Cardinal George: it’s apples & bananas

Cardinal George: it’s apples & bananas, not oranges

I wound up on the “gay marriage” page this morning – because amazingly, this little blog o’ mine was linked to by someone from there – I did not do it. I will confess that this is the first time I have ever gone to huffington – I’m not really thrilled with anything they do, at at least what I hear they do. In fact, as I perused their “gay marriage” page I noticed something very strange – something I was not thrilled about at all. There was not one gay couple to be seen. Not one.

Oh, to be sure, there were at least half a dozen pictures of two hands clasped – which I guess is some presentation of our wonderfulness. But no pictures of two gay folks holding hands facing the camera, or in any such romantic pose that one might think of on a “marriage” page of any kind. No, it was just our hands, ’twas nothing more.

But of course, there were full face pictures of every single one of our opponents. Quite charming, such “support” — such “we stand with you” — as mere hands can say, rather than, say, oh, I don’t know – people? You know, like real people? And who knows if those were gay hands? Those pictures could have been taken by any two straight folks just for the fun of it. Surely no gay marriage proponents ever just put pictures of two-hands up for our “promotion” of the “homosexual” “agenda” by our nefarious “lobby” or something. Were did huffington get those, um, handy photos?

Meanwhile, I saw this and I was sore amazed once more at the muddled mush headedness of it all:

[Cardinal] George [of Chicago] told student John Falcone his “argument was not with Mother Church but with Mother Nature,” adding that anyone who advocates same-sex marriage or its equivalent “has lost touch with the common understanding of the human race.”

To which I note, “Mother Nature” did put gay folks here – as we have insistently said for decades – to which see, my dear Cardinal: – but hey, why bother seeing gay folks as natural when you can just say “lalalala” and be done with it? We gay folks, sir, I submit, have not “lost touch with … the human race.” We’re right here deeply within it, or don’t you see that, sir? Why, yes, you do not see – for you do represent an organization – Mother Church – which has declared us “Evil” and “intrinsically disordered” though while also admitting that you haven’t the foggiest clue about the “largely unexplained” reasons for gay folks being right here in the human race. That would be God and Mother Nature’s doing, but you demur.

And then: “Like many Catholic families with LGBT family members, even his own, George acknowledged his oldest nephew is gay and a “fine man.”

Which I submit to the good Cardinal that he cannot both say we’re against Mother Nature, that no relationship by any word of any kind can ever be good – and we’re evil, intrinsically disordered for largely unexplained reasons — and then say your nephew is a “fine man.” Why, you’ve all but pronounced him a threat to civilization – how can that man be “fine”? I dare say it must be difficult. I dare say sir, you contradict your own self. Which, is, of course, your right.

And I love it that this good Cardinal, like the gay-nephewed Carl Paladino are quite against us – let us all recall Paladino’s “God did not make us like that.” Which, yes, gay folks are quite aware that He did not make you like “that.” But He sure made us like “that.” And we thank Him for it. Which I dare say such comment would rile up more than a few candidates for office and a prelate or two.

The Cardinal goes on: “While it is one thing ‘creating laws so that people don’t feel persecuted,’ the cardinal explained, ‘don’t create a law that says apples are oranges.’ For a lawmaker to do so, George added, he ‘betrays his vocation to pass good law,’ especially problematic for a ‘Catholic lawmaker.’

To which I can only say, sir, that there is barely such a thing as a law that does not make us feel persecuted. When any law about gay people is discussed it’s always in the negative. Indeed, DOMA itself persecutes us “fine” men and women who are taxpaying citizens by telling us we’re worthy of nothing, not now, or ever.

You worry, sir, about “apples and oranges” — though if one were to use a better, um, fruit analogy, I’d prefer “apples and bananas,” just for the shape of thing. We asked for any word of blessing – any word within 100,000 words either way of “marriage” in the dictionary – and you will not have it. You don’t want us using the word “marriage”? Fine. Then what word would you have us use? Give us the word, sir. I like “twain” “twained” “twainage” — but I’ve gotten nowhere with it. Others have asked for “joinage” “civil union” “domestic partnerships” and I’m sure even just “rapscallions” or something. Even “swain, swained, swainage” could work. Like a wholly new word for a very old thing.

Sir, go tell your nephew, who had to have born gay rather naturally within the human race by God’s own hand – that he’s a fine enough man to have a union of some kind with some word attached with the swain of his choice. But no, sir, you’re organization went to the legislatures of this nation, unto whom we render what is Caesar’s by the billions of bucks, and had laws passed specifically “persecuting” us – by telling us we were worth less than a bucket of warm spit.

I dare say it’s disingenuous to be for apples by being against bananas, or oranges, or kumquats for that matter. What word would you have us use, sir – if “marriage” is to be denied? Give us that word, and we might go gaily into the night. But you don’t want a word – you’re against any word for our relationships whatsoever – other than “sin” “sick” “depraved” “demented” — why what fine words of no-persecution you do utter. Indeed, you’re against the very concept of gayness, sir. “Fine man”? Ha! After all, even if largely unexplained by your own admission, you’re quite dead set against any twain who shall meet and do “intrinsically disordered” “evil” and of course, icky, stuff. You aren’t protecting apples or oranges sir – you’re engaging in a fine sort of persecution by subtle lousy logic and disingenuous nuance. Thanks so much for your concern, though, it’s appreciated. I think.

Now if you really thought your nephew was a “fine man” deserving of no persecution, you would call up Carl Paladino about his “fine man” of a nephew, and play yenta for a day, and hook those two guys up and then look long and hard in your Bible and find a verse somewhat akin to “let the Good Lord bless these Sissies.” But no sir, you’re just against us, as persecuting as you can muster under the laws of this nation.

Oh well, back to the hustings for Liberty for All – and the pursuit of happiness for all.

And I won’t even get to this idiot, yikes!




  1. ted

    Apples and Oranges. I am an orange, if you wish. And heterosexuals (why has the appelation “breeder” not caught on?) are apples. Well, consider this – I am not an unnatural apple. I am an orange. Coring and baking me will not change me into an apple, baking me in a pie and serving me with vanilla ice cream will not make me an apple, nor will pulverizing me with sugar into a fine sauce change my nature. I am an orange, and not a sick apple.

  2. ted

    Maybe the folks at Huffington (now that they are owned by AOL) are required to use stock photos, and you know how difficult it is to capture homosexuals looking normal on film. In fact, even if they did show two happily coupled gay people in a picture, the normal heterosexual mind would not be able to see them. Their minds would turn one of the people in the photograph, the one closest to their opposite sex stereotype perhaps, into their vision of that gender. This much the same way the academic elites claim the Aztecs/Mayans/Incas could not have even seen Columbus’ ships on the horizon because they did not fit their worldview – they simply would not have seen them. This way the hetero mind protects itself form horror and abomination. As to how the catholic administrator perceived his nephew to be a fine person, someone must have told him that. Perhaps he thought it was he niece. Or perhaps the person he thinks is a nephew is really a niece. However, he may not have arrived at the proper conclusion by himself – it would be rather non-doctrinare.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: