Too many people use the phrase "discriminatory" indiscriminately. After all, to discriminate means simply "to choose" or perhaps in its worst possible context, "to choose against." Etymologically, it's associated with "to discern," "to distinguish," and "to sieve" as a verb (I often discriminate against the water in my macaroni). It is nothing more than making a choice.
Now granted, some choices can hurt. If I choose to drop a bocce ball on my foot, it will hurt. If I choose to break into my neighbour's house and steal her silverware, my choice can hurt my liberty. If a court chooses to deny adoption rights to a homosexual couple, it can hurt their sense of dignity.
Still, choices have to be made. The state routinely chooses against 14 year olds by telling them they cannot drive. Our society discriminates against men, telling them they may not use the women's bathroom. And let's not forget the unborn, who are "chosen against" in droves every day.
Now, as much as I oppose abortion, unibathrooms, and underage driving, that's not the purpose of this piece. I want to talk about the unwritten moratorium on discrimination against the "special interest group of the day," which flies in the face of the concept of choice which the liberals in our world selectively flaunt.
In the case of homosexuality, for instance, the Church acknowledges that:
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.The concession of the existence of unjust discrimination implies the existence of just discrimination. When it is warranted, or right, or appropriate, to decide against somebody? Obviously it is justified when he/she is underage and wants the keys to the Landrover. Few people would disagree with preventing ladies from using urinals. And obviously (to our corrupted society, anyway) it is justified when that somebody has been given the breath of life, but not yet the breath of air.
So why can the Church not (without opposition) choose against ordination of homosexuals, or similarly why can she not condone their adopting children? She is a private institution - even better, a religious one, which is necessarily accorded more rights. The Church, you must remember, has been the victim of much more state-imposed tyranny than vice versa, by a longshot.
The real issue that our social deconstructionists are striving for is not some glorious absolute; they want to rip apart the pre-existing Christian fabric of Western democracy for one purpose alone. They have another agenda - a hidden agenda, to borrow a phrase from our Canadian Liberals. They have a vision of a world which is incompatible with Christian ideals, and to achieve it, they must erode the faith out of hoi polloi.
They are, in short, discriminating against us.
Bring it on.