Gay unions and the tale of the emperor's invisible clothes
Almost two centuries ago, Hans Christian Andersen wrote a short tale about a very vain emperor who hired two tailors, who were in fact swindlers, to make him new clothes. The two promised to make for him the finest suits made of special fabric. They told him the cloth they would use would be invisible to those who were not worthy of their position and to those who were stupid. The emperor’s ministers could not see any cloth but they feared saying so, lest they be deemed unworthy of their position or be considered stupid. Finally, the swindlers pretended to put on the new clothes on the emperor who also pretended that he saw the cloth, lest he be deemed unworthy of being emperor. As he paraded down the streets, a child from the crowd, who was too young and simple to keep up with any pretense, cried out: But he does not have any clothes!
After two centuries, it seems to me that this story is being repeated with the issue on “gay marriage.” This time I would seem to be the child who simply cries out what he sees.
My initial observation about the debates surrounding this issue is that anyone who declares his opinion against gay marriage is right away labeled a bigot. This term is understood as a person who obstinately sticks to his own opinions and is intolerant of other contrary opinions. Another label attached to those who disagree with gay marriage (and the gender ideology accepted and promoted by the LGBT groups) is “homophobic.” This term is understood to refer to an attitude that includes hatred, antipathy, contempt, prejudice and rejection of the persons who practice the lifestyle of the LGBT ideology.
It may happen that because people do not want to be called bigots or homophobic, they are moved to support the LGBT lifestyle and gay marriage. But why the pretense? Why pretend that gay “marriage” is marriage when it really is not?
Now, having said that, I might be labeled by the LGBT groups as a bigot and homophobic. But am I?
If by bigot we mean one who obstinately sticks to his own opinion and is intolerant of others’, I would say the issue at hand here is not a matter of opinion but a matter of scientific truth or fact. That the emperor in the tale was naked was not a matter of opinion but of fact. That marriage is between a man and a woman for the purpose of having children and establishing a family is also a fact, a given of nature. I’m just sticking to the facts. Of course, people can deny the facts or can invent their own. But doing so does not change the truth. Now following our definition, could it be that the LGBT ideologists are the real bigots?
If by homophobic we mean one who hates or has antipathies toward the LGBTs, I have to say I do not have such feelings or demeanor. As a priest I have always welcomed them with open arms.
The adjective “homo” has two meanings. One is from the Greek word that means “similar”; and so homosexual means same sex. The other is from Latin, and it means “man.” Using this latter meaning, could it be that the LGBT ideology is really homophobic, that is one that shuns or rejects the true nature of man?
Just like Pope Francis, I do not judge the persons who follow and practice the LGBT ideology. Who am I to judge, he said? What I condemn is the error and the tyranny of that ideology. Gay marriage is not marriage. And like the little child in the tale who cried out that the emperor was naked, I must say, homosexual acts are shameful.