Tag Archives: homosexuals

Jihad, Guns, and Gays

Predictably, a shitstorm of Biblical proportions has arisen following the horrific mass-murder in a gay nightclub in Orlando last Sunday by a Jihadist Muslim who claimed allegiance with ISIS.  And shamefully, but just as predictably, the vulturine Left – including Obama and Hillary Clinton – has opportunistically exploited this slaughter, in their usual fashion, to attack second amendment rights and Christians, while ignoring the real threat of radical Islam.

Before I continue, I’ll just state that while, yes, the club’s patrons were engaging in a sinful, immoral lifestyle, that in no way excuses or lessens the evil of the murder, and this should be a solemn time of prayer and mourning, rather than self-righteous condemnation.  But neither should we react as some, acting as though the victims were holy martyrs for a noble cause, as so many are doing.  And I don’t believe the slaughter would be any bit less horrific had it taken place in, say, a school or a Wal-Mart rather than a gay club.  Using this tragedy to promote LGB-Whatever politics is as shameful as any other political exploitation, but of course the Left knows no shame.

While our Dear Leader still cannot bring himself to so much as utter the words “radical Islam,” he, Hillary, and the rest of the Jackass Party rogues gallery are once more seeking to punish law-abiding citizens by infringing on their right to keep and bear arms.  And the NRA-endorsed Donald Trump is talking of further restrictions on gun rights, reverting, as on abortion, to his liberal true colors.

 

In dealing with Islamic terrorism and violence in general, the Left typically takes two lines, neither of them truthful.  The first is to deny (a la Obama) that such acts of murder and terror, or that groups such as ISIS and Al Qaeda, actually have anything to do with Islam (which, after all, as no less an Islamic scholar than George W. Bush has assured us, is a Religion of Peace).

Of course that is nothing but pc hogwash.  I see no point, as a Catholic who believes Islam to be a false religion, to get into debates about whether violent Jihadists or more peaceful groups represent “true Islam.”  All the violent “extremist” views are supported by some Muslim clerics, and have backing in the Qu’ran , and, from the beginning, the history of Islam is far from peaceful.

But, whether you believe it represents “true Islam” or not, the fact is that the jihadist terrorists, whether formal members of terror cells or internet-inspired “lone wolves,” are in fact motivated by a religiously-based ideology.  Many on the secular Left cannot understand this, and insist that the “real cause” of Islamic terrorism must be something else – laying the blame on entirely on U.S. foreign policy (even though many attacks are in countries such as France), poverty and income inequality (even though the data says that most Islamic terrorists are not poor), and even that liberal catch-all demon, Climate Change.  (You see, gas from your SUV makes the Middle East more hot and dry, so the people there go mad and blow shit up.)  In short, nothing about Islamic terrorism that wouldn’t be fixed by a Bernie Sanders presidency.

But the claim that Islamic terror is primarily motivated by economic factors (which will be fixed, of course, by more socialism), rather than religious ideology, has no basis in reality.  There’s a reason the Orlando killer shot up a gay night club, rather than a corporate headquarters or SUV factory.

The other route is to acknowledge that Islam has a violent branch, but also to claim that it’s no worse in that respect than any other major religion, particularly Christianity.  This line of pc is typified by a presentation to West Point cadets a few years ago equating “extreme” Islam with evangelical Christianity, the Catholic Church, and Orthodox Judaism.

It’s not just militant atheists or secularists that use this line of talk; even the Pope has attacked generic “religious fundamentalism,” rather than radical Islam, following the Paris “Charlie Hebdo” attacks.

Of course, this is quickly dispelled as nonsense by the facts; there simply aren’t any significant numbers of conservative Christians or Jews blowing up buildings, murdering, and raping in the name of their faith.  (And frequently cited groups like the IRA are more political than religious.)  Take the most devout, hard-core conservative Traditionalist Catholic you can find (maybe at my FSSP parish). Start a gay club, or draw a blasphemous cartoon of Jesus, and he might start a novena of prayer and fasting for the salvation of your immortal soul.  His Islamic counterpart will load up his Sig Sauer, or load up his truck full of pipe bombs.

