TOP EXPERT ON THE SUPERNATURAL TELLS YOU HOW TO…: Avram Grumer replies to my anti-UCLA rant (he is in bold, I am in plain text):

Eve, it seems to me that the UCLA text in question does not call for supporting sexual orientation at the expense of religion, but for reconciling religion with tolerance of a wider variety of sexual behaviors. You might do better to ask yourself why it is so important for some people to practice their religion in a fashion that causes them to act with hostility towards gays.

“I know quite a few people who both take their religion (and I am talking about Jews and Christians — including, specifically, Catholics — here, not neo-pagans, though I know plenty of them as well) who get along just fine with, and in some cases even are, homosexuals or bisexuals. I even know an Orthodox Jewish gay Objectivist. No, I don’t know how he reconciles it all either.

But this proves my point, no? If charitable giving were a pressing contemporary cultural issue, should UCLA put up a web page (with no rebuttal, of course) dedicated to convincing Jews torn between their loyalties to God and to Ayn Rand that they need not engage in tzedakah in order to be faithful to God? If UCLA did put up such a web page, how would Grumer expect “traditional Jews” to respond? Or, to hit the other side of the real-life example, what if UCLA put up a web page with this speech from Ron Belgau, with no rebuttal? What if they chose the side that I believe is accurate in the Great Gay God Debate? I still would think this was simply none of UCLA’s business. I know universities must take some moral stands. I don’t think that justifies them taking all moral stands they think they can get away with; that attitude smacks of attempts to identify liberal education, and intellectual acuity or seeking, with one side or another in the culture wars. It’s an attempt to close off debate through shame–an attempt to add to the list of cultural attitudes we must adopt in order to fit in. Otherwise why would UCLA pick sides in the intra-Christian struggles over proper understanding of sexuality, sacrifice, and the human person? Why would the university see its role as making “gay Christians” whose denominations reject homosexual behavior comfortable (ugh word) with their sexuality, rather than with their religion?

And in re this: “You might do better to ask yourself why it is so important for some people to practice their religion in a fashion that causes them to act with hostility towards gays“–well, what is one to say to this, really? Under what circumstances would a reasonably inquisitive bisexual chick enter the Catholic Church in the year 1998 without thinking very hard about this particular question–and thinking very hard about whether the Church’s teachings actually stem from “hostility towards gays”? Give me some credit here, people.

I am so angry. I am so at ease.