–Altoona, PA–, 0730030927

This afternoon, I’m taking in the sights at Altoona PA’s famous HorseShoe Curve. I’ll be posting this to my weekly along with some pics of the place.

I’ve been reading Andrew Sullivan’s blog again this morning, and I’m shaking my head a bit.  What is it about homosexual activists, (of which Sullivan is unquestionably one) that when homosexuality is brought up, all the rules go out the window, in order to justify their chosen behavior?

Sullivan still claims to be Christian… (a Catholic, no less!)… and yet he still ignores the teachings of the Church on the subject of his chosen behavior. What he’s arguing against is no less than the teachings of the Bible itself. Gee, a real witness for your faith there, Andrew.

This is not a situation where he’s taken up an argument against a small band of current day religious renegades.  Time after time, in both the Bible and in documents and rulings from Rome which are of course based on the Bible itself, teachings against homosexuality have come up.  How then, can he, or anyone so willingly afflicted, claim to be Christian, much less a Catholic? The phrase “Cafateria Catholic” comes to mind… and it’s a sign of the times that the phrase hasn’t been used much of late, given our current situations.

If the intent here is to argue for the standing of homosexuality and it’s legal standing in the secular world that’s one thing, and can, I suppose, be argued on that ground.  Indeed, the biggest argument homosexuals seem to have these days is that we make our judgements based on religion, and thereby have no say in secular matters.  This fascile argument has been offered for deacades, but is easily defeated, by asking if religious values be completely removed from the calulations of secular values? Do we ignore concepts simply because a religion happens to agree with them? Shall we for example, discuss incest? Shall we discuss euthanasia? Shall we discuss prostitution? Shall we discuss Bigamy?  Shall we discuss making NAMBLA’s activities legal?

And isn’t it interesting that, as I’ve pointed out in this space previously, the Canadian government decided that simply posting Biblical quotes about homosexuality constitutes a ‘hate crime’? Seems that posting parts of the Bible stands a greater chance of angering the left than these other activities I’ve listed. Look at the reaction to Mel Gibson’s new movie, if you’d like a trend. It’s in the archives,and I may staple that bit to this one for my weekly.

I’ll say it again: Law and of government were invented by cultures so as to reinforce said cultures and to extend their reach and longevity. Therefore laws and government actions by definition, are ideally reflective of the values of the culture that gave said government and said laws, life.

This is not to suggest that laws cannot be immoral; that actions of government cannot run afoul of the values of the culture. They certainly can be. Example: Western society as a whole decided long before any of us were born that these were things to be avoided. As particuar example Abortion, had been outlawed in all the states of the union, for time out of mind based on these precepts of Western Civilization. These abortion laws were the first to go, with abortion advocates employing the argument that opposition to abortion is a religious view that should not to be “imposed” on society.  What they asked us to do is to have government not do it’s primary job, as listed above… the reinforcing of the culture and it’s values. If that’s the rather thin value set we’re to judge on, if we think that cultural values and laws can ever be fully seperated, are the rest of demise of the rest of these laws these far behind? If they are so seperated can the downfall of the west be far behind?

Those who tolerate everything, stand for nothing.
So, the question becomes: Do our cultural values stand for something, or not?

And thus we come back to the headline, here…. Equality of WHAT?
Consider that the concept of “Equality” and for that matter, the concept of “Freedom”, is utterly meaningless outside of the cultural construct.

All the ‘secular’ arguments aside, however, a whole new front is opened, with homosexuals attacking Chruch policy and teachings ostensibly from *within* the church and some church fathers agreeing with them.  How, in the face of the teachings of the Chruch, can one take up such a pro-homosexual argument, and call one’s self a member of that body? This is nothing less than an attack from within the Church.  The enemy within, after all, is always the most destructive. Apparently the only ones who understand this are the ones doing the attacking.

Again, I say louder….Those who tolerate everything, stand for nothing.
So, the question now becomes: Do the teachings of the church stand for something, or do they not?