The culture war over homosexuality is not, primarily, a battle between liberals and conservatives.
It is often a war between those who refuse to discuss the issue, and those who call for the issue be addressed honestly in a community setting.
At the Christian Alliance for Progress web site, the antigay screed “The Gay Invention: Homosexuality Is a Linguistic as Well as a Moral Error,” by R.V. Young, was recently up for discussion. Young explicitly denies the existence of sexual orientation — and therefore the existence of same-sex-attracted persons, and therefore the constitutional rights of such persons. Young deems oneself to be among the few, the elect, the moral, and above discussing morality with those whom Young self-servingly deems immoral:
While men and women who are possessed by an urge to commit sodomy with others of the same sex should always be treated with justice and charity, they should not be allowed to determine the norms of moral discourse.
Young strips actions of their contexts — and strips people of their souls. A commenter observes:
Professor Young, and those like him, see absolutely no reason to discuss anything about the subject; they have already made up their minds, and with their interpretation of the Bible to back them up, deny that anyone who disagrees with them has a legal or theological or moral or ethical leg to stand on. You can’t have a discussion when one side denies that there’s anything to discuss.
Further, the more virulently zealous religious conservatives are not content to simply shut down any attempt at genuine discussion, they want to demonize those who call for such discussions, drop a theological nuke on the topic itself, and salt the earth of the so-called common ground, just to be sure.
This is, obviously, a moral failing not only of Young, but of the leadership of Exodus, Focus on the Family, and Stephen Bennett Ministries. They do not discuss, they do not arrive at consensus; they stereotype, they dictate, and they act with ears closed — moral consequences be damned.
[…should always be treated with justice and charity, they should not be allowed to determine the norms of moral discourse.]
A question for the ages. How does one treat a person with justice and charity and yet PREVENT them for determining the norms of moral discourse? Hmmmmm?
[…should always be treated with justice and charity, they should not be allowed to determine the norms of moral discourse.]
And Mr. Young best recognize that nor should he be allowed to determine the norms of moral discourse – logic and fairness must. If he is claiming that rather than logic and fairness determining the norms of moral discourse he should be the one in charge he needs a damn good reason for that and believing his interpretation of his religion is the one true one isn’t remotely good enough. Lots of people from lots of different religions feel exactly the same way and such intractable pedestrian views are the cause of all manner of wars, violence, and terrorism. A mandatory feature of a committment to conflict resolution is that its ALL open for discussion. No question is off the table and no one person gets to declare the discussion over when dissatisfaction remains.
The bedrock of society, the foundation of the family, and the heart of all formal legal proceedings is a sincere one for one exchange of questions and answers. Any one who isn’t committed to doing that in all conflicts certainly isn’t someone who should be determining the norms of moral discourse for anyone other than themselves. Mr. Young represents the tired old position (I’m right, no further discusssion) that causes intractable violence. The essence of fairness is everyone gets equal time and equal say.
Or maybe he’s just nuts.
Hear! Hear!
I’ve just received this treatment by ex gays. And I’m to believe these are people who are caring and employed in the business of discussing difficult issues.
Not so.
We can be talked about, taken out of context.
But joined in the discussion? No.