Dispatches from the Culture Wars

As we come to the end of the month of April, it is once again time to award the Robert O'Brien Trophy (formerly known as the Idiot of the Month award) to a worthy recipient. This month's winner is Les Kinsolving, the Worldnutdaily's intrepid White House correspondent, for this screed about gays and the new pope. In this column, he lists a series of statements by gay rights organizations expressing their disappointment in the appointment of the stridently anti-gay Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope. At no point does he actually dispute the accuracy of anything in those statements, of course. The mere fact that those infernal fags dare to speak against our newly appointed holy man is prima facie evidence of....well, of what exactly? He doesn't say. But he does offer a few perfect little gems of stupidity along the way. To wit:

The deceptively titled "Human Rights Campaign" (which really ought to be honest enough to change that title to "Sodomy Rights Campaign") stated the following: "We hope Pope Benedict XVI will follow the biblical tradition of expressing love and compassion for all."

Where in the Holy Bible is there any verse expressing approval of the act of sodomy? In the New Testament, Jesus Christ, speaking to those who offend little children (and what is more offensive than child molesting?) said: "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and he cast into the sea, than he should offend one these little ones" (Luke 2:17).

This is pure demagoguery, shifting the clear meaning of words in order to reach an irrational conclusion. He thinks "Human Rights Campaign" should be replaced with "Sodomy Rights Campaign", presumably because gays aren't human, only "sodomites". HRC spoke of "love and compassion" and Kinsolving demands instead a verse expressing "approval", which is an entirely different matter. Then he casually equates sodomy with child molesting, which is not only absurd it is offensive and vile. An absolutely textbook example of how to distort the meaning of a text to score ideological points. Lucky for him his readership tends to be dumber than meat, so they likely won't catch any of this.

At the end of his column, as a paranthetical aside, he asks the following question:

Question: Have Rainbow Sash or any of these other three organizations made any statement that there should be marriage for other sexual orientations, such as necrophilia, sadomasochism or bestiality?

Of course they haven't, Les, though that won't stop you from equating all of those things in your little pea brain. But let's think about this for a moment. Sadomasochists already can marry, as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. But gosh, it seems to me that there's something present in gay relationships that is not present in either necrophilia or beastiality. Can you think of what it might be, Les? I'll give you a few minutes to mull it over....take your time...still coming up blank, are ya? It's an important concept called "consent". Perhaps you've heard of it. Neither a dead person nor an animal can give consent (nor, legally, can minors). But an adult human being can give consent to have sex with another adult human being. And since all adult human beings are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - I'm sure I read that somewhere - you don't have any legitimate authority to prevent them from engaging in consensual behavior that does not harm you in any way. And there is nothing the least bit moral about using the power of the state to intrude upon the private and consensual lives of other human beings.