The Ironic Binary

Photo by Stavrialina Gontzou on Unsplash

By Cordelia Fitzgerald

As I’m sure you have at some point, today I drove past a sign that said something to the effect of “Hate is not welcome here.” A laudable sentiment. Accompanying the text, however, were various rainbows and images that made it quite clear that the sign was supporting a pro-LGBT stance. Yes, I am aware that there are more letters to this acronym; in an attempt to include what is seen as a whole spectrum of sexuality and individualism, more letters have been appended and a “+” included for good measure, or, as the Gay Center describes it, “The ‘plus’ is used to signify all of the gender identities and sexual orientations that letters and words cannot yet fully describe.” Well, then. It seems rather unfair that if one doesn’t wholeheartedly endorse this poorly-defined spectrum of belief, then one must be a hater. There’s only two ways about it, or so they say.

There’s no room for being pro-gay and anti-trans, or okay with the idea in general but against teaching five-year-old children about sex in school, let alone recognizing the dignity of a human person and disagreeing with his or her choices. That makes one homophobic, and therefore a hater. Ironically, homo- (man) phobia (fear of) is an epithet that applies to the disapproval of woman-on-woman relationships, or lesbians. Man-on-man relationships are referred to as gay, but women can also be gay, which does seem a bit discriminatory towards the men. Never mind that, though, as the definitions of man and woman are personal, fluid, and non-binding, as supported by the T of the acronym, trans. Where this pea soup (or peanut butter, if you’re Yukon Cornelius) begins and ends is unclear; that the ingredients shall ever be fully disclosed is unlikely.

Why, then, if one refuses to throw in one’s oar with a nebulous and amorphous blob, is one automatically a hater? If the LGBT etc. etc. are allowed a vast latitude of inclusion, why cannot the dissenters be granted an equally wide field of skepticism? If there cannot be only two genders, why can there be only the dichotomy of approval and hate?

Granted, Our Lord says in His gospel, “He that is not with me, is against me” (Luke 11:23), but we can’t have it both ways; either we have clear definitions or we don’t. So let’s dive into Christ’s saying a little more, lest it be used as another nail in the hater coffin. Am I, a Catholic, who believes and attempts to live out all of the teachings of the Church, with or against the LGBT etc. etc. population? Briefly, I am for them, although the Catholic version of “for” might be more comprehensive than generally understood. I am for my trans neighbor as I am for my neighbor with the fancy car who is driving at breakneck speed toward a cliff. I am for my gay aunt as I am for my anorexic aunt. I love them, dearly, as fellow children of God. I wish for their happiness in the world and in the next, and I hope to scramble through Purgatory and meet them in Heaven. And I shall tell them Stop the car! Consult your chromosomes! Let’s talk about why you’re unhappy. You are not fat; let’s get help so you may grow strong. Because I love you I must say hard things.

Most of the time, admittedly, I don’t say hard things. It is not my job to verbally confront every sexually wayward fellow human that I meet, gay or straight (reference the log in one’s own eye), but that does not mean that I can endorse what they do. I can treat them as I treat any other fellow passenger to the grave that I meet, with all the kindness this fallen sinner can muster, and pray for them, and disagree with their choices. According to society, this makes me a hater.

I wish, if they can’t grant me the binary of sexes, they’d let go of the binary of enforcement. It could at least leave room for dialogue. It could at least leave room for love, real love, love oriented to the well-being of the soul rather than its cheap and temporary comfort.

I conclude with a lengthy quote from Dr. Peter Kreeft:

Already in Canada it is a crime, punishable by a fine or even imprisonment, to speak against homosexuality in public. Politically incorrect ideas, such as Biblical morality, are now defined as “hate speech.”

One of the things I fear from this is an ugly backlash against homosexuals. If the truth is now whatever we will, then just as there is nothing to stop society today from redefining marriage, there is nothing to stop it tomorrow from redefining personal dignity and rights so as to take them away from homosexuals. The Nazis did exactly that. The Church is the best friend of homosexuals, both because she tells them they are made in God’s image and have intrinsic dignity and rights and are called to be saints, and because she is the only social force left that insists on moral absolutes–so when they sin against themselves she says NO, just as she does to heterosexuals who sin against themselves… No one else dares to say NO. She speaks up for everyone, including homosexuals.

So, yes, I am with them.