THEY'RE SODOMIZING OUR SENSIBILITIES

I read with interest about the “measure” the Bay St. Louis City Council and the Waveland Board of Aldermen recently passed “recognizing the dignity and worth of all city residents -- including those who are LGBT.” WLOX says it’s a measure “recognizing the role gays, lesbians and transgender people play in communities” as well as, according to WLOX, a measure intended to defuse anticipated social conflicts as a result of this year’s new state law enhancing religious liberties. The SunHerald was rather patronizing in their Op-Ed and just simply “saluted” the Waveland Mayor’s statements without explication of why they were saluting. Chad Griffin, the president of the homosexual group Human Rights Campaign which pushed the measure says, at their website, it’s a step toward building a “lasting LGBT presence and infrastructure” in Mississippi that will march into the “church pews and the workplace.”

If my understanding is correct, these council measures distinguished homosexuals not for their accomplishments with respect to their vocations -- as for example it would for a group of veterans, cheerleaders, or teachers -- but rather with respect to what defines them, by their own admission, for what they do sexually. The council members, notwithstanding their sexual orientation, are telling their respective constituents that homosexuals have dignity and worth not because they are fellow humans, but in spite of the sexual acts they do, the foremost of which is sodomy. We understand that as individuals and as a group that homosexuals are, and can be, kind, loving, and achieving. But it is in fact sodomitical acts, not acts of kindness, love, or achievement that accurately define homosexuals as individuals and as the group being singled out. What else are they defined by if not that? The council members, I would think, in their heart of hearts know this. No, these measures do not specifically use the word ‘sodomy’ or ‘sexual acts’, but the inference and message is loud and clear to all.

It’s awkward to talk about sodomy per se in the public sphere. But this is what these measures invite. It is, of course, a very private and intimate subject about which, according to homosexual lifestyle proponents, nothing should be said publicly in opposition to it. In fact, anything opined in opposition to it is reflexively labeled “homophobic” or hateful. I’m not “homophobic”, homophilic, or hateful. Like many others, and without compunction, I’ve been taught by homosexuals, have treated them as patients, been served by them in restaurants, engaged them in interesting conversations, and have friendships with them. However, I do have a fear of spiders in my bed when I’m asleep.

We readily acknowledge there are many people in our community with various personality traits, faults, and disabilities that do wonderful things that enrich themselves and our community. They and the things they do are to be commended as dignified and worthy, regardless of the traits and behaviors by which they choose to be defined. But the council members want us to dissociate one’s dignity and worth as a human from their actions – which almost requires a mind trick. If we are honest with ourselves, we look upon the dignity and worth of rapists, wife-beaters, and bullies differently, not because they are fellow human beings, but because of their actions. You would not know a lawyer or movie director was an alcoholic unless he or she told you so, or you saw him drink too much or observed the consequences of his behavior. Same for a prostitute, child molester, or even someone left-handed.

Also, these measures were sure to include that “all city residents” are dignified and worthy. We can presume this includes pyromaniacs, alcoholic doctors, and judges - not to mention bullies, pimps, and former homosexuals. The “all city residents” clause, of course, allows uncomfortable but reticent council members something to assuage their conscience or hide behind. That’s okay. But we see this for what it is.

These measures are also framed as business-interest measures presumably, like the “all city residents” clause, to allow council members to rationalize their “yes” vote for the dignity and worth of sodomy. But this is rather disingenuous to the homosexual community, not that they care, as if to say, “Yeah, we’ll say homosexual acts are dignified and worthy but only if you spend your money in our city.” This is okay too. But we also see this for what it is – at best, politics, and at worst, intellectual dishonesty.

These council members, individually and as a group, in passing this unnecessary measure want their residents, and presumably the rest us, to feel differently than we do. They want to soften, or have us ignore, what reason has instructed societies since the dawn of civilization, and to affirm and act publicly in lock step with their newly acquired values, which now includes not the simple tolerance of homosexual behavior in private, but the promotion and acceptance of it publicly -- values that stand in contradistinction to what comports with that which is life- giving.

Yes, we can all be friends, and should be brothers and sisters to each other, in love and such.  But if you're going to publicly announce and want us to accept and agree as normal with whatever it is you are publicly promoting that grates against that which is instinctively natural, wholesome, and healthy, for each and all -- whether it be drinking too much, or homosexual acts -- then please with all due respect, we humbly insist that you not publicly sodomize our sensibilities -- especially if you're a city council member.