I posted yesterday on how , a Louisiana Catholic blogger on hiatus because of his writing duties, column on homosexuality caused some heated reaction. Good. I think it is important to have the debate as Mr Denton wants to be had.
The Daily Reveille ,which is a darn good college newspaper, posted 11 pages of responses in its online edition here. Many are sadly predictable.
I would like to point out that a few people were sane. Such as this post:
First, I would like to congratulate Michael Denton for having the courage to write about an opinion that he knew would be unpopular. Second, I applaud Justin Fritscher and Winston Skinner for being responsible producers of media content and giving Mr. Denton the freedom to express his own ideas. I would then like to remind the University student body that bias is a two-way street. There are people biased in favor of gay rights and homosexuality, just as there are people biased in opposition to them. It is hypocritical to censure Michael Denton because his opinions are "biased." Yours are too. And, for a country that prides itself on tolerance and freedom of speech, we sure are quick to jump on anyone whose opinion does not jive with the majority or what is politically correct.
Amy Wilson
Junior, mass communication
It seems that too many are pulling out the usual tiresome argument to shut down debate though. Here is one that is typical "Mr. Denton cannot be blamed for the worldview he embraces, he must be held accountable for the hatred those views perpetuate. Mr. Denton is responsible not only for not ensuring safety but for actively promoting the views that lead to violence. " So to be against Gay marriage as a "right" is now the same as promoting violence? Again what we see in the comment section is a small example of why Catholic stations like EWTN are worried that in Canada and the UK they might have to CENSOR their program so they are not subject to prosecution for teaching the Catholic faith.
I find it interesting that a major part of his article seems to be ignored by many that are yelling :freedom" all over the place. For instance we see this comment "...The United States was founded by men who believed the government should not mandate mere opinion. This is the rationale for the First Amendment. The government cannot mandate what we think and believe. Thus by extension, the government cannot prefer one opinion over any other by granting special privileges to some but not all. However, this is exactly what is happening with the issue concerning marriage...".
The above commenter seemed to miss a major point of Mr Denton's article. Let me excerpt that
It's a debate I'd love to have. Ideally, I should talk about why practicing homosexuality is intrinsically disordered and why it prevents one from loving fully. I should discuss recent works like the famous "Theology of the Body" by Pope John Paul II. If I did however, I would be risking expulsion, and I don't want to leave the University. This risk is made possible by the University's policy on free speech. In the Student Code of Conduct, the Non-Academic Misconduct policy states that "Extreme, outrageous or persistent acts, or communications that are intended or reasonably likely to harass, intimidate, harm or humiliate another" may be grounds for misconduct charges, which means that one's "continued presence at the University potentially threatens the property, health, safety, or well-being of members of the University community." That sounds reasonable, except that the definition of a harassing communication is left vague. Gay rights proponents have used this vagueness to silence any criticism of homosexuality in colleges across the United States. An organization called the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has been at the forefront of this fight, and they're familiar with the University. The Daily Reveille reported in May 2006 that FIRE intervened on behalf of the Muslim Student Association (MSA) ,which was attempting to achieve recognition from the University. The MSA had been denied organizational status because it refused to put a nondiscrimination clause in their constitution. This clause would have allowed gay people to become members, which contradicts Islam. Freedom of speech notwithstanding, it took MSA a year and a half to finally gain recognition from the University.
I have gone through 11 pages of comments that the paper put up and no one seems concerned about this.
Kudos to Michael Denton for his article and the LSU student newspaper for running it.
Let me also highlight a "gay" catholic that is on my links that lives his life in accordance to the Laws of the Church. That is Courage Man.
I thought about writing something snarky, like how you meant to say "well rounded" not "well grounded, but I decided to address your idea that there should be a debate on the disorderness of homosexuality.
ReplyDeleteMr. Denton's op-ed piece and your follow-up post are statements of religious belief. (The Pope coined the very phrase Mr. Denton uses, "intrinsically disordered.")
That's fine--I disagree with your belief, but you're free to share it with the world. But your call for a debate doesn't make sense--what would we debate? I dont believe in Catholic doctrine, so any arguements from theological texts (i.e. John Paul II's "Theology of the Body") would carry no weight with me. But then I suppose the debate would turn into an argument about the intrinsic rightness of Catholicism. So, in essence, Denton's piece isn't really on homosexuality, but why everyone should be Catholic.