I'd like to clarify what the conservative concern is with banning gay marriage, and have placed the thread here, since some concerns are theological in nature.

I have a friend who is gay, and belongs to a leftist Christian church. He argues that gays will always vote against the likes of Bush, whether they are legally married or not, and that the attempted federal ban protecting traditional marriage is mainly to protect the family image which supports his voter base.

Now, I was raised in a hell-hole in a traditional family setting. So for purely selfish, retrospective reasons, I'd much prefer to have been raised by a relatively sane gay couple than have struggled to grow up among narcissists. As such, would I have ended up gay? Perhaps, since sexual orientation doesn't seem to be a purely biologically-driven phenomenon. Even still, as much as I cherish my attraction to women, I'd rather have cashed it in for a decent early home life.

So I'd like Phil and Brad and others to lay out some of the concerns for traditional Christians, including the political, economic and religious exceptions to gay marriage. It would make it much easier, or at least clearer, in talking to gays if and when cornered for my views.

I have a friend who is gay, and belongs to a leftist Christian church. He argues that gays will always vote against the likes of Bush, whether they are legally married or not, and that the attempted federal ban protecting traditional marriage is mainly to protect the family image which supports his voter base.

An interesting thought, WC, and it's one I read from someone else concerning African Americans in the last election, is that by overwhelmingly voting for Democrats no matter what that gays have marginalized themselves. The Hispanic vote is in play and you can expect both sides to try and appeal to them. But if African Americans and gays, in overwhelming numbers, vote Democratic no matter what then they will tend to be ignored by Republicans and they will continue to be taken for granted by Democrats as well. (As Rush would say concerning African Americans, "What have the Democrats done for you lately?")

Now, I was raised in a hell-hole in a traditional family setting. So for purely selfish, retrospective reasons, I'd much prefer to have been raised by a relatively sane gay couple than have struggled to grow up among narcissists.

Ditto. And I surely would have been a much better dresser at school! And I do think I would have made a great homosexual as I prefer the arts to sports, talking to fighting, laughter and wit to confrontation. (But come to think of it, those gay activists are some pretty bitter sour-pusses.)

So I'd like Phil and Brad and others to lay out some of the concerns for traditional Christians, including the political, economic and religious exceptions to gay marriage. It would make it much easier, or at least clearer, in talking to gays if and when cornered for my views.

Actually, I have no problem if state legislatures or the initiative process allows for gay marriage. That's how the issue should be decided. The backlash this last election, as it was, was probably more against activist courts trying, once again, to ram something inappropriately down our throats (gay marriage was even opposed in liberal Oregon�that should tell you something). I think people are getting tired of this and are starting to recognize the dangers of tyranny from the bench.

But I think gay marriage is inevitable. As long as we remain an entitlement society it will be inevitable that a relatively large block (5%, WC?) will squeeze their way into the Federal trough. (There is an active notion that if I help someone else get theirs then I can keep or get my own.) One gets the feeling these days that one really hasn't made it in America until one has become a special interest minority and has been formally crowned as such with some entitlement or another. And make no mistake about it; marriage for gays would be an entitlement because marriage, by definition and by nature, is a union between a man and a woman based on the biological reality of the potentiality of children and of families. For gays to be accorded the same benefits is to redefine marriage as well as families. I, for one, don't have a big problem with this simply because a strict reading of equal rights and liberty could easily enough include gay marriages with no lasting harm to anyone or any institution or even any deeper principle. But that is not to say that we should commensurately give in to the idea of gay families, of gay adoption. I think we can, should, and ought to speak out forthrightly on any legitimate concerns of this, political correctness and howls of intolerance notwithstanding. Anyone familiar with psychology (as you are for more than I, WC) or with the left's habit of social engineering will know of some of the grave and tragic mistakes that have been made because some leftist had a notion that, say, boys were no different than girls. We should take a hard, long look at gayness in general before we let gay families start experimenting on our children. (Too late in many cases, I know).

