Nothing in this article is, or should be construed to be, a personal attack upon the author of the source material, whose name and personal history have nothing to do with our analysis.

We were surprised find such a compendium of armchaired¹ religious homophobic rationalization in a single work of such short length. What has been created for us is a gold mine: the philosophical underpinnings of Patrick Buchanan, Lou Sheldon, Jesse Helms and Ralph Reed in a single document of comparative conciseness. By comparison, the Christian Coalition web pages are as deep as homeowner association newsletters. What we have here is a modern version of the backdoor attack upon the foundations of the rational faculties themselves, the intellectualized annulment of the human world. What we get in exchange is the invitation to unconditionally accept a Biblical revelation of "the total depravity of mankind". To our present world, which is just beginning to understand that one-tenth of us are born gay or lesbian, is offered a "revealed" rationalization: should such (genetic) factors be discovered, "human beings are not thereby excused for their behavior by any means."

This tract calls the reader to no concrete actions whatsoever, though it does rue laws which permit homosexual relationships, or equal rights to those who enter into these; i.e., it condemns laws which do not forcibly punish and persecute same-sex consensual relationships. It spells out in remarkably concise syllogisms all of the core reasons why, for those who might be looking for them, it might be deemed moral in a "perfectly christian kingdom" to not only persecute gays and lesbians but, in Lou Sheldon's words, to execute them.

The reader should make a point to check out the original material at the URL Aberrant Sexuality. The page's title is "Aberrant Sexuality". [The site had moved but was relocated through Google in 2001]. We have provided the link again.

You should observe that it is not necessary to advocate violence in order to architect a philosophy which has the practical consequence of mandating violence. Surprisingly, many authors of such polemics would be horrified at the suggestion that they were in any way liable for the resulting bloodshed.

John C. Salvi III (anti-abortion murderer) and Yigal Amir (Rabin's assassin) were motivated in large part by a literalist deconstruction of some widely respected and even venerable orthodoxies. The Theodore Kaczynski case (Unabomber) is unfolding into the closest look we've had in decades at the psychological and logical consequence of placing the purity of the ideology above the lives of those it professes to serve.

This tract seems aware of pain and suffering, declaring its purpose to examine "in what ways are we broken people and how is that we can become whole?" It is characteristically silent on the subject of attitudes and deeds which inflict pain and suffering upon others.

We observed that this tract avoided affirmations of positive moral imperatives: it said nothing about what we should do to live lives free of pain, fear and guilt. Perhaps this is because this tract depends on original sin and eternal depravity for its view of goal-oriented action; in this view, there is fundamentally nothing we can do morally. Striving for external consistency, working toward values outside the structure of the orthodoxy itself, is seen as futile refutation of the orthodoxy.

The ostensible single-issue purpose of this tract is to "prove" the immorality of same-sex sexual orientation, desire, and romantic relationships. Given the utter depravity attributed to mankind as a whole, it is hard to imagine how gays and lesbians could do much worse, or how the smuggest bigot could find comfort by comparison to creatures "even worse than myself."

There are many things sexual which are considered immoral in the Bible and in the popular wisdom, including bestiality, incest, child molestation, infidelity, rape, prostitution, pimping and public exhibitionism. Yet none of these things are examined in any detail, and many are not even mentioned.

There are also many other sexually-related behavioral patterns which might have been questioned by "heterosexual purists" or those whose view of sexual activity is that it is inherently disgusting: for example, one-night stands, bath-houses, oral sex, orgies, and sleeping with your wife of 42 years if you do not truly love her. These are not inherently "gay issues". They were similarly untouched.

There are a great many tracts exclusively dispensing denial. We're seeing a proliferation of those which deal with denial of the simple honesty of doing the best job you know how of being true to yourself. Homophobia is, almost by definition, a form of ignorance, and can't alone fully explain the attractiveness, to some, of the "hate gospel". Don't underestimate the threat to any orthodoxy which is represented by life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The answer to the religious bigot's antipathy to gays and lesbians is probably less complicated than this tract implies. If you are born into inherent sin, and spend every waking moment repenting and praying forgiveness for this grievous error, what could be more disturbing than another person who has not only ignored the catechism, but claims that it's natural and wholesome?

Notice that the Golden Rule assumes a fundamental benevolence which doesn't exist toward the gay community or others outside the tribe of the faithful. Notice this tribal orthodoxy negotiates no agreements, and takes no prisoners: we'll tell you what's wrong with you, and you will repent.

There really are people who would like to see "out" gays and lesbians erased from the face of this earth, no matter what the cost in lives or political harmony. We would like you to see first-hand what the gay-basher's dripping bloody club looks like when held by the trickle-down remote control of a college education gone astray. We would like you to visit for a moment, if you will, in the way the world would be, if everybody else's orthodoxies dropped dead tomorrow.

_______________

¹ "armchair" (verb): to decide upon the natural structure, order or rightness of a thing solely by conscientious application of a set of predetermined principles, which may also be unexamined, pointedly without scientific inquiry or research of facts. The practice was formalized by Aristotle to fill in gaps in his natural history, and was popularized in Europe in the Dark Ages as a means of inventing Church-sanctioned knowledge without investigative effort or work.

analysis © Alex Forbes , La Parola ONLINE

April 10, 1996