two legs bad
Dom links a threnody from the Rainbow Sash Movement bewailing their having been denied communion at the Bishops' Meeting:
Homophobia promotes blindness. Denying Rainbow Sash members Holy Communion, for publicly witnessing their faith was grounded in homophobia.
Hatred. The only explanation. In today's American Spectator, James Bowman has some pertinent remarks, explaining how it is that public debate on the questions of sexuality has come to an impasse:
[To champions of the sexual revolution], their sexuality isn't a matter of what they do but of who they are. As they see it, their sexual "orientation" is as much a part of them as the color of their skin. Therefore, any sort of discrimination in the way the law treats them is as much a violation of their civil rights as racial discrimination is of the civil rights of black people and others against whom it is practiced. I think the analogy a false one for all sorts of reasons, but it is a subject, like that of abortion, on which reasoned discussion has become almost impossible. For once you accept the equation sexuality = identity, then any attempt by anybody anywhere to cling to such shreds and patches as remain today of the moralized view of sexuality that was universal up until 40 years ago becomes a threat to your very existence. It becomes easy to believe that those who would vote against your right to marry must also hate you, which in turn means that they are disposed to hurt or even kill you, or to look with indulgence on those who do.
Mark Steyn made a similar argument last year:
Language has been an important weapon in the gay movement's very swift advance. In the old days, there was "sodomy": an act. In the late 19th century, the word "homosexuality" was coined: a condition. A generation ago, the accepted term became "gay": an identity. Each formulation raises the stakes: one can object to and even criminalize an act; one is obligated to be sympathetic towards a condition; but once it's a fully-fledged 24/7 identity, like being Hispanic or Inuit, anything less than whole-hearted acceptance gets you marked down as a bigot.
But why is it that we drooling, Bible-brandishing bigots are not deemed worthy of refutation? Joseph Sobran puts it succinctly:
The enlightened don't owe the unenlightened a rational debate, because in their minds there are no real differences of opinion or philosophy, only differences of motives.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach seven million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Progress toward our September expenses ($33,685 to go):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: mumof5 -
Nov. 19, 2004 7:32 PM ET USA
I can testify personally to the accuracy of this commentary. I'm the president of a group called Les Femmes that fights for the faith. Because of articles on my website I receive frequent e-mails accusing me of hatred. One silly woman said her friends warned her not to write for fear I would learn her address and come and kill her. She compared me to Adolf Hitler. Her lengthy email led me to believe she was a new ager, probably lesbian, perhaps even wiccan. Please pray for Sabina.
Posted by: -
Nov. 19, 2004 6:41 PM ET USA
It was once the case that when you asserted an absurdity, the onus was on the asserter to prove it. Now the asserter, at least when asserting something anti-Christian, is assumed to be correct because of his pure intentions and the skeptics must prove it false and must defend their predisposed bigotry.