Taking a Meme Apart

Since our ever so persistent commenter "Roger" keeps on putting comments up that deserve a more thorough refutation than I am willing to put into a comment myself, I'm going to take his last comment back here and discuss his talking points on the front page.

Roger writes:

The point that I am asking you to consider is that "gay activists" are attempting, successfully in many cases, to push themselves upon individuals, institutions and organizations that have as their fundamental values, beliefs and or doctrines an opposition to the homosexual lifestyle. They do not want to be subject to it...i.e gays working in religious insitutions, gays using their facilities for their marriages or other gay events etc. These religious institutions especially should be protected as it is their RIGHT or at least was to oppose this lifestyle 'choice'.

Now Roger, if you had been paying attention to the laws, religious institutions are in fact protected in this regard. Please see S 318, Paragraph 3(b) under Defenses in the Criminal Code for an example. Further, in general, within the context of individual houses of faith (Churches), the jurisprudence has long held that the discussion around sexuality within the context of the church are held to be religious discussions and protected under freedom of religion. (This is why the Catholic Church in Canada has never been obliged to ordain a female clergy)

There is no scientific proof that a person is born with a predetermined preference to homosexuality, heterosexuality, beastiality, infidelity etc etc. Ultimately, homosexuality is a choice and many disagee with it and want to have places where they do not have to be subject to it. One who participates in homosexual sex cannot be compared to Jews or Blacks as many attempt to do.

I'm going to take this apart piece by piece, Roger. First of all, there is actually quite a lot of empirical evidence that strongly suggests that sexual orientation is rooted quite deeply in people at a level far more persistent than "mere socialization" would suggest. While you are correct in saying that the causal factors that play into sexual orientation are not by any means conclusively demonstrated, there is strong evidence that suggests that "choice" is far from a primary drive in most people. I will point to two key pieces in regards to this matter. The first is a book The Sexual Spectrum, which while it is a bit 'pop' in its delivery, is a pretty decent overview of the last 35 years of psychological research into sexuality. The second is the rather unfortunate case of David Reimer, whose life story pretty much shoots the theory of gender as primarily a social construct to pieces.

Lastly, sexual identity for many people is NOT responsive to so-called "conversion therapy" techniques. I've already discussed why I think this is the case in a previous discussion. Asking someone to change their sexual orientation is very much like asking a black man to be white.

Let's start with the Vriend case (1998 Surpreme Court of Canada). How will instituions such as King's College in Edmonton, an orthodox, fundamental Christian educational institution have their religious rights protected? Specifically, since the Vriend ruling, how will Christian organizations be permitted to maintain their religious convictions, teachings and doctrines and choose not to employ homosexuals or are they now forced to do so.

All Stop Right There, Roger. The Vriend case was not against King's College at all. It was against the Alberta Human Rights Commission which refused to hear the initial complaint at all because the subject centered on Vriend's homosexuality. The Vriend decision merely obliged the Alberta government to recognize homosexuals as being on the receiving end of discriminatory practices. In fact, had the Vriend case been 'Vriend v. King's College', and heard as such, I doubt you'd even know about it today. Nobody has ever challenged King's College on that matter since.

Are you now going to tell me that because our society has evolved to the point of social acceptance towards homosexuality, everyone who opposes this lifestyle choice has to change their beliefs, re-write their religious texts and allow homosexuals to potentially teach their children in private insitutional settings?

What goes on in a private religious school is up to that school and its host church. The fact that we are having this discussion tells me that there is a sizable chunk of society that has sadly failed to evolve in its understanding of the human condition.

- Dr. Chris Kempling, a teacher and counsellor at a public high school in Quesnel, was cited in May 2001 for “conduct unbecoming a professional”

Jeepers, you really don't pay attention do you? I've already discussed the Kempling case in considerable detail back here. Nice try, but Kempling's case is a lot more complex than you make it out to be. (and given his position on things, I'd feel very sorry for any GLBT youth that wound up with him as a therapist)

- Knights of Columbus of Port Coquitlam, BC, were fined by the BC Human Rights Tribunal in 2005 for refusing the use of their hall for a lesbian “wedding” reception.

You asked for one, I have given you three and could provide many more.

I addressed K of C issue in the same post I addressed Kempling.

In the KofC situation, the issue really boiled down to how the KofC handled themselves once they found out that it was a Lesbian union. The decision was quite clear on that matter, and as I understand it, the KofC has since revised their policies around renting halls out.

Sorry, Roger, you can do better than that. Not one of your cases demonstrates what you claim it does.

Regardless of how a person, a professional, a politician opposes the gay agenda in order to protect their own values, they are all brought before human rights tribunals, fined and even threatened with the possibility of imprisonment etc. If fines are imposed and not paid, imprisonement is the result. How can you agree with this?

Again, this is patently false. Were that the case, MP's like Elsie Wayne, and others would have long ago been threatened. There is a big difference, Roger, between standing up and objecting to something and making a 'call to arms' as Boissoin did. Making false equivalences (eg. homosexuality equals pedophilia) is usually where the trouble starts. Even your own arguments imply a linkage between bestiality and homosexuality. In the context of this discussion, I presume that you are pursuing a "moral equivalence" in your mind. (I would disagree - there's a big difference between what two consenting adults do and something involving an animal)

How can any Christian that believes in the long standing teachings of the Bible, the Catholic & Protestant church, a Muslim, a Jew, Mormon, JW, SDA etc etc...protect their institutions, their teachings, their children and their own opinion if this continues?

As I have stated repeatedly on this blog, faith is a personal freedom. Just because you see someone that you believe is "sinful" doesn't mean that you can demand that they remove themselves from your sight in public. (within a church or your own private property perhaps) Your arguments against homosexuality so far have centered heavily on your perceived right to not be offended, not on any material infringement of your religious liberties. (What is offensive about two people of the same gender walking down the street holding hands is beyond me - but that's up to you to decide why it offends you)

My advocacy is simple in this regard. Live and let live. Frankly, although I think the dogma of many churches on a variety of matters is ludicrous, I don't much care if they believe it. (e.g. The Catholic dogma on female clergy is simply ridiculous, but that's up to the church and its membership, not me)

On the other hand, when the Church starts demanding that their particular dogma dominate in the laws of the land, I take great exception - especially when the advocacy demands that a part of the population be held as second class citizens because of it.