I don’t have to do a screen recording for today’s Double Take. There is a very telling video clip at Twitter that says it all (below): Sexual orientation is not a choice, period. End of debate.
It doesn’t matter to me whether you agree or disagree with this claim. What does matter is that someone says their personal belief is the ONLY truth out there.
In the real world, nothing could be further from the truth.
After watching some of the US Supreme Court confirmation hearing on TV, I recalled my very first year at university. I loved undergrad university. We could study topics that actually interested us, drink coffee in class, and generally be treated as adults.
One of the courses I took was with a popular professor who questioned the nature of mankind. He looked at all sorts of different perspectives, from Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, George Herbert Mead, Friedrich Nietzsche, and John-Paul Sartre, to name a few.
Sartre seemed interesting at the time. He was an “existentialist.” Existentialism emphasizes the apparent absurdity and uprooted character of mankind. We are denaturalized animals, the existentialists would say. We have radical freedom because we are not bound to nature.
When we get hungry, we can delay that gratification and eat when we want. Same thing with having to (for the most part) go to the washroom. In a word, we are free to choose.
Not everyone would agree here and even Sartre himself would come around, if I remember right, to saying that no, we are not entirely free but rather have ‘freedom in facticity.’ In other words, a disabled philosopher in a wheelchair is probably not able to choose rock climbing as a career. Sartre’s longtime friend Simone de Beauvoir said much the same thing.
We have limits. All of us.
Suffice it to say that Catholics have a different take on homosexuality. One Catholic writer Michael Brown sees it as the outcome of spiritual influences. For Brown, a man being attracted to another man is nothing more than that man being “obsessed” by a female spirit. “Obsession” is a theological term signifying something not quite as powerful as “possession.” Likewise, a woman feeling sexually attracted to another woman would be her being obsessed by a male spirit.
I think this is a somewhat simplistic view. I merely present it for the sake of open dialog.
In addition to the above perspectives, we also have those who say “it’s genetic.”
I believe nobody fully understands homosexuality. And that’s fine. We live in a universe full of mystery and diversity. Even animals engage in homosexual behavior, which arguably squashes the fundamentalist “it’s unnatural” argument.
If you are disappointed that I am not presenting a single, unified view here, that is your problem, not mine. Again, the point I am trying to make is that multiple perspectives exist and I would suggest that anyone who claims to know is misguided.
Senator Hirono seems to fall into that camp.
She and others also use the common and nasty “How long have you been beating your wife?” tactic while questioning Amy Coney Barrett.
This sleazy tactic is to ask a question in such a way as to imply guilt even before guilt is proven. It’s a sneaky and not too subtle way to try to slime someone and dishonor their good name.
When Barrett repeatedly replied that it would be inappropriate for her as a neutral judge to state her personal views on matters such as abortion and same-sex marriage, Hirono and others simply did not get it.
Same with CBC and CNN media pundits. Both networks accused Barrett of “dodging” and “sidestepping” the issues when in fact she clearly stated that it would be wrong for her as a judge – committed to neutrality – to state her personal beliefs.
In the past, Judge Barrett actually ruled in favor of an abortion clinic. But none of the opposing senators or the two-bit liberal media stooges will hear it. They just keep harping on the same “how long have you been beating your wife?” tactic, even though it is entirely off-track to do so.
For the record, the word inappropriate means just that. It means “not proper in a given situation.”
While watching Hirono and her immature, juvenile tactics I couldn’t help but think that if I were a professor I’d see her as a B+ student. Quite well prepared, lots of yellow highlighter in her copious notes, and a fairly adequate – if a bit rambly – presentation.
Barrett, on the other hand, is clearly A+ material. She seems sincere, clear, and consistent.
Q – Why cannot people see this?
A – Perhaps because they do not want to.
The truth often hurts. It is much easier to pretend we have everything figured out. Admitting uncertainty can unlock that shield of false certainty and invite us to deal with stuff we would rather keep swept under the rug.
The only problem with sweeping things under the rug is that the dirt never goes away. if we neglect our housecleaning for too long the resultant mess is far worse than the initially ignored one.
Mold, insects, worms…
So maybe it’s time for Hirono and the liberal media to take a good, hard look under the rug before it’s too late.