You know how they used to fit horses with blinders to restrict their field of vision, so that they wouldn't spook at things coming from the side? It strikes me that that's the syndrome exhibited by so many of the "religious" right in their opposition to gays civil rights in general, and same-sex marriage in particular. Today's example is Cardinal Donald Wuerl, courtesy of Joe.My.God. I'm going to do a little step-by-step commentary on this statement:
No one said that -- except you and your allies, playing the victim card for all it's worth. If someone describes marriage as something inherently between a man and woman (and what is that something, exactly? We never hear that part.), they're merely talking from a very limited, false definition of marriage, one promulgated for strictly sectarian purposes, and based on nothing, in the case of Catholic teaching, but the way a group of officially celibate bishops think the world ought to be. It's not the only definition, and it's not even a very good one.*
The "truth" about human sexuality? See above, under "officially celibate bishops." Like they know anything about it. And they know even less about the nature of marriage.
Nice and general. What he's referring to, obviously, is the Church's insistence that homosexual behavior is intrinsically morally wrong, that we are by nature damaged, which to me reveals nothing so much as the Church's rudimentary understanding of the concept of morality. (Not to mention its open contempt for us, which I find ironic, at the very least, all things considered.) They're simply substituting the 3,000 year old tribal taboos of a group of Middle Eastern nomads for any real explanation of morality and what it's about. Hint to Cardinal Wuerl: rules are not values. And as for the claim that Catholics should be muzzled, that's such a standard trope on the right that it's a cliche. No one's stopping them from proclaiming anything. We can't persuade them to shut up and hold a rational discussion.
When discussions occur within the secular community, the Church and its spokesmen fall back immediately to Church doctrine. That's all they have. They are incapable of participating in secular discussions on these issues, because they don't really believe in civil law, which is the core issue -- the treatment of GLBT citizens under civil law. (They make a lot of noise about having respect and compassion for gays, but it's worth nothing that they work tirelessly to keep us from enjoying all the rights and privileges accorded every other citizen -- even, in the case of marriage, convicted felons.) I forget which pope it was who said "Separation of church and state is a myth," but that's been their whole attitude all along. Their idea of civil discourse is that no one can argue with their position because -- well, see above, under "revealed and received tradition." The Church is about authority, not inquiry, and its idea of "civil discourse" is "Do as I say." And frankly, charges of discrimination against the Church are hardly "gratuitous." That's what they're working for.
This is all smokescreen. As Joe notes in his post, Cardinal Wuerl is one of those who has expended a great amount of energy to keep this country from treating GLBTs as human beings.
* For reference, I find this definition much better on all counts: "Marriage is the recognition by the community of the establishment of a new household." For one thing, it avoids reducing human beings to the level of domestic animals. It also tells us what the "something" is.
If someone describes marriage as inherently something between a man and a woman only, is this somehow discrimination, bigotry or even hate speech?
No one said that -- except you and your allies, playing the victim card for all it's worth. If someone describes marriage as something inherently between a man and woman (and what is that something, exactly? We never hear that part.), they're merely talking from a very limited, false definition of marriage, one promulgated for strictly sectarian purposes, and based on nothing, in the case of Catholic teaching, but the way a group of officially celibate bishops think the world ought to be. It's not the only definition, and it's not even a very good one.*
Until just a few years ago, this question would be looked upon as absurd. But today it is a real inquiry and an open challenge to the truth about human sexuality, the complementarity of man and woman, and the nature of marriage.
The "truth" about human sexuality? See above, under "officially celibate bishops." Like they know anything about it. And they know even less about the nature of marriage.
The assertion is made that for the Church to profess that some activities are immoral is in itself wrongful and, therefore, Catholics should not be free to publicly proclaim the Church’s revealed and received tradition.
Nice and general. What he's referring to, obviously, is the Church's insistence that homosexual behavior is intrinsically morally wrong, that we are by nature damaged, which to me reveals nothing so much as the Church's rudimentary understanding of the concept of morality. (Not to mention its open contempt for us, which I find ironic, at the very least, all things considered.) They're simply substituting the 3,000 year old tribal taboos of a group of Middle Eastern nomads for any real explanation of morality and what it's about. Hint to Cardinal Wuerl: rules are not values. And as for the claim that Catholics should be muzzled, that's such a standard trope on the right that it's a cliche. No one's stopping them from proclaiming anything. We can't persuade them to shut up and hold a rational discussion.
When discussions occur within the secular community, the assumed context is called civil discourse and it should not be stifled by gratuitous charges of discrimination against those who hold differing positions on an issue.
When discussions occur within the secular community, the Church and its spokesmen fall back immediately to Church doctrine. That's all they have. They are incapable of participating in secular discussions on these issues, because they don't really believe in civil law, which is the core issue -- the treatment of GLBT citizens under civil law. (They make a lot of noise about having respect and compassion for gays, but it's worth nothing that they work tirelessly to keep us from enjoying all the rights and privileges accorded every other citizen -- even, in the case of marriage, convicted felons.) I forget which pope it was who said "Separation of church and state is a myth," but that's been their whole attitude all along. Their idea of civil discourse is that no one can argue with their position because -- well, see above, under "revealed and received tradition." The Church is about authority, not inquiry, and its idea of "civil discourse" is "Do as I say." And frankly, charges of discrimination against the Church are hardly "gratuitous." That's what they're working for.
This is all smokescreen. As Joe notes in his post, Cardinal Wuerl is one of those who has expended a great amount of energy to keep this country from treating GLBTs as human beings.
* For reference, I find this definition much better on all counts: "Marriage is the recognition by the community of the establishment of a new household." For one thing, it avoids reducing human beings to the level of domestic animals. It also tells us what the "something" is.
No comments:
Post a Comment