WASHINGTON — Last year, a Rutgers University student committed suicide after “friends” live-streamed his sexual encounter with another man. His death prompted a slew of media headlines and surveys charting a rise in “gay bashing,” a trend that homosexual-rights activists blamed, in part, on political and religious opposition to “marriage equality.”
More recently, the “bully” label was applied to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), after the homosexual-rights group successfully lobbied a top law firm to drop its commitment to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). A Washington Post editorial asserted that HRC “sullies itself and its cause by resorting to bullying tactics,” challenging a key American principle: Even unpopular causes are entitled to representation.
So who is bullying whom? In political circles, it’s easy to become distracted with the task of keeping score — Who most effectively played the victim card? Which activist group scored a direct hit? — and lose track of the deeper issues at stake. The culture is engaged in a repudiation of seemingly immutable principles that have guided society’s understanding of human sexuality, family structure, and even the survival of the species. It’s a big deal.
While homosexual activists can point to a legacy of harassment and discrimination, they now wield considerable influence. “To a degree unimaginable as recently as 2004 … anti-gay animus is far more likely to repel voters than attract them,” observed Frank Rich, the liberal New York Times columnist.
Public figures and institutions avoid taking stands that could be interpreted as “intolerant” or in violation of anti-discrimination and hate-crimes statutes. Donors that backed state efforts to ban same-sex “marriage” — like California’s Proposition 8 — have been targeted by activist groups. In several states, Catholic Charities has been forced to close adoption services, and the Boy Scouts of America, which bans homosexuals from serving as troop leaders, has lost public accommodations and PTA sponsorship.
Increasingly, political leaders portray the legalization of same-sex “marriage” as a straightforward civil-rights issue. “Do you want to be remembered as a leader on civil rights? Or an obstructionist? On matters of freedom and equality, history has not remembered obstructionists kindly,” Mayor Michael Bloomberg admonished the New York state Senate, which was expected to vote on the issue this week.
Those who harbor doubts about same-sex “marriage” are encouraged to censor their concerns. But only the naive would expect that the redefinition of marriage, and attendant efforts to root out “heterosexism,” can be accomplished with minimal fuss. While television portrays same-sex unions in a sympathetic light, skeptics have noted the explosion of sexual options and combinations, making public accommodation a kind of moving target.
When the J. Crew website posted a photo of its top designer painting her young son’s toenails pink, hysteria ensued. Push the wrong button and consumers push back. The uproar signaled a growing concern that “our culture is being encouraged to abandon all trappings of gender identity,” suggested Keith Ablow, a Fox News contributor.
Damage from Other Sources
Yet it would be equally naive and unjust to view the homosexual-rights agenda as the primary threat to traditional marriage. The weakening of marriage began long before, and gained traction in the ’60s, when social turmoil, fueled by ready access to birth control, made it easy for couples to justify behavior that ignored the common good of the family and the needs of children.
The damage incurred over the past half century has made us skeptical of feel-good marital-exit plans like “creative divorce.” Researchers have also discovered that fatherless children are more likely to struggle with crime, unemployment and substance abuse.
It turns out that children need a mother and a father. But keep that insight under wraps in these sensitive times.
Case in point: When Maggie Gallagher, chairwoman of the National Organization for Marriage, during a recent debate on same-sex “marriage” at Georgetown University, suggested that children needed both parents, a student demanded an apology for the hurtful comment. Gallagher then explained that she learned the hard way that children needed a father and a mother. During college, she had a child out of wedlock; over the years she witnessed her son’s deep yearning for the father he never knew. That’s what made her a “marriage expert.”
So, how does a 21st-century college student reach the conclusion that defending a child’s need for both parents verges on hate speech?
Not so long ago, homosexual persons were disowned by their parents and harassed by the police. The damage incurred from that brutal legacy has yet to be fully contained. A friend recently shared her grief after a beloved uncle died alone, his body undiscovered for days. Shame about his sexual orientation led him to drift away from the family circle.
