Sodomite unions. (Editor).

Many people speak of same-sex marriages. As Mr. Hugh Loughran pointed out at the recent strategy session of Campaign Life Coalition, to employ the term "marriage" for what is not, and cannot be marriage, is to concede the field to the homosexual activists who thereby win half the battle. Therefore, we should stop speaking about marriage and use the term same-sex unions or, better yet, sodomite unions.

This point is very relevant. Antilife people have been adept at winning their propaganda wars by disguising their vices as virtues. Those who intend to kill unborn babies, for example, call themselves "pro-choice" because liberty is held to be a noble thing. The same technique is applied by homosexual activists. They call themselves "gays" even though their individual lives are miserable. They then extend the term to include those who silently suffer from homosexual inclinations but do not want to boast about it, in order to show that activists are more numerous than they really are.

From there on in, they seek new avenues to confuse society. First the ''gays'' seized the term heterosexual, which forty years ago was found only in dictionaries, in order to give themselves a claim to equality. "The world," they say, "is divided between heterosexuals and homosexuals," claiming and pretending thereby not only a certain equality of status, but also an equality of origin: "Just as heterosexuals are born that way, so are homosexuals." Both implications are false. Homosexuals number no more than between one to two percent of the population, even after 30 years of unrestricted propaganda backed by feminist courts and an agnostic press.

The claim that homosexuals are born that way is fictitious. Science rejects it outright. But as they advance in popularity, homosexual activists continue to strengthen their hold in a culture with disintegrating morals of liberal relativism, by claiming distinct "rights" for newly invented categories, such as bisexuals, transvestites, men-loving-boys-loving-men, and even others. Bisexuality, as a biological category, simply does not exist. Bisexuals are people who fornicate with both men and women. The other groups sail under the same self-invented flag. Yet bureaucratic and statistical offices already have begun to use these designations as if they truly represent different categories of human beings.

The use of homophobia and homophobic is another case in point. Fifty years ago the term did not even appear in an ordinary Oxford dictionary. In a more specialized one, it was described as "fear of homosexuals." The homosexual propaganda machine made it into "hatred of homosexuals," claiming, moreover, that it was widespread. Yet a few years ago a special Edmonton police unit covering hate crimes reported that after five years it had not come across a single instance of a hate-related altercation.

The lobbyists, meanwhile, have long since moved on. Today they apply the term "homophobia" to anyone who in the least way opposes the sodomite lifestyle, or opposes their demand for "Gay Pride Parades" (a dozen cities across Canada have been coerced to comply), or reject the presumed right of its members to indoctrinate public school children (the Chamberlain case), or their "right" to act as they see fit in Catholic schools (the Marc Hall case).

Not as if this were enough. The absence of public resistance no longer satisfies the "gay" lobby. It now demands approval for its lifestyle or, if this cannot be achieved, at least the silencing of all contrary voices. Bill C-415 proposes that all criticism of homosexual activity and all written or spoken opposition to it should fall under Canada's hate laws and, thereby, be prohibited under threat of fines, jail, or outright suppression. Not real you say? Look at Sweden: the justre-elected government of that country has announced its intention to pass a law in early 2003 prohibiting all criticism of homosexuality.

Dissent

Meanwhile, dissenting Catholic theologians throughout North America continue to undermine the Church's teaching on homosexuality. As recently as October 5, 2002, moral theologian Moira McQueen of the Faculty of Theology, St. Michael's College, told a workshop on sexuality organized by the Catholic Principals of Ontario, after first explaining the Church's teaching on homosexuality, that one can get around the Magisterium. Act the same way, she said, as Cardinal Carter did in getting around the Church's teaching on contraception: you yourself decide how and what to apply, or whether to apply it at all, all of course, "in good conscience."

Many teachers and people now think that it is forbidden to be disgusted with sodomy, that there is something shameful about it. Why? They have abandoned the Catholic teaching of "hate the sin, but love the sinner" by exclusively emphasizing the love of the sinner. They have talked themselves into believing that Christians should not judge; that even an individual's demand for his "rights" as a homosexual activist within the Catholic community should be respected, perhaps even accepted; that love of the sinner should silence the condemnation of sin itself.

It's high time for Catholics to fight back. Sodomite unions are not "inevitable." They surely will wreak havoc on marriage.