After the Orlando attacks, many on the left went one step further and actually blamed Christians, rather than radical Islam, for the killings.  We’re told that an “environment of hate” caused by anti-gay Christians was responsible.  Even liberal Catholic bishops have used this line, exploiting the killings to condemn Catholics who actually agree with Church teaching that homosexual activity is sinful.  (What about the “environment of hate” towards orthodox Catholics/Christians?)  And I’ve seen Catholics express guilt that “Christians like themselves” made the murder possible.  The reality is that Christians or Christianity had nothing whatever to do with it.

Please.  It’s time we wake up, stop being cowed by pc guilt-tripping, stand up for truth, call a spade a spade, and identify the real enemy: radical Islam.  We must not allow the left to continue to exploit evil acts of terror to advance its own rotten agenda, and chip away at our own liberties.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Big Sports vs. Religious Liberty

Every day it seems, we descend further into madness.  And I’m not even referring at the moment to the presidential race.  Last week, Republican Georgia governor Nathan Deal, in typical spineless Republican manner, folded under pressure from big corporations including Disney and Apple, and vetoed a bill that would ensure religious liberty as guaranteed by the first amendment by, among other things, ensuring that ministers would not be forced to officiate “gay marriages” against their will.  In North Carolina, there is a lawsuit against another bill that would protect private business owners against such things as being forced to cater “gay weddings” or allow gender-confused dudes to use the ladies’ room.   The NBA has declared that unless that bill is vetoed, the All-star Game will not be played in Charlotte.

I don’t get ESPN, but it is on regularly at the break room at my place of work, and the channel seems to every day be less and less about sports, and more and more about pushing left-wing political propaganda.  It has heavily covered  the above-mentioned brouhaha concerning the NBA’s proposed boycott of North Carolina, siding with the NBA as if they were making a stand of great heroism and courage, as well as running sob stories about the alleged horrible plight of “transsexual” athletes in schools around the country – such as the epic struggles of strapping young “biologically male” jocks fighting for the “right” to play on the girls team and use the girls’ locker room.  (Sign me up, dude!)

I’m really not sure why the issue of “transgender” bathrooms and such is of such pressing importance to the NBA.  Are there really that many pro basketball players demanding to use the ladies’ locker rooms?

At the same time, ESPN is also heavily covering the epic struggle of heroic litigators against the Big, Bad Corporate NFL regarding the concussion issue.  (And in case you miss the larger political context, the commentators explain that in denying the danger of concussions from playing pro football, the NFL is exactly the same as the evil “climate-change deniers.”)  However, with regard to LGB-alphabet-soup issues, we’re supposed to root for the Big Heroic Corporate NBA against some tiny Christian-owned bakeries and such.  Now, Goliath’s the good guy, and David the villain.

The left (including ESPN) is always screaming about the power of Big Evil Corporations, and their undue influence on government.  However when the Big Corporations are pressuring and influencing government for socially “progressive” causes, this influence is applauded and celebrated.  And increasingly, large corporations push leftist social causes, helping win the favor of leftist politicians in our crony-capitalist system.

 

The enforcement of politically-correct social causes such as those mentioned by law on the national level is likely to happen if Hillary wins the presidency, and the packing of federal courts—and the Supreme Court—with leftist activists continues.  Basic freedom of religious practice will become a thing of the past.  (Though such judicial activism may prove unnecessary if Republican governors continue to act so spinelessly.)

One more reason Republicans and conservatives need to get their heads out of their arses and rally behind Ted Cruz before it’s too late.  And that loser Kasich should have gotten out of the race long ago.  He’s only helping Trump—and Hillary.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Imposing Immorality

A lot has already been said about the recent uproar by “gay rights” activists and liberals in general over Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and Governor Mike Pence’s subsequent spineless folding in typical Republican fashion.  Protesters even forced a local pizza parlor to close because the owner said in an interview that she would not cater “gay weddings.”  (Though the news is that the shop has now re-opened.)

(I tried to keep Holy Week at least somewhat holy, and thus held off on commenting on the ungodly cesspool of current politics, but I thought I’d share a few thoughts.)

At this point no one can still harbor the foolish and naïve notion that the political-cultural left has anything whatever to do with freedom, tolerance, or diversity.

