The Kyle File

Keep the United States United

Affirm that the State of North Carolina is and will continue to be one of these United States of America.

This is a very slightly modified copy and paste of a conversation I had with a friend on Facebook. I have only removed the person's name, replaced my name with "Me" and removed extra comments before mine. I should note that the person in question is supposed to be a professional writer on social media including Facebook, and also does writing for other websites and blogs. I should also note that I was subsequently blocked from being able to see the facebook page of the person in question, including my own comments and the person's responses, and this person has also made it impossible to see a link to a profile or timeline/wall from any of my friends' pages and even from the Facebook search results. The only way I was able to even read the last two comments that were made just seconds before I was blocked was due to the fact that I had subscribed to the person's status updates via SMS because the person is a childhood friend. Somebody please tell me what I said that could have sparked such outright hatred and hurtful name calling from someone who is supposed to know a little something about professional writing and the possible ramifications of posting the wrong things on social media. I would also like to know if anyone can tell me how and/or why, if at all, the two marriage scenarios discussed in this conversation are so different. They seem to me to be very similar, but this would be considered to be my opinion, even though I come by this understanding through the wisdom of the Holy Spirit.

I have erased the person's name and even refuse to disclose the person's gender in the name of annonymity, since I do know about what can happen to a person who is found by employers or others to be posting hurtful or shameful things on social media and/or blogs. I will say however, regarding the part of the last comment that we are able to read, that the person in question is at least partially vision impaired.

Note: My phone cut the last comment short because it was longer than the allotted 160 characters for a text message, and Facebook didn't send another message with the rest of the comment. Unfortunately, although I reloaded the Facebook page just seconds after receiving the message, the comment was apparently removed before I could read it, and the next time I reloaded the page just about half a minute later, it could no longer be displayed because, as I found out shortly thereafter, the person had completely blocked me from seeing not only the original status, but the entire timeline, friend links and serch results as well. I can only guess at this point that the part of the comment that I couldn't read became even more hateful and hurtful.

Friend:
Where you can marry: WA, IA, NY, VT, NH, CT and D.C. Where you can marry abroad (or a hunk, silly): The Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina and, if it's nice out, Canada.

Me:
Hmm. Seems my wife and I were married in South Carolina with no trouble at all, but I notice that South Carolina isn't on the list. But where can I go to be married to a second wife if that is our choice? Should we not have the right to redefine marriage in this way also? Why can I not even enter into such a legally binding contract, with or without the blessing of a religious organization? This happens not to be my choice, but this is meant to provide some intellectual food for thought.

Friend:
Don't be a dick, Kyle.
This is about equal access to basic rights, not your sense of humour.

Me:
Um … Wait just a minute. I fail to understand what I wrote that was so humorous that you would dare to judge me and call me outside of my name. My post was not at all intended to be the least bit funny. How is it that you can be so right when you say that homosexuals should have the right to be married, but yet I’m so wrong, and even “a dick” as you so nicely put it, if I even suggest that heterosexuals who want to bring another partner into their relationships should have the right to do so under the law?

Friend:
Buh bye.

Friend:
Kyle, shut up. You're once again proving that blind people are stupid, ignorant and have way too much time on their hands.
Sto...

The general assembly starts at 7:00, but I encourage anyone in Durham or the surrounding area to come on out.

Think of it like this. If homosexuals are allowed to openly serve in the military, where should they sleep? Should we house them in barracks with the gender to which they are attracted? Do we house them in barracks with the opposite sex because homosexuals are not attracted to members of the opposite sex? In that case, they would still be seen as the only woman in the men's barracks or the only man in the women's barracks. Maybe we should have “gay barracks” where all homosexuals are housed together? Then it would be seen as discriminatory, either against those who are housed in “gay barracks” or maybe even against those who are howsed in separate men's and women's barracks, because the people in the “gay barracks” aren’t forced to sleep separated by gender as heterosexuals are. Let’s face it, rules are for everyone, and no one should be excluded from following rules just because they behave differently and don’t feel that the rules should apply to them. Either things must be kept as they are, or the whole rule of men's only and women's only lodging should be changed. So here are the two best solutions for allowing homosexuals to serve their country. Either homosexuals should be allowed to serve as long as they aren't asked and they don't tell what their sexual orientation is, or we change the rules of lodging entirely, so that men and women, no matter their sexual orientation, are howsed together in the same barracks. Obviously, for all parties concerned, "Don't ask, don't tell" is the best and most favorable solution, allowing anyone to serve their country and not forcing them to reveal their sexual orientation.