I've certainly heard from enough gay people through the various media that this is a civil rights issue; that this is about having all the rights of married people. Indeed, I'm somewhat sympathetic on this count as gay couples (and we can not deny that there are these entities) ought to be able to pass on property, visit each other in the hospital, and have the other rights (and, one would hope, "responsibilities") of a married couple. But to the best of my understanding a simple civil contract, and the habits that are already the norm in business, already give them all this. So rather cynically, I believe this to be a coronation issue, not a civil rights issue. They want the blessing of the state. As others smarter than me have said, they ought to gratefully accept the tolerance and acceptance that society now offers them. Instead they often become more hardline, more radical, and thus instead of walking hand-in-hand with new-found friends they become just another over-reaching and annoying radical minority that never knows when to quit and never acknowledges just how good they have it. (And I wonder if most gays support Bush in the war on terror and if they condemn radical Islam for their ideas on, and treatment of, homosexuals. To be taken more seriously these movements need, I think, a little more intellectual "voom" behind them. These movements need to mature beyond the radical, temperamental and even childish aspects they started with.)

We had a big discussion about all this on this thread sometime back.

FWIW, not all Christians think alike on this topic, as I think that thread makes clear. The evangelical/fundamentalist types do so largely based on condemnations of homosexuality they read in Scripture. Catholic teaching, in addition, condemns it (not the orientation) based on principles of natural law. Even so, there are other moral approaches that are a little more open to the possibility.

Thanks Brad. That's a good start. Good insights and distinctions, and obviously a sign of real conservative intelligence, the likes of which isn't uncommon, but treated like an anamoly among leftists.

Well, I'm not sure if it is gay pride day today, but
I will say that among the subculture of gay/lesbian
recovering people, I have met some very caring and sensitive and moral individuals who volunteer their time and give to others, one chap who started the conservative club at Harvard, and some entreprenuerial and computer geniuses, and those who have served their nation in time of need. I have learned a great deal from them and stretched and grown through the process. Great-full.

I'm opposed recruitment strategies in the public schools and I'm not too fond of NAMBLA, and I hope
the life-style of promiscuity, drinking, drugs and domestic violence becomes known to the public and
if we're going to be out of the closet, let's put all the dirty laundry out there.

Page 70 of alcoholics anonymous reminds me that we are all human, and therefore have sex problems and are not the arbiter of anyone elses conduct, which usually works for me.

May the love of Christ be known and shown freely to all.

caritas,

mm <*))))))><

O.K. I finally found an article that details my rather vague concerns about gay marriage. Phil, Brad, Michael . . . take a look a close look at this and see if it brings up anything new for you, or something that hasn't been given enough careful consideration:

http://www.nationalreview.com/...urtz200402050842.asp

"In Sweden, where marriage was already radically separated from parenthood, and largely equalized with cohabitation in legal-financial terms, gay marriage was more effect than cause. But in Norway, where the decline of marriage was only partial, gay marriage had a greater role as a facilitator of marital decline than it did in Sweden. In the United States, the effect of gay marriage would be massive."

I think another thing that should be pointed out is that gayness is both normal and an aberration. It is so common, seemingly genetically based, and recurring that is seems wholly natural. But according to our psychological understanding gayness can also be a symptom of something having gone dreadfully wrong. In some cases it can be cured (it should be cured), for the well being of the person. In other cases there isn't much at all that can be done because, frankly (and quite strangely) nothing seems to be broken.

As far as a societal issue, as I've said before, I think there's no doubt that the biggest enemy of marriage and families are high taxes. These high taxes are the result primarily of socialism. It's unlikely that men's attraction to T & A (and TLC and good home cookin') or women's attraction to tight buns and thick checkbooks (Ooooh! Did he really say that?) are going to go away anytime soon. I don't see gay marriage as a threat to marriage per se but I *do* see liberalism and socialism as threats to everyone and everything.

No, no-fault divorces are a danger to marriage. Our present obsession with sexual fulfillment is a danger to marriage. Radical feminism and the stigmatization of stay-at-home moms is a danger to marriage (and families). A culture that lionizes crudeness, vulgarity, promiscuity, and violence is a danger to marriage. A civic and political culture that demonizes devout and humble Christians and elevates the criminals and dysfunctional superstar athletes of the world as role models is a danger to marriage.

There is so much crud out there that it's easy and tempting to throw it all in the gay marriage mix. In some ways gay marriage is indeed the thin end of the wedge. But I think as ration individuals (as opposed to zealous leftists) we must think out these issues one at a time and judge them on their own merits.

quote:

In setting up the institution of marriage, society offers special support and encouragement to the men and women who together make children. Because marriage is deeply implicated in the interests of children, it is a matter of public concern. Children are helpless. They depend upon adults. Over and above their parents, children depend upon society to create institutions that keep them from chaos. Children cannot articulate their needs. Children cannot vote. Yet children are society. They are us, and they are our future. That is why society has the right to give special support and encouragement to an institution that is necessary to the well being of children � even if that means special benefits for some, and not for others. The dependence intrinsic to human childhood is why unadulterated libertarianism can never work.