Talk about, for instance, any proposed laws even restricting abortion, and liberals will howl like rabid banshees about how we must never “impose our morality” on others by law.  This is typically followed a lecture on the evils of “theocracy,” with grim warnings about how parental consent laws or whatever are just one slippery step away from beheading infidels and burning heretics at the stake.  (Personally, I prefer my heretics just well done.)

However, as illustrated by the hullabaloo in Indiana, the same secularist bleeding hearts are more than ready to impose their own “morality” on those who disagree with politically-correct orthodoxy on issues such as “gay marriage.”  (Or, rather, to force others against their will to cooperate in immorality.)

As I pointed out earlier regarding similar issues in Texas, choosing not to cater or a homosexual “wedding” is not about discrimination against individuals, but about not catering a particular type of event that is contrary to Christian morality.

Forcing persons in private business to cater or support events contrary to their beliefs against their will not only violates the free exercise of religion guaranteed in the First Amendment, but the basic right to freedom of association, regardless of religious belief or lack thereof.  (Deroy Murdock makes this point eloquently in a National Review article, giving a wide variety of potential non-religious examples where this principle would apply.  Should a feminist be forced to do photography for a strip club?  A black musician play at a KKK event?  Etc.)

Prior to the passing of the Indiana statute, there was never any actual issue of discrimination.  Gays have no problem finding bakers and such to cater their “weddings.”  The hysterics of the likes of Al Sharpton notwithstanding, who scream that unless Christian bakers are forced by law to bake gay wedding cakes, the return of Jim Crow is imminent.  (You know, back when gays were forced to sit in the back of the bus.)  Hell, it will probably set us back to the days of slavery, when gays were put in chains and forced to pick cotton from dawn to dusk in the hot Southern sun, to the tune of the slave-driver’s whip.  (Though I hear some of them liked the whole whips and chains thing.)

(If I were black I’d be absolutely disgusted at the comparison of “gay rights” issues to slavery and segregation.  Hell, I’m not black, and I’m still disgusted.  But that’s another rant.)

But the very thought of a few bakers, wedding photographers, or caterers out there who don’t conform with pc orthodoxy on “gay marriage” so enrages the bleeding heart fascists that they are willing to force people at gunpoint to conform and comply.

Freedom of religion and of association be damned.

For the left, “gay rights” has become an all-important all-trumping sacred cause, which they pursue with the fanaticism of religious crusaders (or perhaps Jihadists?).

Perhaps most disappointing is that Catholic response to this blatant assault on religious freedom seems largely lacking.  Though that is hardly surprising, given the weak and tepid response to Obamacare’s contraception mandate.  And the sad truth is that most of the bleeding heart social-justice “Catholics,” who salivate like Pavlov’s dogs at any statist activism claiming to be on behalf of The Oppressed, and who piously obey every dictate of political correctness, side with “gay rights” against the teachings of their Church.

For many, the issue of a few gay wedding cakes and such may seem too trivial and petty to be worth  bothering with.  And by itself, perhaps it is.  But wars are won or lost by many small battles, and freedoms once taken for granted in this country are being steadily and relentlessly chipped away piece by piece.  If (as expected) the Supreme Court (absurdly) declares “gay marriage” to be a “constitutional right,” things will only get much worse.  How long before we wake up?

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Liberal “Tolerance” Strikes! (Round II)

An “Equal Rights” ordinance in the Dallas suburb of Plano passed in December has created ongoing controversy , with citizens of the town signing petitions for a recall of the ordinance (I couldn’t find what the current status of this situation is, though if the petitions are verified a repeal could be put before the city council) .  This ordinance expanded an earlier ordinance barring “discrimination in places of public accommodation, employment practices, housing transactions and city contracting practices” to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”  Churches and religious freedom groups have led opposition to the ordinance

Sounds reasonable enough, right?  Before I’m accused of being a heatless homophobe (well, I am, but that’s beside the point), let me say this.  If this was about someone being denied a burger and a beer at a bar/restaurant simply because he was gay, then there might be a genuine issue, but that’s not what this is about.  The reality is that similar ordinances in other cities have led to such things as bakery owners threatened with jail time for refusing to bake “gay wedding” cakes.

