Dear me, such hatred fills my email box

Folks in the ChicagoNow blog community recently discussed how you handle insulting, irrational and personal attacks for something that you have posted. Here's a sample: In my regular Tuesday Chicago Tribune column today, I wrote about the consequences of the Supreme Court adopting the  "equality" argument  in the same-sex debate. My e-mail folder filled with some interesting responses. I haven't used full names, just in case someone was sending out fake, embarrassing messages in their names.

You are a moron!!!!! -- A.S.

 

If, as you theorize in your Tribune column today, social utility trumps equality, then might I suggest the Federal Government implement mandatory euthanasia of grumpy old jerks like yourself.  Social Security and Medicare would stay solvent for a longer period of time, plus, public discourse would be elevated if the type of whiny, curmudgeonly kvetching you try to pass off as "punditry" abruptly disappeared.  Win-win, I say. -- P.M.

 

You really never cease to amaze with the lack of insight and real idiocy of your articles.  Please stop. -- D.B.

 

Dennis – According to your argument, I should not feel so human because people of African ancestry were given the right to vote, and own land, and go to school, and marry - God forbid – Caucasian people. I don’t feel any less human because of that. I don’t feel any less married because people of the same sex are married. I don’t feel any less political because you have these right wing feelings about things. I don’t feel any less religious because of the religion you profess to think is the correct way to believe. These same sex people don’t affect you in any other way than an affront to your arrogant manner. I actually feel sorry for you, for your hatred for people who don’t believe as you do. A major problem in this country is the disrespect you hold for people who are not same thinkers with you. -- T.S.

 

Concerning your article, do you think it is intelligent to let that much stupidity out in one breath? You're argument is old and tired and the institution of marriage was sullied long before DOMA was struck down. Don't see you out their writing about drunken idiots running off to Vegas to get married by Elvis and the soaring divorce rate. Gays want the same rights as guaranteed by the constitution and it takes nothing away from others. Marriage is a legal contract or a spiritual one as well if you so choose.

The GOP will not see the White House in the next election because of their policies of exclusion, sexism, racism and homophobia. Bet you wouldn't have to dig far to find the gays in yours and anyone else's family. Funny how you change your vantage point when you do. You use the same arguments they used when trying to integrate the Army under Truman. If blacks serve with whites then........blah, blah blah. You also forget that some of the most decorated service people have been gay and they are willing to lay their lives down yet they don't share in the rights. -- B.M.
Here are all the posts on the Tribune website following my column. Notice that no one addressed the issue that I raised.  The lesson? Don't let the assholes get you down.
  • Tim Heitman ·  Top Commenter · Chicago, Illinois

    The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Put the queers back in the closet!You know what, Dennis? Despite your fear mongering, we'll survive plural marriage just fine, should it become reality. After all, plural marriages have been around for thousands of years.
    Reply · 7 · Like · Follow Post · 13 hours ago
  • Allan Benson · Follow ·  Top Commenter · Southern Illinois University Carbondale

    "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." ~ Martin Luther King Jr.In a generation marriage equality will be the law of the land and no one will remember what all the fuss was about.
    Reply · 5 · Like · Follow Post · 11 hours ago
  • John Petergal ·  Top Commenter · Illinois Institute of Technology

    Mr. Byrne, Please tell me how your marriage or your life will come to irreparable harm if the gay couple next door to you (and there is a couple next door, or two doors down) is allowed to get married? We've heard the arguments you admit are tired, and then go on to make anyway. Polygamy in the United States is widely practiced, while illegal. And in Utah, many law enforcement officials refuse to prosecute its practice, or even practice it themselves.And if your neighbor wants to marry his horse, or his car, how is it your business anyway? Are you afraid the horse will ask for relief from the estate tax?Remember your conservative mantra: smaller government?
    Reply · 4 · Like · Follow Post · 8 hours ago
  • Rico Muscatel · Follow ·  Top Commenter · Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