I agree the marriage and families are things that should be supported and encouraged. But only, I think, a liberal socialist mentality in the first place thinks that government has any real power one way or the other over marriage � other than to ruin it. Like the economy, government can give its greatest support to these institutions by staying the hell out of the way. What government must not do is enact any laws that make it easy for people to act irresponsibly or to have any sort of tax penalty for getting married. But while giving gays the same tax breaks might help to run up the national debt I seriously doubt it will have one iota of impact on marriage. To me to even consider that the institution of marriage as something that government has great power to promote and effect is to be looking through the wrong end of the telescope. We don't need or want that kind of government intrusion into our private affairs. If we form a society so weak and so shallow that we must turn to government to protect marriage then we are in bigger trouble than I thought.

That really is a good article, w.c., examining the issue from a consequentialist position.

Here is an article by a Catholic moral theologian from the standpoint of moral principles -- i.e., the need to not separate the bonding and procreative aspects of human sexuality. The article is for subscribers only but worth obtaining. I will provide a few key exerpts, hopefully within the framework of "fair use."

- - -

. . . Defenders of same-sex marriages often ask their opponents what they fear. What damage will follow from legally recognizing same-sex unions? How will such recognition threaten heterosexual marriages? I would like to address this issue by identifying some of the consequences of giving same-sex marriages full legal status.

Suppose the laws were to recognize homosexual marriages. Then suppose I were to come along and say: "My uncle and I [or my aunt and I, or my sister and I, or my mother and I, or my father and I, or my friend and I] live together. We are devoted to each other, but we don't engage in mutual sexual conduct. We want to get married in order to get the legal benefits of marriage that affect property rights, taxes, insurance and the like.

The reply would probably be negative, at least at first. The laws would say, "You cannot get married." Why not? "Because you don't exchange sex." That is, the homosexual marriage will become the paradigm. The exchange of sex, and specifically nonprocreative sex, will be what defines marriage. This new definition of marriage would be implied by the refusal to let my uncle and me get married, not because we cannot have children but because we do not choose to have sex. A procreative marriage would then only accidentally be a marriage. Procreation would no longer specify what a marriage is.

Once this new definition of marriage is in place, subsequent laws would have to shore it up. What effect would this development have on the public sense of family and marriage? What effect would it have on sex education? It should also be noted that this understanding of marriage would bring the government into the bedroom with a vengeance, because it would be necessary for it to verify that those who are married are indeed having sex.

. . .

The new reproductive technologies make procreation possible outside of sex, and this reinforces even more the accidentality of procreation to marriage. A partner will be able to make a withdrawal from the sperm bank and have a child, but that partner will be married to no one related to the birth of the child: neither to the sperm donor, nor to the sperm bank, nor to the inseminating health care provider.

But suppose the reply of the laws to my demand to marry my uncle or aunt is: "All right, we will declare you married. We have already separated marriage from reproduction, and from now on we will separate marriage from sex entirely. Any two people who live together can get married." After all, if homosexual couples are discriminated against because they cannot get married, why should any two people who live together, even those already related by prior "familial" bonds, such as uncles and nephews, be discriminated against? Any persons who form a household should have the right to be married.

What effect would this have on the sense of marriage? I could marry my father (even Oedipus was never in danger of doing this, so far have we surpassed the wisdom of the ancients). I could marry someone I plan to live with for a few years, just for the benefit of it all. Suppose I were to move in with my grandfather who is seriously ill, to help him out in his last days. We could get married for the legal benefits and to facilitate the inheritance.

And once this has been done, why not permit polygamy and polyandry? Why discriminate against groups, if just living together is the only requirement for marriage? I could marry not just my mother or father, but both of them together, in a truly deconstructionist gesture, thus joining not with one but with both of the sources of my being.

. . .

It is often said that we have recently arrived at a new and different sense of sexuality and marriage, but this claim is incorrect; both are what they always were. To say that mutual love is on a par with procreation as an end in marriage is misleading. It is obviously very important, but not as a simply parallel good. Rather, the end of procreation is what specifies this relationship; the physical end of procreation is the first and essential defining character of marriage, and sex is defined as the power to procreate. Then this relationship, so defined, is to be informed with friendship or love, that is, mutual benevolence; but the kind of love it calls for is qualified by the type of relationship it is.