The ordinance also sparked concern about private establishments being forced by law to allow “transgendered” persons to share bathrooms and such with persons of the opposite “biological” sex.  In other words, Big Bob must be allowed to share a restroom with your daughter if he declares himself a woman in a man’s body; unless the owner wants to pay a hefty fine.  And if any of you ladies have any issue with that, well, you’re just hateful bigots.

The problem is not people being denied service because of their sexual preferences, but about business owners being forced by government to provide products with a message that violates their sincere moral/religious beliefs.

Those bleeding hearts who think such ordinances are a great idea, or even morally necessary, should ponder the following scenarios.

Should a bakery be forced to bake cakes with a blatantly racist or anti-Semitic message?  Or should a business be forced to cater KKK or neo-Nazi meetings?

My point isn’t that a “gay marriage” is the same as Nazism, but about where does one draw the line when forcing private business owners to provide products or cater events that violate their sincere moral or religious beliefs?

Much as one might find the hateful and racist messages or groups I mentioned appalling, refusing to cater to them would still in fact be discrimination against certain types of customer demands, just as refusing to bake a gay wedding cake would be.

Let’s be honest; the real issue here isn’t that GLBTQs – whatever the current alphabet soup is – being unable to find businesses that will cater to them.  In any town or city of any size, I’m sure there is no shortage of businesses happy to cater to the demands of homosexual customers.  Wherever there’s a demand, supply will exist to fulfill it and profit from it . That’s the beauty of the free market.  If one baker doesn’t want to bake you a gay cake, another will be happy to bake it for you instead.

The ordinance makes about as much sense as forcing Christian bookstores to sell porn or copies of The Satanic Bible.  (Okay, I should probably shut up now  lest I give the liberals ideas.)

Of course, these local skirmishes will be all but forgotten in the shadow of the upcoming Supreme Court hearing on “gay marriage,” which liberals confidently assure us will result in all states being forced to recognize “gay marriage,” whether the people of those states want it or not.  (If they are right, it will be yet another example of SCOTUS granting the federal government powers found nowhere in the Constitution, but that’s a whole other rant.)

It should be obvious to everybody now that the “gay rights” movement is no longer about tolerance (if that was ever truly the goal).  Tolerance is about simply leaving other folks alone, whether we agree with their actions or not.  Now, we must all be forced by law to give approval and support to sexually deviant behavior.  And non-compliance will not be tolerated.

 

Update:  Shortly after this rant was published, the mayor turned down the petitions on the ground that they were bogus or not sufficiently documented, or something.  I don’t know all the facts on this, but I think we can generally trust our public officials – to lie to us.)

Tagged , , , ,

The Duck Commander vs. Liberal “Tolerance”

As everyone knows by now, A&E banned Duck Dynasty patriarch and Duck Commander inventor Phil Robertson from filming for making some comments in a GQ interview that the network deemed too intolerant to be tolerated.  I’ll admit, I don’t watch the show (I watch hardly any TV), but from what I’ve heard, Duck Dynasty appears to be a decent and wholesome show which has made millions of fans “happy, happy, happy.”

The show’s wild popularity actually gave me a glimmer of hope for this country, especially as the Robertson clan seem to be a compendium of everything the forces of political correctness would have us despise and hate: white Southern rednecks, gun-owners and enthusiastic killers of innocent birds, successful businessmen in the “capitalist” system, and (worst of all!) devout born-again Christians.

Given that Mr. Robertson has made no secret of his Christian Faith, his beliefs regarding the immorality of homosexuality should hardly come as a shock.  What he stated was essentially the same as what the Church teaches on this matter:  that homosexual activity – along with other sins such as adultery and drunkenness – is sinful and wrong, citing Corinthians.  Yeah, he made an indelicate remark about vaginas being preferable to anuses, but since when were liberals prudes?

He didn’t say anything actually hateful, or make any call for violence, but said, “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus — whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus — whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?

Maybe not quite as elegantly worded as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but still a sound summation of basic Christian moral theology – and no more hateful of homosexual persons than it is of folks with a fondness for the sauce.

