Since Lifesite is notorious for bending and twisting things out of shape, I'll have to find a copy of this latest screed from Henry.
The Lifesite synopsis starts off with the usual bunch of absolute crap:
"The homosexual lifestyle must now be treated as wholesome and legitimate, when in reality, it is unwholesome and immoral."
What is this "lifestyle" these clowns keep yapping about? It's amazing to me that they claim to "know" all about how the gay and lesbian people live, and yet those that I know live amazingly pedestrian lives. The lurid intimations that the Bishop and other wingnuts use must be based on watching some really bad late night porn flicks. It's rather akin to going into a popular nightclub (say Cowboys in Calgary), and walking out assuming you now understand the straight dating scene - the picture you get from a meat market bar is quite different from the reality most people know.
"many . . . are unaware of the adverse effects already posed by our current legislation."
In addition to the above mentioned adverse effect, Bishop Henry noted that:
"The traditional family has its status and necessary privileges questioned
"Freedom of speech is threatened for those who oppose same-sex 'marriage' in public."
"Civil servants unwilling to cooperate with same sex 'marriage' -- such as marriage commissioners in B.C., Saskatchewan and other provinces -- are dismissed."
"Adoption of children by 'gays' and lesbians is 'legal.'
"'Gay' activists have now demanded successfully in B.C. that the curriculum be changed to suit their agenda."
This list of talking points is getting really old, if not downright ancient. I've debunked most of them at various times in the past, so let's fast forward to Henry's conclusions:
1. The polls confirm that the majority of Canadians do not favour same-sex “marriage” because there is no gender complementarity and it is closed to procreation. It is contrary to the natural law.
2. The new legislation undermines the legal status of marriage by undermining its unique and exclusive nature. In the last session of government a private members bill called for the recognition and equality of what are called transgendered and transvestite people. Other bills can be expected that clamour for the acceptance of polygamy (more than one wife) and polyandry (more than one husband).
In December 2005 (in Labaye vs. the Attorney General) the Supreme Court ruled that swingers clubs, which include the swapping of partners and public orgies, are perfectly legal. The Justices no longer recognize the existence of “community standards.”
3. The legal acceptance of so-called same sex "marriage" should be seen in the light of many years of agitation for the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle.
I see. Fundamentally, the Bishop is arguing for a continuation of systemic discrimination on a number of fronts. Worse, he is comingling unrelated issues. In spite of numerous arguments, nobody has ever put forth a line of reasoning that links SGM to polygamy or polyandry coherently. Most such arguments are based on a "slippery slope" argument, and utterly fail to draw any relationship between them - rendering the implied association quite vacant, in my view.
He complains that "In the last session of government a private members bill called for the recognition and equality of what are called transgendered and transvestite people". To which I can only guess how recognizing that transgendered people are subject to discrimination on a variety of fronts is harmful to the notion of marriage. Of course, the Bishop is desperate in his desire to hang onto having a few groups that are convenient to demonize for the ills in society, instead of actually addressing issues.
I can't possibly leave his little quip "It is against natural law" alone. Consider this, if homosexuality was "against natural law", do you really think it would have been a persistent feature of human societies throughout our recorded history? It strikes me that the very notion of "natural law" implies a respect for that which is quite natural. How, then, can you possibly argue that encouraging systemic discrimination against these people is "enforcing" natural law?
We now find ourselves confronted by a false way of thinking, which has weakened the moral fabric of our society, and attacked the social primacy of the family. It is time to push back.
1. Make a commitment to pray every day for the institution of traditional marriage in Canada.
2. Contact your MP: write a letter; better still, make an appointment to see him or her personally. Communicate the continuing importance of this issue to your elected representatives. Insist that the traditional definition of marriage be re-opened.
3. Study the teachings of the Church on marriage, consult the Canadian bishops web site, and be faithful to this teaching in your own lives and marriages. Teach and stress it to your children, grandchildren, and friends. Tell others to do the same.
After reading this, I seriously question whether the Bishop is writing to the ministry of his congregations, or is he engaging in politics.
I have a suggestion for the Bishop - rather than worrying about who boffs who, why don't you focus your energies somewhere that is actually productive - like helping Calgary's homeless.
Of course, like much of the Bishop's rantings on the subject, he's arguing purely by assertion, and little of what he says can actually be backed up with rational facts. His claims are based on dragging multiple, rather unrelated issues together and then claiming that they are in fact the same issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment