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.

 

Disagree?

 

Fantastic.

 

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.

 

Hater.

 

Idiot.

Homophobe.

 

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.

 

Tolerance.