No Generalization Intended? In my last posting,
I commented on a Stanley
Kurtz column in National Review Online that managed to blame
the Catholic Church's escalating sexual-abuse scandal on efforts to
allow gays to marry! In the days following, IGF contributor Andrew
Sullivan, whose advocacy of same-sex marriage and the right to
serve in the military were noted by Kurtz, responded on his blog
(www.andrewsullivan.com
-- scroll down to the May 21 posting). Responding to Sullivan's
response on May 22, Kurtz protested in a posting titled "Contradictory
Desires":
"Sullivan mischaracterizes my fundamental premise. I do not believe that 'all homosexuals are alike,' nor do I believe that all, or even most, homosexuals are child abusers."
He then goes on to state:
"Gays take vows of priestly celibacy, yet also discard those vows, and call for the overthrow of the Church's teaching on sexuality." ...
"So one lesson of this scandal is that the integration of homosexual and heterosexual men in the same living areas can in fact break down 'unit cohesion,' thereby causing institutional disruption -- military take note." ...
"...Homosexuals will always feel like outsiders, no matter how much approval society offers.... Because of this inevitable alienation, homosexuals will always be disproportionately rebellious on sexual issues."
What would Kurtz have concluded if he DID believe "all homosexuals are alike"? And do lesbians fit into his worldview of gays and societal subversion at all?