Maybe Sinead was right
Today the Vatican released a piece of hate literature entitled “Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons”. I have placed a full copy of the document here, and a copy of its excerpts here. Up until late in the day I was only able to read excerpts of the document, and as a result was only angry enough to punch a wall. After reading the full document I have been unable to piss anything except pure bile.
I know that many that know me will jump to the conclusion that I am over dramatizing the situation, and that the message from the Vatican really isn’t that bad. Yet others will assume that I am simply ranting about organized religion like I do every other day. Oh how wrong you can be.
For a piece of literature to be categorized as hate literature, it must (1) devalue some group, and it must (2) deceive.
The media is making a lot out of the fact that this document is calling on all Catholic politicians to do whatever they can to stop, and whenever possible, repeal legislation that recognizes homosexual unions. Although this is true, this ‘call to arms’ only makes up approximately (in MS Word) 1 page of the 7 page (9 w/footnotes) document. The majority of the document serves only to devalue its homosexual target, and to deceive the reader into thinking that the human race will cease to exist if we acknowledge homosexual unions. Of course I urge you to read the full document in order to draw your own conclusion.Documents like these are the reason why I detest organized religion, especially Catholicism so much. Most of the people going to churches or subscribing to their doctrines seem like horses with blinders on, only able to go in one direction, never straying from the path or being able to soak up the surroundings, with no chance to change direction or they’ll get the whip. Eventually logical thought is replaced with outdated rhetorical doctrine. Even in my own home this way of thinking exists. Keep in mind that even I realize that not everyone who goes to church or believes in God will will agree with the Vatican on this topic. To those people I commend you, and to those that will risk quite a lot by being public about your disagreement (namely politicians, King Paul Martin perhaps being one of them) I applaud you, and wish that there were more just like you.
While trying to discuss the subject with my parents, I was accused of being a homosexual myself, and told to “…go to my boyfriend’s, you need more sex.” I was also accused of having “no morals” due to my being “too open to different ideas.” Frankly I take this as a compliment, and the comments allow me to understand first hand (albeit in a very minor way) the discrimination that homosexuals are fighting against on a daily basis. It also reminds me why people are so slow to change; fear. If people weren’t so afraid of the unknown or the different, I honestly think that we wouldn’t even be discussing this topic. I try on a daily basis to keep fear at bay, and often times I succeed, and take another step forward.
It should be remembered that at one time women weren’t allowed to vote, hell they weren’t even considered people. Interracial marriages were also illegal up until about 30 or 40 years ago. Then like now, people were warned of how society would screech to a blinding halt, that the family unit would be threatened if women were allowed to vote (and be recognized as people), or people of other races were allowed to marry. Seems to me that society is still going strong today despite these changes. Perhaps our society and our family units would be weaker if they hadn’t occurred at all.
The Vatican claims that if we continue legitimizing evil, we can only come to an evil end. I agree with them 100%, but my definition of evil is succumbing to fear.
The following are a few of my favorite newspeak excerpts from the Vatican’s document:
…Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions…
…Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil…
…Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life…
…The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice. The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it…
…Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity…
“I hate to say this,” said my attorney as we sat down at the Merry-Go-Round Bar on the second balcony, “but this place is getting to me. I think I’m getting the Fear.”