As far as I’m aware, no drunks have yet expressed outrage over the Duck Commander’s shocking anti-drunkard bigotry.

The problem is, apparently for A&E, simply personally holding Christian moral beliefs found in the Bible is reason enough for punishment.  (The remarks in question were not even made on the show, or in connection with it.)

Of course, as a private company, A&E is free to decide who will and won’t be on its programs, and I’m sure Phil will probably be able to get along okay without A&E or Duck Dynasty.  (And if A&E wants to lose its main cash cow for the sake of political correctness,  surely someone else will be willing to buy – that is, if they’re not all complete slaves to pc idiocy.)

But the central issues here are much bigger than A&E and Duck Dynasty, and reflect a truly troubling trend in our country.  Our supposedly tolerant “liberal” society is becoming increasingly intolerant of any views contrary to its dominant ideology.  People have lost their jobs for blogging on their own time with the view that homosexuality is sinful.  A few months ago Fox Sports fired football analyst Craig James for opposing “gay marriage” (again, while off the job).

Progressives who preach ad nauseum about “tolerance” and “diversity” in fact support neither.

All opinions and beliefs are tolerated – so long as they agree with the cultural left ideology.  No dissent will be tolerated.

As usual, the left’s hypocrisy here is staggering.  I’d bet the bank that if, instead of being Christian, Mr. Robertson adhered to a more politically correct religion such as Islam, and had been fired for citing unpopular teachings from the Qur’an, the same bleeding hearts calling for his blood would instead be rushing to defend his civil liberties against the Islamophobic bigots.

When liberal celebs and media personalities make truly hateful remarks against Christians or conservatives, their jobs are never in danger, and it’s typically smiled on as edgy and cool, if not “daring.”  If Christians complain, they’re told to quit whining and grow a thicker skin.

Hell, even anti-gay slurs can be tolerated, so long as the person making them is sufficiently liberal (such as Alec Baldwin).

Sixty years later, liberals continue to remind us of the horrors of Hollywood blacklisting during the “Red scare” of the ‘50s.  But it’s all cool now that Christians rather than Commies are blacklisted.

Demanding, as many on the left now do, that opposing views be censored and suppressed (as one “liberal” commenter said, “bigoted religion has no place in modern America”) is in fact contrary to the most fundamental principles of a free and liberal (in the true sense of the word) society.

Sadly it appears that for the most part only conservatives and Christians who agree with Robertson’s comments are defending him against A&E.  I’ve seen almost no statements along the lines of “I’m a liberal and don’t like what Phil said, but A&E was wrong to punish him for his religious beliefs.”

Fortunately, the backlash against A&E appears strong and healthy (as was the backlash against the homo Chick-fil-A boycott), and hopefully will help draw attention to the issue of true freedom of practice of religion for all Americans.

Stand with Phil and boycott A&E!  (And don’t forget to keep eating mor chiken!)

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Gay Old Time

Well, as you probably are aware by now, that oracle of leftwing propaganda, Newsweek, has proclaimed Obama to be, on its front cover, “The First Gay President,” complete with an absolutely fabulous little rainbow halo, thereby confirming what the National Enquirer has been claiming for years now. The President’s “evolution” on the subject of homosexual marriage (after all, evolution is always good, wouldn’t want to be a backwards Neanderthal like me!) paid off handsomely, gaining him buttloads of cash from various liberal advocacy groups, but that of course is of no account, as any endorsement of the sacred cow of “gay rights” earns one automatic canonization in today’s religion of political correctness. Nor does it prevent the continuing orgasmic gushings of homosexual “conservative” Andrew Sullivan, who has a full-fledged schoolgirl crush on the current POTUS. It’s a damn shame that Barry lost out to Bill Clinton on having the honor of “the First Black President.”