Challenge for Parents
Today, many homosexual people expect full accommodation in mainstream America, including the legalization of same-sex “marriage.” One unstated subtext of the bullying narrative, within the broader national debate about same-sex unions, is that “marriage equality” will uphold the social status and civil rights of “sexual minorities,” and hopefully calm the turmoil that fuels the suicide rate.
Americans have become sympathetic to the myriad struggles of people with same-sex attraction. Yet, in the privacy of the voting booth, the majority of voters across the nation have consistently rejected “marriage equality.: Slowly, though, a generational shift is drawing us into a new era where “marriage equality” may be greeted with a shrug and a smile.
Already, some grandparents are learning to welcome a grandchild’s same-sex partner, and top universities and corporations seek “gay” recruits. The military is catching up, too, as it prepares to dismantle “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the Clinton-era policy that permitted homosexuals to serve in the armed forces, if they didn’t publicly disclose their sexual orientation.
These unsettling changes pose a problem for parents: How to discourage experimentation with illicit, dangerous sexual behavior when the culture no longer makes moral distinctions, and “safe sex” is the default solution?
Guided by the chitchat on television sitcoms and talk shows, the mainstream younger generation are budding experts on the difference between sexual identity, sexual orientation, and just plain-old gender. Indeed, a New York Times story, published this month noted a surge of new books about gender-bending children, and reported that parents are scrambling to “support” their child’s non-traditional behavior: There are children’s picture books like My Princess Boy and 10,000 Dresses, and books for parents like Gender Born, Gender Made: Raising Healthy Gender-Nonconforming Children. Meanwhile, Fox news reported on a controversial anti-bullying curriculum in Oakland public schools that teaches elementary-school children that there are more than two genders in the world of human beings and animals.
But what do our children know of the Church’s vision of human sexuality?
In Light of the World, Pope Benedict XVI summarizes the countercultural core of Catholic sexual ethics : “Sexuality has an intrinsic meaning and direction, which is not homosexual. The meaning and direction of sexuality is to bring about the union of man and woman and in this way give humanity posterity, children, future. This is the determination internal to the essence of sexuality. Everything else is against sexuality’s intrinsic meaning and direction. This is a point we need to hold firm, even if it is not pleasing to our age.”
The pope’s statement radically challenges our culture’s evolving view of sexuality that, at times, looks like a faddish spin on the America’s ethos of individual autonomy. “Don’t fence me in,” as the old Cole Porter song goes. Still, most parents understand that their children will only flourish when they learn to live within a moral framework that incorporates the Pope’s teaching: The fulfillment of our mission on earth is directly tied to our masculinity or femininity.
Social conformity used to be a handy excuse for just saying No; that fallback position is ancient history. You might say that nonconformity is the new norm, and the young traverse a cultural mindset that is fostering fragmentation — dueling realities with competing codes of behavior. Faithfully navigating this landscape requires charity, prudence and hope — and the language to express our deepest beliefs without rancor.
Today, we rightly label real bullying as “hateful”: Each person deserves love and respect because of their inalienable dignity, not because they are covered under hate-crimes statutes. We also need to strengthen our catechetical efforts to engage the culture as it is, creating bridges that help the youth move from falsehood to truth. And when, despite our best intentions, we’re called “homophobic” and “bigoted,” we can politely ask, “Who is bullying whom?”
Register senior editor Joan Frawley Desmond writes from Chevy Chase, Maryland.
Tim Drake: How Barack Obama Betrayed the Civil Rights Movement
Comments
Post a Comment
This was an interesting article, but would you mind citing some actual instances of the “bullying tactics” used by the HRC? You do mention them several times, yet never expound upon what actually happened. Are there any real instances of what you call “bullying” by the HRC or this just media rhetoric used to persuade individuals to your side? I would assume the latter….....
When kids start jumping off bridges for being Catholic - Then you can talk about bullying.
The fact that children grow up to think for themselves and turn their back on the oppressive small mindedness of the Church is not bullying. It’s common sense.
Is it possible for homosexual marriages to be held to the same standards as heterosexual marriages? Is it possible for partners in homosexual unions to attend religious services, remain faithful to one another and raise adopted children within the church? By continually excluding them creates an environment where homosexuals are inferior. Can’t the cycle be broken?