. . .

People who separate sexuality from procreation, whether in their thinking or their actions, live in illusion. They lie about this matter, to themselves and to others. Furthermore, this error occurs not about some marginal human thing, but about the mystery of our own origins. It is an illusion concerning one of the most powerful human emotions and tendencies. Once we live in delusion about such an important issue, we will inevitably be misguided in regard to many other human things: religion, human relations, laws, governmental policies, moral judgments and even our cultural inheritance. The most obvious truths become obscured.

. . .

The state does not establish legal categories for many different forms of human friendship. Why does it do so for marriage? Because it has an interest in society's next generation. The continuation of the population is a condition for the survival of the body politic. It is this focus on population and reproduction that justifies laws concerning marriage. Even marriages between people who cannot have children, such as older people, depend on procreative marriages for their sense and legal standing. Society has an interest in seeing that there will be a next generation and that it will be brought up to be virtuous, law-abiding and productive. By its actions, therefore, the state has traditionally recognized reproduction as the end of marriage.

Proponents of same-sex marriages want to unlink marriage from reproduction and have the laws legalize their friendship because it is a friendship, not because it is procreative. But once the state legalizes one kind of friendship, it cannot stop at that; it will have to legalize any and all friendships for which legalization is sought.

. . .

The concept of same-sex marriages leads to impossibilities, because it contains a contradiction. Its proponents do not recognize the contradiction, because they think that nothing has a natural end, and specifically they think that marriage and sexuality do not have natural ends. They think that choices and purposes are the only things that matter, and that the private choices they make, their "personal decisions of commitment and love," must be ratified and supported by public law.

Hi all...

Talk about the separation of church and state... marriage is one place where they have become completely enmeshed... with the clergy functioning as both agents of the church and agents of the state. This muddies the waters for everyone in my opinion on this issue.
For a person to be considered married by the church they must be married in the church... under the definition of the church. For a person to be considered married by the state they must be married by the state according to the rules of the state. One does not necessarily require the other... at least legally or theologically as far as I can see.
Gay marriage raises questions and problems in both spheres...the theological and legal/governmental and adds yet another - the social ... so which do we deal with.. which holds the greatest importance for us..carries the greatest weight?
The way I see this issue is that we have three conversations going on...religious, social and economic/governmental. While they each, in some ways talk about the same thing they come at it from different directions... look at it from different perspectives - through different lenses if you will ...and so I would ask - are they talking about the same issue?
What would happen if we tried to look at gay marriage and its implications for the church...for society...for the economy/government... looked at it from each of these perspectives one at a time before we placed our feet firmly on one side or the other. Second question... could we do that...is possible to separate our theology, our politics and our social situation from any of it?
Now that I have myself thoroughly confused.. I am going back to the books..
Peace,
Wanda

I hope the books lessen the confusion, Wanda. They don't always to it for me.

What did you think of the exerpts from the article I posted above? I found it a good reflection based on principles, consequences, and why government has traditionally acted to support family life.

Those who might have only skimmed that article . . . it's worth reading.

I sent an e-mail to the Universal Life Church and they sent me one back saying I was now an ordained minister, the only requirement being that I "do the right thing." If you will all agree that it is in fact "the right thing," I'll fill out the state form so I can start performing weddings, and then we can have a mass wedding at shalomplace and we'll all be married to each other. Then we could all get a Volkswagon microbus and go to Woodstock III together. Won't that be fun!

----------------------------------------------------
Ok, seriously (wiping splattered eggs and tomatoes
off) has there ever to anyone's knowledge been a society which has accepted gay marriage? That's a good article and the problems become apparent after thinking it through just a little bit.

marrytas,

mm <*))))><

Rev. Michael? That takes a little getting used to.

- - -

To my knowledge, there's never been a society that gave any kind of formal recognition or legal sanction to homosexual unions . . . until the past decade or so, that is, and in Europe.

I posted this link on another thread, but it really has some good information relevant to this one as well.

quote:

Judaism placed controls on sexual activity. It could no longer dominate religion and social life. It was to be sanctified � which in Hebrew means �separated� � from the world and placed in the home, in the bed of husband and wife. Judaism's restricting of sexual behavior was one of the essential elements that enabled society to progress. Along with ethical monotheism, the revolution begun by the Torah when it declared war on the sexual practices of the world wrought the most far-reaching changes in history.

