Gays Ridiculous Reaction to Santorum
by James Gibson
The mythical "gay community" and their acolytes in the Democratic Party are all bent out of shape over comments by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) which equated homosexual acts with bigamy, polygamy, adultery, and incest.
Normal people will naturally wonder what all the fuss is about. Homosexual behavior is a deviation from the natural sexual relationship between a man and a woman within the sacred bond of marriage. So, to equate it with bigamy, polygamy, adultery, and incest is hardly unusual and certainly should not be taken as being in any way "offensive" or "insensitive." It's just the truth.
But those who make their deviant sexual behavior the defining characteristic of their identity claim that Sen. Santorum's comments are "offensive" and equate them with the racially insensitive remarks of Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) from late last year. But such persons have no right to be offended.
Let's not mince any words here. Concerning the issue of homosexual behavior, the only thing that is "offensive" is the behavior itself. This uncomfortable fact has been obscured in the ongoing debate because the "gay community" has so craftily co-opted the language of victimology and those parties, such as the Church, which should champion traditional morality have equivocated from an objective standard and sought to appease the deviants by appeals for "mutual tolerance."
Let us address, first, the shortcomings of the traditionalists. The Church has essentially acquiesced to the conventional wisdom that "homosexuality" is an orientation rather than a learned behavior. Thus, both Protestants and Catholics tend to look upon "homosexual persons" as pitiable souls deserving of compassion and "tolerance" while failing to confront homosexual behavior as a destructive evil which wreaks havoc upon the persons who engage in it.
Many in the Church--including a good number of evangelicals--would rather devote more time working to insure that "homosexual persons" are not mistreated and marginalized than helping persons overcome their enslavement to homosexual behavior. The motive for this misplacement of priorities is hardly admirable. It has more to do with public relations than with concern for the well-being of others.
Public relations is also the motive behind the Church's abandonment of an objective standard of morality in favor of a plea for "mutual tolerance." But "tolerance" is impossible absent an objective standard. The very idea that some idea or behavior should be "tolerated" implies that it is an idea or behavior which deviates from the norm. Tolerance is always, and necessarily, conditional. Those who adhere to the norm will permit certain deviations as long as those deviations do not begin to threaten the overall moral fabric of a society.
This brings us to the subject of the "gay community's" manipulation of the language of victimology. They demand "tolerance" of their "lifestyle" and are "offended" whenever someone, particularly a person of political or religious prominence, makes comments they deem to be "insensitive."
But what the "gay community" is actually demanding is not "tolerance," but acceptance of their deviant behavior. When they claim to be "offended" by someone's "insenstive" remarks, what they really mean is that their feelings have been hurt because they have been reminded once again of the inescapable objective truth that the behavior which they hold so dear is simply not acceptable within the bounds of a decent, moral, civilized society. It is only tolerated because of that same society's compassion toward those who struggle on its margins.
There is a way for those enslaved by homosexual desires to be set free. They must see "homosexuality" not as an orientation to be ratioinalized or a lifestyle to be celebrated, but as a sin to be confronted, repented of, and overcome. This is the message the Church ought to proclaim--with all compassion, yet unequivocally and unapologetically--to the "gay community" and to society at large. Moral clarity will inevitably bear more fruit than will equivocation and political correctness.
<Back to News