Bigoted behavior has unfavorable consequences in society, shame on you for conflating that with bullying with the intent to cause human suffering. No one is made to suffer when their hateful speech is pointed out and opposed by social action.
Someone is not a ‘bigot’ simply because they don’t like something, they’re a bigot because they purposefully/knowingly go out of their way to disenfranchise the humanity of others; derogatory language, psychological dehumanization, and other kinds of polemical/hyperbolic rhetoric. This describes the political tactics of the ENTIRE anti-gay movement.
Remove the “scare” quotes from gay and marriage and then maybe I’ll read your article. Otherwise, it’s just more bigoted dribble.
You wrote this well Mrs. Desmond. Thank you. In our Traditional chapel with four priests(!) the families either send their children to our school or they home school. Most families do not have televisions and computer use is restricted. The group is bright and educated and we sometimes call ourselves “the Amish” or “the Mennonites” to distinguish ourselves from the Mammonites who are most people we know. I think it is quite clear that most serious Catholics have very little in common with most Americans and, for that matter, with most “Catholics”. I hope it isn’t elitist to say this, but how else, as our priests point out, are we to avoid the near occasions of sin (and eventual damnation)?
I suppose the Catholic Church will never consider the possibility that it
causes great suffering by accepting a flawed theology contained in its
Catecism pertaining to human sexuality. If there is any bullying on either
side that is the source of it all. Catholic theology is in direct conflict the facts ofhomosexuality which are found throughout nature. Beyond that homosexuals have rights under American law that have already been decided (Roemer v Evans, 1996 and Lawerence v Texas, 2003)
and the Catholic, lamentably must be forced by law to accept that
reality. I find myself deeply disappointed by the obstinence and
even arrogance of the religious community generally. Just how do you think you are?
Thanks Joan for bringing this up and begin so candid! We are see a feminization of male role models and a masculinization of female role models in every aspect of our culture including the Church. Our feminist are so “butch” they are laughable, and our Clergy has been transformed into a giggle of girls! Our Government is endlessly discussing the rights of the gay and lesbian groups and promoting the Prop 8. Here in Canada it’s a done deal! And heaven help anyone who disagrees. Sexuality is a delicate subject. The secret cravings of humans has always been crooked and off centre! In the Church we have a witch hunt going on and expelling seminarians who, even though virginal as any Louis de Gonzague, express to their director that they had a “fantasy” are shipped out on the next bus! To Michael Voris’ recent tirade that sections of the clergy and the hierarchy are active in and promoting homosexual activity! Homosexual feelings and desires are native to us all, in some they are part of their make up, and are dysfunctional and we know it intrinsically. Choosing the Gay Life-style on the other hand is, just that, a choice. Hence Gay marriage is life-style driven. (Some who have chosen the Gay life-style aren’t homosexual). If St Paul had excluded every male in Corinth who had had a same sex encounter he wouldn’t have had any men or very few to build up the sacramental Church. If St Augustine, Ignatius Loyola, Charles de Foucault or Thomas Merton had been excluded for their past.. all of them disordered and dysfunctional and addicted… Where would our Doctors of the Church, our martyrs and our Priestly Monks be? We all need to grow up and get on with evangelizing, and stop “tut-tutting”. there is lots of people who are in the Sites of Our Dear Lord when He said: “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” Let the Priests look and see what has to be done, and let the Laity get on with what need to be done, and lets build up His Church as St Francis was ordered to do. The New York State and the New York Times are like the Gates of Hell, that can’t overcome the Kingdom of Heaven. thee is a grand old French Canadian expression: “We are afraid to be afraid!” God bless us and let’s go into battle to love our enemies and forgive them!
Thank you so much for this well-written & balanced piece!
Thanks, Joan this was very well written and addressed some thoughts I’ve had recently about this subject. I think now it’s almost as controversial to say anything against homosexuality as it was not so long ago for someone to say anything for it. It is harder and harder to spread the truth about this because of the hate and accusations it brings from those who want to be all “loving” and “welcoming” to those who consider themselves homosexuals. It’s like stepping on eggshells. I’m sure you probably felt that as you wrote this article. I think in a way though it is better that we do not throw stones at those who are plagued with this and live in sin by living out their homesexual lifestyle.But, we also can’t be so ‘loving’ that people forget that it is indeed sinful and for a good reason.
