Andrew Sullivan brings up reference to an article in the New York Times, Sunday, June 19, 2005, that I meant to get to blogging about but he makes a greater point than I ever could. He brings up a comparison to the anti-Semitic argument that has been going on for centuries and the real issue of why the right is against same-sex marriage:
The sheer immoderation of these people is staggering. But their base is adamant. They are now using arguments about gays - that they are diseased, and spread literal and figurative poison throughout society - that were once echoed almost exactly by the most vicious anti-Semites against Jews:
"Their passion comes from their conviction that homosexuality is a sin, is immoral, harms children and spreads disease. Not only that, but they see homosexuality itself as a kind of disease, one that afflicts not only individuals but also society at large and that shares one of the prominent features of a disease: it seeks to spread itself." What's Their Real Problem With Gay Marriage? (It's the Gay Part)
Ah, yes. The danger of the Jews/Gays spreading their disease throughout society, their enormous power despite tiny numbers, their ability to pass, their threat to children, their flaunting of their disagreement with the New Testament. It's all so familiar. I think the arguments now made by some Christianists are replicas of the old anti-Semitism, peddled by so many Christians in the past: that Jews are to be loved, but loving them is dependent on their conversion to Christianity; that you can love individual Jews while disdaining Judaism; that Jews' stubbornness in resisting conversion is evidence of their inherent evil; that such evil, at some point, has to be segregated from mainstream society as much as possible. Gays are not the new blacks. They're the new Jews. And the Church, in both Catholic and Protestant variants, is dredging up its old anti-Semitism in new guises. The GOP is along for the ride.
is it okay to make reference to auschwitz, bergen belsen and solovetsk special camp at this point?