    Government should keep its nose out of the bedroom. They really have much more important issues to deal with.
    Reply · 2 · Like · Follow Post · 12 hours ago
  • Frank Cardinalli ·  Top Commenter · San Francisco State University

    Dennis Bryne: What in the hell is your problem? Marriage is open in most states EXCLUSIVELY to.
    heterosexuals. The bans against polygamy are INCLUSIVE to both heterosexual people and homosexual.
    people alike. Capisce? What homosexual people want is to have the same RIGHTS as other people. We
    are looking for INCLUSION, not to create the kinds of red herrings you are using to confuse this basic.
    and fundamental demand. Americas idiotic 40 culture war is coming rapidly to an end from this point forward.
    so get lost. You insult my intelligence.
  • Robert H. Fredian ·  Top Commenter · Loyola University Chicago

    Writing columns from his over-stimulated (no pun intended) imagination is obviously therapeutic for poor ol' Dennis.
  • Chuck Whitted ·  Top Commenter

    If you don't want Chester to marry a sheep then you are a beastiphobe bigot! You deserve to be attacked, bullied, and ridiculed!
    Order my new historical novel, Madness: The War of 1812, from Amazon

Comments

Leave a comment
  • fb_avatar

    Dear Dennis, We are both heterosexual males and share most beliefs, but, as I have told you before, you are way to emotional about this issue and will be on the wrong side of history. Like it or not, we are all children of God and all are free, with reasonable restraint to love whomever we choose. Freedom, in this instance, includes shared property rights and equal protection under the law. I will tip my hat to you for having courage to print these comments, but they are not as far fetched as you would have us believe. To follow one thread, we are in need of laws and living wills by lucid people who do not want to remain alive after they have no life quality; thereby enabling euthanasia once we no longer know who or where we are. This is more than a matter of saving money.

  • Here's the thing. I say this to you as a fellow Chicago Now blogger who comes in peace. You have a way of stating things as innocent opinions, when in fact your words attack other peoples' lifestyles and choices. If you were offering an opinion on, say, whether walnuts are tasty or bitter or even whether Paula Deen has taken enough, that would be an opinion you're entitled to.

    The problem is you judge other peoples' lives and then have the audacity (sorry) to act like a victim. Have you ever thought about how your words feel to others? Just a suggestion.

  • I don't agree with your views, but at least I'm not going to be an a-hole about it.

    I like how one of your salty commenters called you "Dennis Bryne" though.

  • Dennis, you attack the decision but you don't address the underlying issue of equality before the law. Instead you adduce a 'sky-is-falling' alarmist argument which is so contrived that it's a joke. Would you feel the same if your son or daughter happened to be gay?

    Kennedy's use of 'animus' might have been a bit much, but then again think of how the gays have been treated over the course of time and in many instances still are.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Wait a minute, folks. I'm going after the logic of the "equality" argument. I see that it is flawed because it can be applied beyond 2 people marriages, which I think is too broadly. As I said, this dilutes the meaning of marriage to the point of uselessness. I wish that someone would take up the point of the equity argument instead of suggesting that it has no merit because I have offended someone. Go back and review the comments above and see if you can find rational argumentation on this point.

  • The highly respected Economist asks the same question in "And now on to polygamy." http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/04/gay-marriage

  • "Slate" took it seriously enough to do a story raising the prospect:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/04/legalize_polygamy_marriage_equality_for_all.html

  • Washington Post: Six parents and two kids:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/video/thefold/six-parents-two-kids-let-them-explain/2013/06/20/b8d3f7a6-d9df-11e2-9df4-895344c13c30_video.html

Leave a comment

  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Advertisement:
  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Like me on Facebook

  • google-site-verification: googlefdc32e3d5108044f.html
  • Meet The Blogger

    Dennis Byrne

    Chicago Tribune contributing op-ed columnist and author of forthcoming historical novel, "Madness: The War of 1812." Reporter, editor and columnist for Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Daily News. Freelance writer and editor.

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Categories

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

  • Monthly Archives

  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Advertisement:
  • Fresh Chicago News