Inventing homosexuality

The revolutionary nature of Judaism's prohibiting all forms of non-marital sex was nowhere more radical, more challenging to the prevailing assumptions of mankind, than with regard to homosexuality. Indeed, Judaism may be said to have invented the notion of homosexuality, for in the ancient world sexuality was not divided between heterosexuality and homosexuality. That division was the Bible's doing. Before the Bible, the world divided sexuality between penetrator (active partner) and penetrated (passive partner).

As Martha Nussbaum, professor of philosophy at Brown University, recently wrote, the ancients were no more concerned with people's gender preference than people today are with others' eating preferences:
Ancient categories of sexual experience differed considerably from our own... The central distinction in sexual morality was the distinction between active and passive roles. The gender of the object... is not in itself morally problematic. Boys and women are very often treated interchangeably as objects of [male] desire. What is socially important is to penetrate rather than to be penetrated. Sex is understood fundamentally not as interaction, but as a doing of some thing to someone...

Judaism changed all this. It rendered the �gender of the object� very �morally problematic�; it declared that no one is �interchangeable� sexually. And as a result, it ensured that sex would in fact be �fundamentally interaction� and not simply �a doing of something to someone�.

quote:

The revolutionary nature of Judaism's prohibiting all forms of non-marital sex was nowhere more radical, more challenging to the prevailing assumptions of mankind, than with regard to homosexuality. Indeed, Judaism may be said to have invented the notion of homosexuality, for in the ancient world sexuality was not divided between heterosexuality and homosexuality. That division was the Bible's doing. Before the Bible, the world divided sexuality between penetrator (active partner) and penetrated (passive partner).

Is zat right? That's the first time I've ever heard that. I wonder if it's true. It seems so bizarre.

I think the article linked to above sets the larger context, Brad -- namely, the wild, polymorphous tendencies of male sexual interests, which were often played out openly and without reproach in many ancient cultures -- including those in the Middle East. The article also points out how these cultures' deities were also promiscuous:

quote:

The gods of virtually all civilizations engaged in sexual relations. In the Near East, the Babylonian god Ishtar seduced a man, Gilgamesh, the Babylonian hero. In Egyptian religion, the god Osiris had sexual relations with his sister, the goddess Isis, and she conceived the god Horus. In Canaan, El, the chief god, had sex with Asherah. In Hindu belief, the god Krishna was sexually active, having had many wives and pursuing Radha; the god Samba, son of Krishna, seduced mortal women and men. In Greek beliefs, Zeus married Hera, chased women, abducted the beautiful young male, Ganymede, and masturbated at other times; Poseidon married Amphitrite, pursued Demeter, and raped Tantalus. In Rome, the gods sexually pursued both men and women.

This all served to condone a wide range of sexual behavior, which the article mentions as well.

Judaism went against all of this:

quote:

Among the consequences of the unchanneled sex drive is the sexualization of everything � including religion. Unless the sex drive is appropriately harnessed (not squelched � which leads to its own destructive consequences), higher religion could not have developed. Thus, the first thing Judaism did was to de-sexualize God: �In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth� by his will, not through any sexual behavior. This was an utterly radical break with all other religions, and it alone changed human history.

So without an emphasis on heterosexual marriage as normative and blessed, homosexuality, bestiality, sacred prostitution and other behaviors prevalent in the ancient world do not show up in stark contrast.

quote:

Among the consequences of the unchanneled sex drive is the sexualization of everything � including religion. Unless the sex drive is appropriately harnessed (not squelched � which leads to its own destructive consequences), higher religion could not have developed. Thus, the first thing Judaism did was to de-sexualize God: �In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth� by his will, not through any sexual behavior. This was an utterly radical break with all other religions, and it alone changed human history.

I just thought of a ton of jokes, but I will refrain. (Wouldn't have if JB was here I surmise.) The first thought I gleam from all this is that there is a higher form of spirituality than orgies. The second thought that occurs to me (minus all those untold jokes, of course) is that a return to bacchanalian sexuality by some (not gonna mention any names) is a regression, not a liberation. (I'm still not gonna name names no matter how many times MM badgers me.)

