 years in the hospital and his ability to make life decisions about his partner? Do you hope to preclude that grieving man from collecting Social Security benefits and for that man to suffer greater monetary hardships in the form of estate taxes?

    I am bewildered, as a fellow attorney, that your overlook the Constitution and point to the Bible when you reason that gay marriage should not be legalized. The 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause should strike down California's ban, just as the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause should force Ohio to recognized a gay couple married in New York. Quoting Levitcus or another passage of the Bible does not work, as the Bible holds no standing in the Court of Law in this Country.

    Lastly, I have a strong assumption that part of the reason you hold such anti-gay views is because, like many before yo who've changed their stances on gay rights, you probably have never met a gay person or gay couple. I am in a committed relationship with a man. A man who I love, and hope, if our relationship continues to flourish, to marry. Unlike her, I happen to be a man. I invite you to talk with me, to better understand gays and gay couples. Maybe I can change your mind, maybe not. But what I hope is that after meeting a gay person, or a gay couple, you can become a little more tolerant in your views. Please give this letter some thought. I am not expecting a Rob Portman change of heart, but what I am expecting is that reflect on your undersanding of what is and is not "tolerant."

    Matthew Brandt
    Columbus, Ohio
    440.5377482 (personal e-mail)