Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Late to the party

I was just at the dry cleaners going over some recent posts and I noticed that I missed some comments.  I know Leila has invited me to discuss personal matter with her over email and I might get there at some point but because this whole discussion started over the internets, I'd like to keep the discourse here.

I don't believe I personally attacked Leila.  The language I used to discuss her writings or the spirit of her blog could be considered snarky but I maintain that I did not attack her personally.  Given some of the comments on my blog, a few people thought I was wrong in wondering why she frequented infertile blogs.  I did not mean to question her relationship with anyone else.  I love it when bloggers get along. 

However, I write to follow an argument or support/oppose others' opinions and I disagreed with hers.  For my own edification, this is the chain of events:
  1. California's Proposition 8 is defended in front of the US Supreme Court.
  2. I discover the word "infertile" is uttered in the court room.  I'm intrigued.
  3. I wander over to Leila's blog and find she posted an interview in USA Today with the Archbishop of San Francisco where he defends the Church's argument that procreation is the whole reason for marriage.  As someone who has not procreated but is married, I'm offended.
  4. So, because I'm offended, I write a letter to the Archbishop where I argue my position on infertility in the gay marriage debate and post the letter on my blog.
  5. Concurrently, I'm offended that Leila writes on her blog in reference to the interview with Cordileone, "How I wish I had the eloquence and intelligence of this kind and thoughtful man of God."
  6. Because I don't think what he had to say was all that eloquent or intelligent and because it was offensive to infertiles/the childless, I'm upset that Leila (a supposed friend to the infertiles) offers no contrast or further insight to what the Archbishop said.

Further, in her comments in that post (and of course, feel free to correct me) Leila was the first person to invoke that infertility was caused by the Fall.  I see no connection whatsoever between the "gays can't get married because they can't procreate" argument and "Hey, infertiles, the Fall is the reason for your circumstance."

To me, the Fall comments were unnecessarily hurtful.  It's sort of death by a thousand cuts.  What else do fertiles have to offer me and others like me?
For those who have kept with me for a while, you'd notice that I'm happy to... well, I feel it's necessary as a thinking human being to challenge and debate.  You'll never see me post something about the Church and say that, "I have no words" or "This cardinal is just right on."  First, I always have the words.  And my blog is not a forum to repeat what the Church teaches.

I've said this many, many times but I'll say it again.  If you have not walked in my shoes, I don't think you have the right to say anything about infertility other than, "I'm sorry."  Everything else is pouring salt on the wound. 


  1. I guess my dh and I could argue that our marriage has more purpose than the fact we can't procreate....why isn't God's will mentioned? I, too, am a little taken back and hurt by the Archbishop's comment about the purpose of marriage.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. My husband was logged in- ack. Lost my comment. Here goes again. Thank you for writing that letter. It's so important for the laity to communicate with our priests and bishops. I'm sure it was never his intent to marginalize an already marginalized population. Now he knows. If your words are taken to heart, you've made his future arguments that much stronger and closer to the heart of the matter. Talk about late to the party. It took me a few days to read these posts and Yowzers!, you have a hot topic on your hand! God Bless!

  4. You might want to read the following: The Infertility Argument for Same-Sex Marriage.

    As I mentioned on the previous thread, these kind of arguments advanced by proponents of same-sex marriage are the reason the people like the article's author respond to them.

    Made for Another World - it seems you did misunderstand the archbishop's comments, because that's not what he said. He said, "marriage seeks to create a total community of love, a "one flesh" union of mind, heart and body that includes a willingness to care for any children their bodily union makes together."

    Includes =/= "totally encompasses without any exception" or "has the sole and only purpose of."