Now, the Grand Thought is can we adopt a libertarian view toward sexuality in respect of, and support of, freedom while not regressing to the days of Caligula? Might we find a way to both respect and promote decency, monogamy, commitment, fidelity, and just plain modesty without specifically outlawing their opposite? Might we approach these things from the perspective that allowing some behavior does not mean to acknowledge it as a desired behavior? That is to say, there is a distinct difference between a tolerant "live and let live" attitude and one that forces us to promote and celebrate a certain behavior or else we are guilty of sexism.

For me the bottom line is selfishness. Either something is selfish or it is not. The law of love is written on the last place we are likely to look,
in our hearts.

caritas,

sexuallyimmatureperson.com

View homosexual film, or school faces lawsuit.
ACLU tells district: Force students to watch 'tolerance training' video.

If administrators of Kentucky's Boyd County school district can't find a way to force all students to attend sexual orientation and gender identity "tolerance training," the American Civil Liberties Union is threatening to take them to court � again.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/n...asp?ARTICLE_ID=41667

Let's keep our eye on this one, wopik (good find!). Technically, the ACLU cannot tell a school district what curriculum to use and what classes to teach. Unless there's a law on the books requiring something, this kind of advocacy from the ACLU is way out of bounds.

ACLU tells district: Force students to watch 'tolerance training' video.

Such nonsense is based on the assumption by the ACLU that most straight men want to beat the heck out of gays on sight. I know how they feel. It�s just what I want to do to these ACLU clowns after reading about yet another of their assaults on common sense. Please, could someone send me a "Don�t beat the hell out of ACLU members" tolerance training video?

That just crosses my bottom line. It is selfish to impose homosexuality upon heterosexuals. I get tired of gay men hitting on me when I'm just trying to get across town on public transportation. I even had one grab me in a centering prayer group. He deserved a black eye or a broken arm, but I restrained myself.

This is nothing new, and you can read about Sodom and Gomorrah in the old testament. Pray for them and love the sinner, but hate the sin and oppose it when possible. Sometimes I think their activism
is a desperate cry for help. May God help them!

caritas,

mm <*))))))><

I get tired of gay men hitting on me when I'm just trying to get across town on public transportation. I even had one grab me in a centering prayer group. He deserved a black eye or a broken arm, but I restrained myself.

Let's see, if I was a typical political corrector I would say that your reaction is LIVING AND UNDENIABLE PROOF that you are a closet gay. Lucky I'm not one of them. Rather, I would submit that these people who won't leave you alone need to recalibrate their Gaydar.

Being good-looking can be such a handicap, eh MM?

People who wish to avoid them and live in the "queen" city of the Rockies can develop gaydar too.

Sometimes in situations where alot of men live together, some of the men begin to act a bit feminine, as in a Trappist monastery. As Jung pointed out, we are all androgynous. Trappists have always frowned on homosexual relations and it has not been a large problem for them.

Apparently, many Episcopalians are willing to lay down for them, and some are not:

http://www.ncfpc.org/stories/030815s2.html

http://www.connectionmagazine....003_09/75_exodus.htm

http://www.washtimes/national/...728-095904-8255r.htm

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

The Archbishop of Canterbury has called for church traditionalists opposed to homosexuality to stop using inflammatory words about gay people.

His comments come as the Church is embroiled in a bitter global row about the ordination of gay bishops.

Some traditionalist Anglican leaders strongly condemn homosexuality as being outlawed by the Bible.

If you're workin' for God, you gotta call it the way He calls it. Why is that so difficult for priests and bishops, etc. ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4049013.stm

The Archbishop of Canterbury has called for church traditionalists opposed to homosexuality to stop using inflammatory words about gay people.

Dr Rowan Williams, in a letter to the world's Anglican churches, said harsh language can lead to murder.

I'm going to assume that the Archbishop of Canterbury is well-intentioned, but that still doesn't mean he isn't dreadfully wrong and/or possibly just dense. Putting the whole gay issue aside, I'm very suspicious of Dr. Williams' focus on "inflammatory language." If we're not careful (and this is just what is happening all over our western world) we will outlaw vigorous and open debate by equating it with violence. Once done, those in power can easily put certain subjects off limits. Even if such techniques are no more that debating tactics meant to grab the ideological high ground, they stifle healthy debate and are not good habits to pick up in a free democracy.

His letter to them reportedly says: "Any words that could make it easier for someone to attack or abuse a homosexual person are words of which we must repent.

Might we also legitimately ask the Archbishop to stop making such assertions because it is an attack on free speech or, at the very least, because it is an attack on the motives of those who have real disagreements concerning homosexuality?