Posts with the tag 'homosexuality'
In the opinion of some, yes:
London, Jul. 21, 2008 (CWNews.com) - A decorated British police officer has filed a complaint before a local employment tribunal, charging that he has been harassed by his superiors because of his Christian beliefs.
Officer Graham Cogman,a 15-year veteran of the Norfolk police force, says that he has been subjected to complaints and investigations because he strongly resisted a campaign to encourage support for Gay History Month among the members of that force. Cogman has already been forced to pay a fine of £1,200 for alleged violations of department regulations, because he encouraged colleagues to resist the department’s pro-homosexual campaign. He now faces further disciplinary hearings on charges that he has promoted “homophobic” viewpoints.
At particular issue was an official e mail encouraging Norfolk officers to wear a pink ribbon on their uniform during gay history month (whatever that is, exactly) - Cogman refused and sent a response e mail quoting biblical passages regarding the sinfulness of homosexual acts. I don’t know what denomination Cogman is, but the basic thrust of officialdom here seems to be that pointing out dissent from reigning liberal orthodoxy is wrong - it isn’t differentiated in the news report, but it would seem that whether you use the gentle Catholic remonstrance against gay sex or the more in-your-face views of Evangelicals it is considered out of bounds to dissent from liberalism on gay issues.. My guess is that Cogman would have been fine had he kept his opinions to himself, though we don’t know what sorts of official pressure might have been indirectly placed on Cogman to toe the secularist, PC line. By daring to go behond passive resistence to what amounts to moral indoctrination (officers wearing pink ribbons on their uniform amounts to government propaganda in favor of the homosexual rights agenda), Cogman got himself in trouble.
It is said that one way to look at the conflicts of the world is to think in terms of there is the Church, and Her enemies. It is well established that any denomination which follows Christian teaching will hold that homosexual acts are disordered and never to be approved - this isn’t central to Christian faith (that would be the cross and events related to it), but it is an important point to be held because alone amongst the religions of the world, Christianity (and its base, Judaism) understand the true worth and use of sexual activity. Over centuries a set of rules were developed in order to regularise sexual activity and turn it more and more towards the act of self-donation it is supposed to be - recently, however, there has been a strong effort to disorder sexual activity and turn it more and more into an act of self-gratification. As part of a genuine respect for the body, love, marriage, sex and a true freedom in these things, Christianity hedged sex about with careful strictures…along comes the secularist to toss that all aside willy-nilly and then the leftist comes up not with the idea of toleration for people’s sins, but an insistence that the sin be called a virtule and that anyone who says otherwise must be punished.
Christianity, of course, can’t become what is wrong - the Church, that is, can’t declare wrong to be right. And so Christianity - as truly understood - will never agree to gay marriages or, indeed, any act which delays the propect of the person in question having a conversion. So to call Christinaity homophobic is to essentially call Christ’s Church an evil upon the face of the earth.
What do you think?
Tags: Christianity, homophobia, homosexuality, religious liberty
July 23rd, 2008
Only in the modern Democratic party could we get this headline:
Chelsea Clinton hits the gay bars in Philadelphia
And find contained within the story, this tidbit:
While most onlookers asked for hugs or pictures, a small number asked her why or questioned her on issues such as her mother’s plans to address poverty.
“Hillary Clinton will get rid of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell…and march in gay pride parades,’” Reiner said to cheers at Sisters.
For most, including Chelsea and the governor, it was a night of fun.
“I grabbed her a**,” shouted one woman, prompting surprised looks and laughter from Chelsea and campaign staff escorting her.
“I’ve been trying to find you all night and I found you and you’re gorgeous,” Dustin Thorn, 31, of Philadelphia told her.
“I think Chelsea looks better in person and she’s got the body and a** of life,” said Christoper Murray after wrapping his arms around her and giving her a big hug.
I’m sure Middle America will find it interesting - should Hillary get the nomination - that she’ll march in gay pride parades. It’ll make a rather fun debate question. But all is not well with Obama in the gay community:
“It just points out a whole difference between the campaigns that the Clinton campaign is talking to everybody,” said Michael Howard, Philly, 47, who went to Bumps to see Chelsea.
“Obama is trying to come across as Mr. Rainbow, but he’s not,” he said. “He talks to every tiny black newspaper, every tiny Hispanic newspaper, every Asian newspaper, but not the gay press and then he says he only talks with mainstream press.”
Poor Obama - just doesn’t have the a** of life, I guess…
Tags: HillBama, homosexuality, special interests
April 22nd, 2008
Just frightening to see this sort of totalitarianism in an allegedly democratic nation:
Another Canadian publication has come under attack for its opinions through the agency of the government-funded Canadian Human Rights Commissions (HRC). Closely following an uproar in the media against government-sponsored censorship via HRC against Maclean’s magazine and columnist Mark Steyn and an Alberta HRC judgment ordering Alberta news media to not publish any comments on homosexuality by a Christian pastor, Toronto’s Catholic Insight magazine has reported they stand accused in an HRC complaint of “targeting homosexuals”.
Catholic Insight is a Catholic political and cultural general interest magazine that regularly and accurately expounds orthodox Catholic teaching, based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, on homosexuality as well as harmful consequences to individual persons and society of the active homosexual “lifestyle”.
The magazine now reveals that Rob Wells, a homosexual activist associated with the Pride Centre of Edmonton, in February this year filed a nine-point complaint against Catholic Insight. Wells alleges that the magazine made “negative generalizations” about homosexuals; portrayed them as preying upon children, as dangerous and “devoid of any redeeming qualities and…innately evil”.
