Omnes Sancti et Sanctæ Coreæ, orate pro nobis.

Now Blogging Afresh at Ad Orientem 西儒 - The Western Confucian



Saturday, March 18, 2006

Sex Liberals
Say what you will about the Bushista neoconnerie of Townhall.com, its social criticism is usually spot on, as in this case with these two articles below.

"Liberals hate sex. No, not that— the other kind," begins Nathanael Blake in Male, female, or other: can I check all three? "While they support sexual acts in all possible permutations, the male/female distinction drives them round the bend."

He goes on to take Sex Liberals and "LGBTQQIA" people to task with some tough questions:
    How... can they believe, for example, that masculinity and femininity are social constructs with no relation to the biological differences between the sexes, while also holding that homosexuality is inherent? Or that gender is unimportant, except when someone insists that he or she is stuck in a body of the wrong gender?
How, indeed?

"We live in interesting times when the Catholic Church has to defend its doctrinal beliefs regarding the adoption of children against those who insist that the church adjust its policies to reflect the preferences of gays and lesbians," writes Kathleen Parker in Bringing the church to its knees.

I'm beginning to agree with the author that the decision in Boston will come to be seen as a very evil precedent:
    If the church can be forced to adhere to state laws regarding adoption in spite of prohibitive doctrine, can the church also be forced in other areas, perhaps to conduct same-sex marriages? Gay activists have always insisted not, but the adoption case demonstrates that the lines separating church and state are not always so clear.

    Theoretically, isn't the church discriminating against gays by refusing to marry them? In time, no doubt, a well-placed lawsuit will tell.

    Whether one agrees or disagrees with gay family adoptions isn't the issue here, and it's important to articulate this clearly.
Adiós, freedom of religion.