That said, did you hear about the Catholic parish in Boston that is having a special mass to ‘welcome’ those in the homosexual and transgender and bisexual community? This confused and saddened me. Is there something there I am missing?
Joan, I just read through some of you other comments—ouch! Are those comments real or did you put them there to illuminate your point better? ;)
Bullying is merely bad behavior that unfortunately adds the element of victim status to the subject and “elevates” him to a member of a group, “a bullying victim”, seemingly for a level of empowerment that a group has over an single person. We are failing to see in this the depersonalization and denigration of the nature of the person when he becomes a “victim” and a member of a collective. A person’s inherent dignity should be protected, as in opposition to abortion, euthanasia, as well as all manner of impurity, immorality, and exploitation, to both protect people truthfully and avoiding the vanity of a special status. “Bullying” and victim status is a worldly construct devoid of the true nature and dignity of man, in the way that utilitarian depersonalization is. It is because of this world’s denigration of the true nature of man as made in the image of God that we think we need these statuses and hate crime legislation and the power of a group. It is based on untruth at its very heart.
Joan, Thanks. Good article.
To everyone who derides the Church’s fidelity to the 5,000 year old prohibitions against homosexual acts, as well as against acts of bestiality, incest, and adultery, try reading the Old Testament, in which the Lord GOD commands His people Israel from committing these acts as they are an abomination. The Lord Jesus Christ told His followers, “I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it.” He did not do away with the Old Testament Laws, but steadfastly upholds them. To make it easier for the whole of mankind the world over to embrace the Gospel, the Church, with God’s permission, was able to abrogate certain of the *ceremonial* observances, such as circumcision and the laws of kashrut (dietary laws). But never any element of the *moral* law, those which emanate from the Ten Commandments.
It is the God who created the Universe who gave His people these laws; no one in the Church made these laws up, and no one in the Church has the authority to do away with them.
Even if it were true that some persons are born homosexual, it is also true that some persons are born with cystic fibrosis and hemophilia. The latter are serious, life-threatening, genetically transmitted illnesses. God “created” hemophiliacs, people whose blood doesn’t clot normally, and who can bleed out from a paper cut. Even though God created them that way, this doesn’t mean that their abnormal condition should not be recognized as anything other than a medical problem requiring treatment. Hemophilia and cystic fibrosis are not things to “celebrate”, or to be “proud” of. They are illnesses. So is Same Sex Attraction an illness.
So are alcoholism and drug addiction, illnesses. The Church does not recommend that alcoholics and addicts seek comfort in another dose of their drug, but that with God’s help, they seek healing and peace in abstinence, which leads to health in mind, body, and spirit.
Similarly, the Church counsels those afflicted with the disorder of Same Sex attraction, to seek, with God’s help, healing and peace in abstinence, which leads to health in mind, body, and spirit. Whereas sin and the practice of abomination leads to death of mind, body, and spirit.
Imagaine a Cadillac product that comes with a beautifully-produced Owner’s Manual issued by GM, and provided with each new vehicle. A group of owners get together and say, “oil change every 5K? That’s not for me!” or “I’m not abiding by any of this running her easy for the first 1K miles. If I can’t take it up to the red line on my way home from the dealer, then what’s the point? That’s the kind of guy I am.”
Well, those new owners are free to ignore and even argue with GM’s recommendations, but they’re not going to get GM to change them. Why? Because GM built the car, and knows how it should be run. Similarly, God built us, and knows how we should run. And the Church produces, prints, binds, and distributes the Owner’s Manual, which God wrote. She doesn’t change it to suit various owners.
This thoughtful and seemingly well-balanced article pivots at the end on the same old tired reassertion by the Church leadership:
“The meaning and direction of sexuality is to bring about the union of man and woman and in this way give humanity posterity, children, future. This is the determination internal to the essence of sexuality. Everything else is against sexuality’s intrinsic meaning and direction. This is a point we need to hold firm, even if it is not pleasing to our age.”
