Crunchy Con

Variations on a theme

Saturday April 28, 2007

1. Saith Ruth Gledhill, the BBC will air, as part of its Sunday worship programming, a recording of a "gay mass" from San Francisco's church of the Most Holy Redeemer, a Catholic congregation in the Castro. The event happened last October. A spokesman for the Archdiocese of San Francisco denied that it was a "gay mass," but rather merely a prayer service. Oh. That changes everything.

2. A conservative Anglican missionary in Africa was poisoned in Malawi, after he successfully campaigned against a liberal London cleric from being appointed bishop there. There is no doubt that the priest, Canon Rodney Hunter, died from poisoning. The question is, who did it? The priest's family say that supporters of the liberal Londoner had spent the last few months making Canon Hunter's life hell. TMatt wonders how come nobody outside the blogosphere is paying attention to this story.

3. Courage Man makes a great point about how the dirty rotten way ex-New Jersey Gov. Jim "I Am a Gay American" McGreevey treated his wife and family in the course of carrying on his affair with a male paramour has gotten a pass from the media culture -- a pass that was (quite rightly) denied to Newt Gingrich for the way he treated one of his wives at the break-up. CM also notes other double standards being applied to McGreevey concerning his conduct -- stuff that if a straight politician were doing it, would be cause for outrage -- concluding that the media are giving the sleazy love guv a break because of his membership in the Oppressed Americans demographic.
Advertisement
Comments
~tv
April 30, 2007 7:26 PM
HASH(0x937dae4)

Ah - the spectre of "objective reality" rears its ugly head once again. "Objectively, homosexuality is morally wrong," is a subjective statement. If you conservatives wish to have your bugaboos and scapegoats, please feel free to do so - just stop pretending that it's based on anything other than your own subjective prejudices. You'd get a hell of a lot more respect if you'd just be honest about it.

Norris
April 30, 2007 7:58 PM
http://www.nordog.com

How 'bout... "Objectively, homosexual activity is physically wrong." ? In any event, TV, methinks you're engaging in some subjective Freudian Projection.

Norris
May 1, 2007 4:43 PM
http://www.nordog.com

"Ah - the spectre of 'objective reality' rears its ugly head once again." [low chuckles] Get used to it. [low chuckles] It's not going away.

sigaliris
May 1, 2007 5:34 PM
HASH(0x937f2e0)

How 'bout, "objectively, homosexual activity is physically identical to acts that many heterosexual males greatly enjoy when performed by them upon females"? I can't be more specific due to the family nature of this blog, but I think everyone knows what I mean. Even the most controversial of these acts--and again, I think you probably know what I mean--is merrily engaged in by a significant minority of heterosexuals. (And by the way, a significant minority of homosexuals never engage in said act, so does that make them okay now?) As for oral sex, which I will mention because others have done so on other topics without reprimand, so I assume that's fair game, I know that some conservative religious believers think it is morally wrong--at least, when carried out to its, ahem, logical conclusion. However, even the Catholic Church and people like Tim LaHaye think it's quite all right when used as foreplay. So, how is that an act that a man is willing to have his wife do for him becomes disgusting, gross and degrading when he thinks about a man doing it for another man? Doesn't seem to show a very high respect for women if some acts are so demeaning that they're suitable only for women to perform. Head-scratching here.

Norris
May 1, 2007 6:19 PM
http://www.nordog.com

Sigaliris, Talked about conflated and confused. The "acts" you elliptically refer to would be physically wrong regardless of the gender of the participants. Nota bene the word "phyically". It is a recognition of teleology. Regarding why one might consider the act gross if engaged in by men, it is because IT IS ENGAGED IN BY MEN. The same reaction can be expected in seeing men kiss passionately. This doesn't require one to see one kisser as less than another kisser. The male and female kissers are equal. Two guys kissing is just gross. Well, not "just" gross. There is much more to be said of it. Why is it that so many do not find men and women engaged in the sexual acts you mentioned disgusting as well? Because disorder comes in degrees.

Read All Comments

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Please type the text you see in the box below to verify your post and help us prevent spam. You have a limited time to type - you may wish to compose your comment in a separate document and paste it here upon completion.

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Advertisement

Search This Blog

About Crunchy Con

Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.

feed icon Subscribe

RSS Feed

Receive updates from Crunchy Con

Advertisement

Advertisement


About Beliefnet

Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness. More about Beliefnet.

Legal

Copyright © Beliefnet, Inc. and/or its licensors. All rights reserved. Use of this site is subject to Terms of Service and to our Privacy Policy. Constructed by Beliefnet.

Advertisement

Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.