A Chilling Display of Tolerance

Despite overwhelmingly supporting Barack Obama in last week's election, Californians also voted 'Yes' on Proposition 8, a measure legally defining marriage in California as "marriage between a man and a woman."

The gay lobby has framed its fight in terms of victimhood, equal rights, and tolerance. But they've always been about bullying - shouting down their opponents and using the race and bigotry cards. And, of course, the battering ram of judicial activism, quite unlike the democratic process used by Yes on 8.

That's at the best of times. Here's what happens when democracy gets in the way of their plan: Crazy lefties attack old lady at No on 8 protest.

HRCs Are Just Trees in a Forest

The HRCs are a legitimate threat to the quality of the public discourse and the freedom of citizens with politically incorrect opinions. They have done significant damage to such citizens and deserve the intense scrutiny they are receiving. But HRCs are just trees in the forest of the war to censor of such opinions. There are victims for whom the HRCs cannot take credit.

One such victim is Chris Kempling. A summary of his incredible story is here, from a column in the National Post.

I find it disconcerting that my professional body wishes to sanction me for my political involvement, for conduct in a completely different profession servicing my own faith community and for opinions published in other provinces or countries. This action has potentially alarming consequences, not only for Canadian teachers, but for all regulated professions (social workers, psychologists, nurses, etc.), for whom such cases end up establishing legal precedents.

Also note, per our previous post, that Kempling can easily demonstrate that he is not 'homophobic', by virtue of the rational, well-researched defense of his position, and his befriending of several homosexuals. But in the world of politically correct censorship, the truth is no defense.

Disproving Phobia

Yesterday I commented on the Ontario HRC's ridiculous argument against 'Islamophobia'. Al Siebring at NoApologies also picked up on it as well, and takes issue with the insinuation that he is irrational. In his argument, he focuses on another made-up word: 'homophobia'. (Incidentally, this is well-accepted in the wonderful world of leftist liberalism as another form of racism.) Translated literally, 'homophobia' must mean 'irrational fear of same', in which case the 'irrational' part is certainly self-evident. However, it's supposed to mean 'irrational fear of homosexuality or homosexuals' and it's meant to paint anyone with serious questions or reservations about homosexuality as irrational. Proving that your reservations are rational, however easy, is beside the point. He who defines the terms, wins; if you have to prove that you are rational, you are already starting on the defensive.

But the other part of that definition is the word fear. Not many 'homophobes' are legitimately afraid of homosexuals. Siebring states:

I happen to hold to a traditional view of sexuality, and I equally know that there’s not a single shred of “phobia” in my heart on this. I have known homosexuals. I have worked with them. I have befriended them; had them over to my house. Like my other friends, I have disagreed with them at times about various issues, and I’ve told them so. But I’ve never been scared of them.

The best argument against being labeled 'homophobic' is not semantic, but practical. Befriending homosexuals and inviting them into one's house is strong evidence against homophobia just as being a racecar driver is strong evidence against amaxophobia (fear of riding in a car). Christians should feel uncomfortable with the homosexual lifestyle - it is contrary to the created order - and should not hide it or apologize for it. But this needs to be balanced with the same friendship, love, and compassion that Christ gave to sinners of all kinds.

Just a Harmless Kids' Book

J.K. Rowling, author of the very popular and successful Harry Potter series of books, announced Friday that master wizard Albus Dumbledore, a prominent character in the series, is gay, FoxNews.com reports in this article.

Many people will shrug their shoulders and say, "Why is this even news?" Many more will say, "It's just a harmless kids' book. We're talking about a fictional character here!" Indeed, if some far-right extremist fundamentalist Christian would dare to mention it, he or she would be accused of making mountains out of molehills, looking for fights to pick.

But those homophobes are too late. Those comfortable with promotion of homosexual behaviour beat them to the mountain-making. In case we were naive enough to think that this is an inconsequential fictional event, they make it quite clear:

"Jo Rowling calling any Harry Potter character gay would make wonderful strides in tolerance toward homosexuality," Melissa Anelli, Webmaster of the fan site http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org, told The Associated Press. "By dubbing someone so respected, so talented and so kind, as someone who just happens to be also homosexual, she's reinforcing the idea that a person's gayness is not something of which they should be ashamed."

The fact that these advances of the homosexual agenda are taking place in a book for children don't make them insignificant; they are by that fact the more insidious. I can not comment on Rowling's motivation, but it certainly can't hurt to have this influential lobby line up behind her new book.

Redefining the Family?

Front page news in the Globe and Mail this morning: Canadians Redefining the Family. The article of course, reported some of the statistics from the latest Canadian census. Special attention was paid to the falling rates of married couples, young women with kids, number of kids per family, etc.

The family being the basic unit of society and civilization, it is proper to be concerned with its health and status. But the Globe and Mail's primary interest isn't how the size of families or the number of single-parent families have changed. It deliberately ties the phrase "redefining the family" to stats on same-sex "marriages" and couples. It wants its readers to consider a same-sex couple a family. The Globe and Mail wants you to know that the debate is over, and you might as well shut up and get used to it. Same-sex "families" are here to stay.

Here follows the first paragraph under the headline of a similar story on the Globe and Mail website:

The redefinition of family continues apace in Canada, with the latest household figures from the 2006 census showing a significant increase in the number of same-sex couples and a first-ever count of same-sex marriages.

Four of the article's first five paragraphs are about same-sex couples. For the Globe and Mail, this is the most important aspect of the census.

A family is a family, and regardless of what Canadians do, they cannot change its definition. But the Globe and Mail is trying anyway, by implicitly and explicitly equating same-sex households with families. And it just can't resist shilling for them at every little opportunity.

The Phobia Fallacy

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is outspoken against abuses in the Islamic world. The most obvious of these are abuse against women, adulterers, and of course, homosexuals. So she often comes to their defense. This is good. We cannot consent to the killing of homosexuals for being homosexual. But this should also not preclude vigorous debate about homosexuality.

In the interview discussed earlier, Hirsi Ali rejects the term Islamophobia because Islam is not an inherent trait, as race and sex are, for instance. Critiquing an idea or practice is not necessarily an act of phobia. (Even hatred of an idea or practice is not de facto phobia.) This is a sound argument. The term Islamophobia is very new, created and used deliberately to shut down critical debate about Islam by putting it on the same level as racism. Redefining the debate is a favourite tactic for those who don't have the facts on their side.

Those who created the term Islamophobia were merely copying those who created the term homophobia. This term, while older, is still a relatively young term, created for the very same reasons, with great success. It makes the assumption that homosexuality is an inherent trait, and therefore is off-limits for critical debate. Homosexual activists have been quick to label detractors racists. The problem is that they do so with impunity, even though it is absurd to equate inclinations or behaviour with race.

So we hear Hirsi Ali making the same error with regard to homophobia as she is refuting in regard to Islamophobia. To her credit, the error is not due to obviously faulty logic, but to a false premise. Her logic is sound; if homosexuality is an innate trait, determined by one's genes, then sexual orientation could legitimately be considered to be on the same plane as sex and race. It is her premise regarding sexual orientation - "It's something you can't do anything about" - that is fallacious. Homosexuals are not born that way. There is no gay gene. Thus homophobia joins Islamophobia in the dictionary of deceptive nonentities, and we should strive for vigorous debate about the health and effects of both Islamic society and homosexual behaviour.