Patrick McIlheran's slogpost about Jennifer Morales coming out of the closet befuddled us more than most of his output. It wasn't just the bad hair or the futile grabbing for gravitas. It was something else.
Than finally it occurred to us: McIlheran is trying to get all theological on his readers. And to a man who insists on defending a story that's been blown out of the water (that is until he can't) or praising a think tank apparatchik who thinks it's OK to rearrange stories to fit his needs, that's a tall tall order.
Back to St. Patrick's Consolations of Half-assed thinking. To wit. After sniffing "Whatever" to Morales' admission, he goes on to say:
You can’t congratulate her, since it’s a state of being, so it’s not like she chose it.
OK. So he' s acknowledging that being gay is a natural state of being. She was made that way. Maybe there is something to the concept that all conservatives aren't knuckledraggers.
But sadly, McIlheran -- as he so often does -- must go on:
The way modern society is disposed, we are not supposed, upon learning someone’s homosexual, to think less of him, since we’re not supposed to regard homosexuality with moral disapproval. Yet the plain fact is that a great many denominations and their adherents do view gay sex as morally problematic. What can a public coming-out be, then, but, intended or not, a confrontation with what many people think is a matter of right and wrong?
One might be tempted to read into the first line a certain wistful regret for times long gone when people would be mocked, ridiculed or killed for being gay (oh, wait...) But we won't. We'll take McIlheran at his word (or at least what I took to his word -- it could be some ultramontane wordplay beyond my ken) that being gay is a state of being, not chosen.
Which, really, would leave McIlheran with one word for the "adherents" of "a great many denominations" who find "gay sex as morally problematic": Too bad.
Because indeed, why would a loving God create someone who's gay but make the expression of that orientation an abomination? To render unto some a trial that others wouldn't experience? That seems a stretch. So perhaps -- just perhaps -- it should actually be incumbent upon the poor oppressed "adherents" to broaden their view and see perhaps they're the ones in error.
The Brawler, more or less a Catholic, bears no ill will toward Christians or people of any faith. But let's be serious. Most "Christian" theologizing against gays is based on Old Testament teachings that in this day and age are, to borrow a favorite phrase of Charlie Sykes, crap.
Yes, there, I'm sure many will decry me as intolerant for saying that. Fine. But Leviticus, which hails homosexuality as an abomination, also calls on us to burn bulls for the Lord and swear off shellfish. I don't see many people doing that. So apparently these cafeteria Christians who decry homosexuality share my opinion. Right?
Comments