While whether this (rather unsurprising) declaration by Obama ultimately helps or hurts his re-election prospects remains to be seen, I thought this would be a good opportunity to discuss the whole issue regarding so-called “gay marriage,” an issue which puts me at odds not only with liberals, but increasingly with libertarians, “conservatives,” and “Catholics” (including self-proclaimed “orthodox” or “conservative” “Catholics”), a disheartening number of which seem happy and willing to directly contradict the teachings of their Faith to jump on board the latest politically correct craze. I suppose this should not be shocking, considering that overwhelming majorities of American “Catholics” reject the Barq of Peter’s moral teachings regarding contraception and other unpopular issues, and that what passes for “Catholicism” in all too many parishes is little more than a vague and fuzzy mixture of warmed-over Marxist socialism and pc sentiments (much like the Democratic Party platform, but with vaguely religious overtones).

Proponents of state-recognized homosexual “marriage” typically would have us believe that if states do not grant legal recognition to same-sex sodomitic relationships as “marriage,” this creates some grave new threat to our American liberties. After all, it’s a short and slippery slope from state governments not handing out marriage licenses to same-sex couples to cops posted in bedrooms, homosexuals being burnt at the stake, women being stoned in the streets for adultery, and all the other various and sundry horrors of the Christian American Taliban which is eminent unless right-wing Republicans are kept out of office. (In short, it’s the same list of horrors which are eminent if all employers are not forced to pay for contraceptives.) In fact, we’ll be forced all the way back to the benighted Dark Ages prior to May 17, 2004.

A few points:
First of all, contrary to much of the hysterical shrieking on the left (and libertarian right), this is not a case of “letting government in the bedroom.” Without state recognized “gay marriage,” homosexuals are free to bugger each other to their little hearts’ content without fear of jack-booted government thugs showing up at the door to haul them away. The truth is that the state not recognizing homosexual marriage keeps the state out of gays’ bedrooms. Homosexuals would be neither punished nor rewarded for their sexual activities, but the state would be kept out of the fudgepacking business altogether.  Of course, in today’s sloppy thinking, a “right” to engage in a certain behavior, usually equates to demands for government rewards or subsidiaries for it.  (Thus, “sexual freedom” means a right to taxpayer-subsidized rubbers and abortions.)

Secondly, there is no constitutional right to state recognition of marriage of any kind. As marriage and marriage laws are nowhere mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the matter of state marriage law belongs, per the Tenth Amendment, to “the States respectively, or to the people.” Per the Constitution, federal judges have no right to interfere with the decisions of the people of the respective states on marriage law. Gay marriage proponents like to appeal to the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing equal protection under the law for all citizens, but the truth is that state recognition of something as a “marriage” is a privilege, not legal protection.

I don’t have any intrinsic right to have a contract with my mother, sister, and brother, best pal Joe and his grandmother recognized by the state as a “marriage.” Our relationship may be non-sexual and otherwise morally unproblematic, but it would simply have nothing to do with marriage, which has traditionally been a very specific kind of contract. Trying to redefine marriage to absolutely any grouping of any number of “consenting adults” wanting to have a legal contract (as the more consistent same-sex marriage advocates argue for), would render “marriage” essentially meaningless. But if we are not to include absolutely any and every grouping of consenting adults wanting a marriage license for absolutely any reason, there is certainly nothing special about homosexual sodomy that merits this privilege above others.

This brings us to the central issue of why marriages are recognized by the state in the first place. While liberals and others will try to deny it, the fact is that marriage between man and woman has always been tied to the begetting and raising of children, and forms the best framework for such activity. It is the most basic and fundamental building block of human society. Homosexual buggery can never result in the procreation of children, and has no more intrinsic relation to the purpose of marriage than masturbating to porno videos. While it’s now fashionable for conservatives and libertarians (including many Catholics) to say that government should “get out of the marriage business” altogether, I’m not so sure that the state failing to give any legal recognition to marriage period is such a wonderful thing.

Neither is the Pope, who as head of the CDF, wrote this masterful document, which all Catholics would do well to read and study (though few do): CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS.

It includes a number of arguments from philosophical, anthropological, and legal grounds, but concludes:

The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

Sadly, however, whenever I get into online discussions of this issue with  my fellow “orthodox Catholics,” I’m usually one of the very few who actually agrees with the Church on this issue.  Political correctness has indeed become our new religion, and homosexuality (traditionally numbered by the Church among the Sins that Cry out to Heaven for Vengeance”) is chief among its sacred cows.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,