Catholic Insight (CI), however, bases its editorial policy very strictly on Catholic Church teaching which is at pains to separate what it says is the deviant behaviour and disordered inclination of homosexuality from the person.
In Canada, if you file a complaint against some one or some entity with the Human Rights Commission, your case is carried forward entirely at taxpayer expense - a huge incentive for activists to use the HRC as a tool of intimidation against persons or groups they find offensive for whatever reason. Boiled down, what Catholic Insight did was teach standard Catholic doctrine on the subject of homosexuality - and it now is on trial merely because of this expression of opinion. This is in Canada - but it is the sort of thing the political left wishes to bring here with their campaigns for “hate crimes” laws and changes to anti-discrimination laws to include “sexual orientation”.
Fundamentally, this is what we get when hatred is allowed the free use of lies to get its way - Rob Wells hates the Catholic Church because of the Church’s views on homosexual sex. Because of this unreasoning hatred, Wells wants to lash out at the Church - and his tool of choice is a lie. It is patently absurd for anyone to claim they feel threatened by Catholics stating the Catholic position on homosexuality. One might feel offended by it, but no on has a right to not be offended - Wells doesn’t feel threatened; and he knows he’s lying when he says otherwise. The Catholics under attack by Wells know he’s lying. The members of the Human Rights Commission know he’s lying. His friends and family know he’s lying. You, dear reader, know that he’s lying and, of course, I know he’s lying. But the farce will be maintained - everyone will proceed as if Wells weren’t lying. And in the by and by, we might see the Canadian HRC ruling in Wells favor because they, too, hate the Catholic Church and will use whatever comes to hand - even a transparant lie - to hammer the Church.
If anyone wonders why I fight so ardently against the left it is because of this - because of the hatred and dishonesty in service of hatred so prevalent on the left. The American left has been partially stymied in their attempts to make us a carbon copy of Canada and/or the EU, but it is what they want, and for the same reason - because they hate.
Tags: Canada, Catholic Church, Christianity, free speech, homosexuality, political correctness
December 21st, 2007
It will be a subject of debate, thanks to the very likely planted question in the CNN debate - from Politico:
A retired Army general, Keith Kerr, just listed all his military credentials and then left the crowd silent by saying at the end of his video that he is “an openly gay man” and wants to know why gays can’t serve in the military.
Romney was hit by Anderson Cooper with a past statement (imagine that) saying that he “look[ed] forward” to the day gays could serve. Pressed hard by Cooper about whether he had changed his mind, Romney plainly looked displeased. “This isn’t that time,” Romney first said, noting the national security threats. He said the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy “seems to have worked” and, toward the end, even drew some boos (it was tough to discern exactly why).
Kerr, present in the audience, was then introduced by Cooper and said he didn’t feel as though he got an answer. Explaining why, he got his own boos (partially snuffed by some shushing).
It all made for some feet-shuffling and floor-staring among the gathered Republicans.
Oh, my tireless colleague Avi Zenilman back at Politico World HQ does an insta-search on Kerr and discovers he was on the Steering Committee of “Veterans for Kerry.”
Short answer (at least as far as I’m concerned): yes.
Long answer: Being gay is not wrong - it is not a sin to be gay; given this, there should be no objection to having gay Americans serve in the United States military. And yet, there is objection.
Gay rights activists would have the objections as the mere result of anti-gay bigotry - and I’m sure that there is an element of this in the debate. However, there are practical considerations involved here.
First and foremost, a generally held opinion - whether well or ill-founded - cannot be lightly set aside, especially in a democratic republic. Say what you will about it, there is a distaste for homosexual acts among the general population, even among some of those who are determined to be very tolerant in the matter. I believe this distaste is irreducible: most people who are not gay will never come around to an idea that homosexual acts are morally the same as heterosexual acts. There will always be an element of the “other” in homosexuality as far as the heterosexual population is concerned. This gap can be bridged in many ways, but it will always be there, and has to be taken into consideration.
Secondly, and in conjunction with the distaste noted above, there is the practical matter of how to regulate the relations between servicemembers. Part of the objection to having women serve in the military (an objection I share - and do keep in mind that my sister served for 8 years in the Navy, and I still feel this way) is that in the various bonds which can develope between men and women may work at cross purposes to tbe bonds necessary for unit cohesiveness. This is why even to this day women are not placed in front line combat units. Adding open homosexuality to the mix will add yet another potentional morale destroyer to the mix. This doesn’t mean that there can never be homosexuals serving openly in the military, but it does mean it is not something we can just willy-nilly whistle up without careful thought.
What General Kerr did - almost certainly at the behest of Democrats trying to score cheap points - was absurd; and as a former serving officer he knows it is. Its not just a matter of “I want it, so we will do it”. Upon the effectiveness of the United States military rides the safety of the United States of America and, indeed, the safety of the whole world. This magnificent instrument must not become a laboratory where social engineering experiments are conducted. As I said, I believe that homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military - but before we allow that, we’ll have to make some things very clear; among these things would be just under what circumstances servicemembers would be able to have non-professional relations with each other. This is not the sort of thing which lends itself to cut and dried prescriptions, and the matter would take a great deal of study and preparation.
Kerr did a bit of Democratic grandstanding, and that was a disservice to his own cause - now it is time for thoughtful people to engage in real debate over this issue.
Tags: homosexuality, US Military
November 29th, 2007
