Over at No Apologies, regular writer Tom Bartlett
vomits up this attempt to dismiss the point, purpose and validity of Gay Pride events.
I don't think I've read too many pieces of work that are less rooted in logic and coherent reason recently (the insane ravings of Feminazi blog keeper "Miss Andrea" aside).
At its black heart, the entire diversity movement has been about contempt toward the noble traditions of faith that have provided so much good reinforcement against the secular humanism and violent belief systems that undermine society. I do, however, have some rhetorical questions related to the homosexual P.R.I.D.E. parade fiasco.
First of all "Pride" is a word - just like you find it in the dictionary. It is not an acronym, nor is it some kind of organization out of bad 1960's era spy fiction.
Second, there is nothing "noble" about blatant bigotry - whether it is rooted in faith or malice is immaterial.
Let's go on and look at his "rhetorical questions", shall we?
1) Why has it been considered perfectly acceptable for the P.R.I.D.E. parade to engage in blatant shows of contempt toward Christians? Incidents such as the obscene re-enactment of the Last Supper were met with yawning indifference by the media? Perhaps Jews should at least take solace in knowing that denigration of their faith occasioned some debate.
Since I haven't personally witnessed the "obscene" re-enactment of "The Last Supper", I can only imagine that it was apt as not to have its roots in much the same kind of parody that inspires so much of the Drag performance community. There's no doubt a certain amount of thumbing one's nose at those who have been so quick to condemn in there as well.
As for yawning indifference by the media, most of the world has gotten past being outraged by Pride parades - why would this be a big deal either?
2) What does it say about homosexual activists that contempt for these faith traditions is so intertwined with their events? Doesn’t this belie the notion that issues like same-sex marriage are about trying to blend into, rather than undermine, our culture?
I hate to point this out, but in today's world it would be difficult indeed to make a compelling argument that any one faith is "preeminent" over all others in society. Blending into society doesn't mean that anyone has to adopt a particular faith tradition.
3) How does a group that “prides” itself on diversity try to exclude a group with its own ideology? What does this reveal about the hypocrisy and premises of the “diversity” movement when it merely draws its own lines on what attitudes, beliefs and lifestyle choices are unhealthy or unacceptable? Don’t such incidents mean that we must uproot the core suppositions behind secularism and start from scratch in determining whether the homosexual (transgender, bisexual, etc.) lifestyles have equal merit and are thus deserving of special protections?
Huh? Where's the exclusion here? Do I really need to point out that there have been religious groups who participate actively in the GLBT community, churches that openly accept GLBT members without persecuting them.
What Mr. Bartlett is misunderstanding ... and misrepresenting ... is the idea that diversity means treating all with respect and dignity. Respect and dignity is a two way street - generally one reaps as one sows, and the hardline anti-gay crowd has hardly treated GLBT people with respect or dignity. One can hardly be surprised that the GLBT community works with those who treat them well and feels it appropriate to 'return the favor' to those whose contempt for them has been so blatant.
4) Given the fact that homosexuals make up only 1 to 2% of the population, why do they have so many hateful activist subgroups among their numbers?
Such as?
Sorry pal, if you want to claim hatefulness and so on, I'd suggest you provide real and concrete examples ... along with specific organizations that are allegedly behind these acts. Simply asserting hatefulness is not the same as demonstrating a reality behind it.
5) Why are P.R.I.D.E. parades mired in such controversies that don’t tend to plague other groups? For instance, how is it that N.A.M.B.L.A. (the North American Man-Boy Love Association) has enjoyed such close ties with P.R.I.D.E. events? Why did P.R.I.D.E. only distance themselves from N.A.M.B.L.A. after public scrutiny and outrage? Why have homosexual activists fought so hard to lower the age of sexual consent if there is no link between these two groups? What, for that matter, is the secular argument against sex between adults and children?
Ummm...really? I haven't seen or heard of
NAMBLA being anywhere near a Pride parade for years. This is yet another example of making false connections - the inference being that GLBT people are really just pedophiles.
I can't speak for the situation in the US, but in Canada there's been an interesting double standard in our sex crimes laws. If someone is female, they can consent to sexual activity at the age of 14; however for someone who is male the laws make it a crime (statutory rape) if the individual engages in anal sex under the age of 16. Why the difference? That has been at the crux of that lobby for years. It's disappointing that Mr. Bartlett hasn't bothered to do any research on the matter.
As for any link between NAMBLA and the mainstream GLBT community, that's a huge reach.
The indoctrination and recruitment programs that government is complicit in imposing on society keep many homosexuals from getting the compassionate help that would help them deal with underlying hurts, break free from their lifestyle, and be fully informed of the risks inherent in it. Social acceptability won’t eradicate these very real issues.
"Compassionate help"? What does that mean?
Reparative therapy perhaps? We all know how well that works. As for "risks", the risks of ignorance are far, far greater - and it's no secret that Bartlett's argument is heading towards returning to an era of blatant oppression of GLBT people - something which makes it even harder to communicate with those groups.
I know many will insist that pro-lifers have such radical elements, but that argument is easily refuted. Those who have committed acts of violence, such as killing abortionists and bombing clinics, are neither on the fringe nor at the centre of any pro-life organisation. Any such rogue individuals and groups have never had a part with us and are roundly and consistently denounced. In fact, pro-life gatherings are peaceful; where there has been violence, it has almost always been directed at pro-life protestors. That is because pro-lifers don’t promote nebulous concepts of “diversity,” but make an unapologetic stand in defence of vulnerable human life.
At its core, Christ-centred advocacy is borne of compassion, while homosexual activism is mired in hatred.
Therein lies the double standard of the entire argument. On one hand, Mr. Bartlett trashes GLBT people based on the acts of a few - arguably some of whom would be considered extremes even within the community and then tries to deflect the actions of extremists like Dennis Roeder by claiming that they are mere "aberrations". Sorry, Mr. Bartlett, but if you insist that the GLBT community own the acts of its extremes, then it is only fitting that the lobbies you support take ownership of the actions of their own extremists.
To conclude that his own brand of advocacy is rooted in "compassion" when it has so often turned not just to hate-mongering, lies and deceit but to outright murder is a stretch, especially in contrast to his claim that GLBT activism is filled with hatred (which he only claims, but does not substantiate).
There's a little hint here - just as people's sexual and romantic lives are personal business, so is an individual's religion. That means that I don't have the right to limit someone's religious beliefs, but nor do they have the right to impose their beliefs upon others.