One cannot seriously consider this without considering the source, the church leadership at the Vatican. The priesthood has always been a refuge for homosexuals. Further, it is widely known, if not acknowledged by the Church or this publication, that the Vatican is a population with one of the highest percentages in the world of men whose sexual orientation is homosexual. Surely, reasonable Catholics understand that the prevalence of repressed (or not) homosexuality in the Church leadership undermines the legitimacy of this position.
to portray gays as bullies when we’ve been bullied and smeared so long is a bit of a conundrum.
Gays are fighting for equal rights and the ability to love and legitimize it.
Catholics are fighting to stop that so they can live in a world where we are hidden.
I’d hardly call gays the bullies here.
The homosexual defense league have clearly jumped all over this article. Folks wake up! Homosexual behavior is ABNORMAL! (Text deleted.)It is unhealthy, unnatural and not anatomically or physiologically correct. Text deleted.) It has nothing to do with mutual love but only selfish gratification. (Text deleted.)All of the homosexual agitators will not change the facts. The advancement of the homosexual agenda is the most glaring evidence of our moral and cultral decline.
Considering what’s ‘politically correct’ in this country, they are going to do whatever they want to do. Inasmuch as the Church has all but lost her moral creditability in this country, it’ll be interesting to see the outcome. I’m anxious to see how many priests will ‘bless’ these unions. We might be rather surprised at the positive response of clergy. Yes, you heard me!
Not ever too long ago those who professed to be religous leaders and moral compasses to humanity adamently believed the world was flat. We now know it is not.
Today we argue about marriage - many look back at the institution of marriage and see it to be THE key to the continuation of the human race. They have this idealic picture of a man and a woman married through love and witnessed by G-d. The reality is that marriages were made as part of property deals between fathers. Marriages often consisted of older men “marrying” women of only 13 years of age. This is not the key to the progresssion of our race. This, sadly, is a glorified pictute of what marriage was, a forced institution and transfer or property. If you don’t believe this, check your family tree.
If you want to move forward, at least be honest about your past.
“Someone is not a ‘bigot’ simply because they don’t like something, they’re a bigot because they purposefully/knowingly go out of their way to disenfranchise the humanity of others; derogatory language, psychological dehumanization, and other kinds of polemical/hyperbolic rhetoric.
But the catholic church has engaged in a pointed and vast campaign to claim that gays are sinners who should not be seen or allowed to have relationships. There are statements from your clergy that we don’t have any right to even love.
Enormous funds have been devoted to the oppression of love.
This affects one’s humanity.
Derogatory language is used at every turn and has for centuries, stating that gay relationships and love are inferior and comparable to pedophilia and murder. this is dehumanizing hyperbolic rhetoric that we’ve listened to all our lives.
And it’s being used to attempt to legislate the most personal aspects of our lives.
This affects one’s humanity.
Allowing children who are perceived as homosexual by peers to be physically threatened while rationalizing against intervention with “but that would make homosexuality ok” is psychological and physical abuse.
What I see consistently through this argument is that nobody against gay marriage ever will ever try to understand how it is to have one’s most powerful drives be stifled and openly shunned in the face of the pressure that is put on gays from before one even realizes their sexuality.
Tell us, how do you think homosexuals are supposed to react to hearing they should never be allowed to love and have a family while being cast out by their families and church.
“So are alcoholism and drug addiction, illnesses. The Church does not recommend that alcoholics and addicts seek comfort in another dose of their drug, but that with God’s help, they seek healing and peace in abstinence, which leads to health in mind, body, and spirit.”
So finding love when one’s family and church absolutely refuse to understand is on the same par as drug addiction.
And the claim is that it’s the gays who are the bullies?
“Church’s vision of human sexuality”
Why is the church trying to get everyone to comply with its particular version of acceptable sexuality? You can teach your flock all you want, but those of different faiths don’t need legislation telling them how to love.
When a religious leader is comparing the supposed intrusion of gay marriage existing in the same state as catholics is similar to North Korea, it certainly sounds like your church is way on the offensive to me.
Gays however are looking for equal treatment and are speaking up, I don’t call that bullying, it’s defense from bullying.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.