Gay bigots? "Gay Bigots"? "Gay" bigots? Gay "bigots"? Or "gay" "bigots"?

As many have said, Christian is the new gay.

Stuff like this is becoming all too predictable.

A Christian couple facing a foster parenting ban because of their views on homosexuality were told by a court yesterday that gay rights 'should take precedence' over their religious beliefs.

Owen and Eunice Johns heard that their values could conflict with the local authority's duty to 'safeguard and promote the welfare' of those in foster care.

The grandparents have already fostered 15 children and were praised by social workers as 'kind and hospitable people' who 'respond sensitively' to youngsters.

Outside court, Mr and Mrs Johns, aged 65 and 62, said they were 'extremely distressed' and had 'only wanted to offer a loving home to a child in need'.

They believe homosexuality is 'against God's law and morals' - but said they are not homophobic and would 'accept and love' any child.

Lest anyone think the Christian couple are raving bigots (which it is their right to be, even though they are not), read on:

She added that the couple have visited her nephew, who is gay, and his partner in San Francisco.

Her husband added: 'We wanted to offer love and stability and security to a vulnerable child. Eight-year-olds we have looked after want to play, not talk about their sexuality.'

But what mattered to the court was simply their religious opinions about homosexuality. That's their business, every bit as much as it is their business what they do in bed.

Seriously, if this keeps up, not being gay (or not wanting to be gay) will be considered an act of bigotry.

Excuse me, but whatever happened to sexual freedom?

While I have never liked identity politics, this case (fortunately not in the United States) is one of the most egregious examples I have seen. It is pure statism -- using identity politics as an excuse.

As might be expected, it has been widely criticized by religious conservatives, and otherwise has barely been reported in the United States.

It is in this way that the Culture War is surreptitiously fueled, with interested parties getting what they consider "red meat," while most people are not informed at all so they cannot weigh in.

What might otherwise be newsworthy is being swept under the rug.

I would not have heard about this but for an odd-looking headline that attracted my attention because of the quotation marks -- 'Gay' atheist warns of 'tyrannous new ... liberal morality' oppressing Christians:
LONDON, March 4, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Last week's ruling of the High Court in London banning pro-family Christian couples from fostering children has even self-described "gay" atheists concerned.  The justices ruled that it was appropriate to ban a Christian couple from fostering children since they refused to present homosexual sex as positive. 

David Starkey, a renowned historian and UK media personality, was discussing the ruling on BBC television yesterday. Starkey said: "I am gay and I am atheist but I have profound doubts about this case. It seems to me that what we are doing is producing a tyrannous new morality that is every bit as oppressive as the old."

Starkey described what he believes was harassment from police that he experienced while growing up as a homosexual.  He said, however, that, "I am very, very concerned that a new sort of liberal morality is coming in, which as I said, is as intolerant, is as oppressive, is as intrusive into family life."

Gay or not, Dr. Starkey is absolutely right. Imposing one's morality on the private lives of decent people is wrong, whether it be based on "gay" intolerance or "straight" intolerance. (I don't know what's with the quotes, but I am trying to go with the flow lest I offend the quoters.)

Still, what's with the quotes? Don't they believe Dr. Starkey is gay? Or is it that they don't approve of his decision to call himself that? Or might it be that they don't want him to be a homosexual? (If that is the case, then why isn't "atheist" in quotes?) I'm no fan of identity politics, but if someone says he is gay, I am not inclined to question his self assessment by putting quotes around it -- any more than I am going to put quotes around "straight" or "christian," "Muslim," or "Jewish." There is something condescending about that. Like putting quotes around "white" or "black."

But OTOH, maybe the identity politics people deserve it, for they started it.

As it turns out, historian David Starkey has been discussed in this blog, for he likened Henry VIII to Barack Obama, and despite my being too old for postmodernism I worried that there might have been an unappreciated subtext there.

But never mind that! Dr. Starkey is absolutely right to defend the rights of the "Christian" couple that wants to adopt (in quotes because I don't think their religion should matter and the religion is not monolithic) against the "gay" tyranny that wants to stop them.  Yes, I put "gay" in quotes because I don't think the sexuality of statist fascists should matter, and if it does it should be protested because they speak only for themselves and not for any group.

Here's the video:

Bigotry is so exhausting.

And because gay activists imagine themselves to be more in favor of sexual freedom and therefore more tolerant, "gay" "bigotry" is even more exhausting than "Christian" "bigotry."

So are the quotation marks.

posted by Eric on 03.16.11 at 11:24 PM










Comments

Post a comment


April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits